PAPAL TRANSLATION REQUIRED

Browsing the eyebelieve blogsite I came across a laudatory post regarding Pope Francis' words to unbelievers, and one unbeliever in particular, Eugenio Scalfari.  The author of the post seems quite thrilled with the Holy Father's words.  I on the other hand found myself scratching my head.  Here is an example of the Pope's words, in which he responds to an atheist interviewer's question regarding faith:

“Clearly, then, faith is not intransigent, but grows in respectful coexistence with others. One who believes may not be presumptuous; on the contrary, truth leads to humility, since believers know that, rather than ourselves possessing truth, it is truth which embraces and possesses us. Far from making us inflexible, the security of faith sets us on a journey; it enables witness and dialogue with all.” 

I believe I need a professional to do a translation of this.  But allowing for what might be a dicey translation from Italian into English I will take a stab at trying to understand.  Let us dissect this paragraph as best we can, with my comments interjected.

“Clearly, then, faith is not intransigent, but grows in respectful coexistence with others."

One of the definitions of the word "intransigent" is "unshakable" or "uncompromising".  By that measure an intransigent Faith is exemplary, particularly when we are speaking of that Faith brought to us by Jesus Christ.  Dare we hope that the Holy Father understands that?  There is another meaning to that word, a more pejorative one, which states that it means "stubborn, obstinate and/or pig-headed."  I for one would like to know which meaning the Pope is applying here though I suspect it is the latter given the rest of his comments.

"One who believes may not be presumptuous..."  Presumptuous about what, though?  Our salvation?  Our certainty that the Catholic Faith is the One, True Faith?  Could not the Holy Father have been a bit more precise here?

"...the security of faith sets us on a journey; it enables witness and dialog with all."  But to what end, Your Holiness?  Is the "journey" of the Faith (whatever that means) a mere road to chatting with non-believers about the weather or soccer and nothing else?  Or, rather, is it to convert them to the truth?  These are important matters that cannot be left in the limbo of ambiguous phrasing.

A few easy platitudes follow from the mouth of the Pope after this which seem to mightily impress the blog editor but add very little substance to the discussion.  Then the atheist interviewer basically asks the Pope if there is any such thing as absolute truth.  At this moment a golden opportunity was handed to Pope Francis.  Here is how he responds to the question:

“To begin with, I wouldn’t talk, not even to those who believe, about “absolute” truth, in the sense that the absolute is that which is disconnected, which is devoid of any relation. Now, the truth, according to Christian faith, is the love of God for us in Jesus Christ. Therefore, the truth is a relationship! It is also true that each one of us takes it, the truth, and expresses it by departing from oneself: from one’s history and culture, the circumstances in which one lives, etc. This does not mean though that the truth is variable and subjective. Instead, it means that it gives itself to us always and only as a journey and a life. Didn’t maybe Jesus say the same: “I am the way and the truth and the life.”?⁴ In other words, truth, being ultimately all one with love, requires humility and openness when sought, accepted and expressed. Therefore, it is necessary to understand each other’s terminology better, and, maybe, to avoid the constraints of an opposition that is … absolute, deepen the framing of the question. I believe that this is absolutely necessary today, so that a serene and constructive dialogue can take place.”

The blog editor, in jubilation, finds that paragraph "fantastic".  I agree that it is fantastic though not perhaps in the same way the editor imagines.  To put it as charitably as I can these are hardly words designed to inspire anyone either seeking the truth or contemplating leaving the dead end street of atheism.  His first sentence  - again, even allowing for a sketchy translation from the Italian - makes no sense whatsoever.  I wont attempt to parse or explain those words because I cannot.  They have no meaning.  There is no concrete understandable thought that can be discussed or digested.

Let us move on then.  "Now, the truth, according to Christian faith, is the love of God for us in Jesus Christ."  That is the entire substance of our Faith?  But what does the sentence mean, precisely?  I know that I am not in the upper tier of theological or philosophical thinkers;  I'm just a simple soul, no more.  But even I believe that our holy Catholic Faith entails a bit more than those nebulous words would seem to imply (if I could even understand them, which I cannot).  He says the truth is a "relationship".  An odd way to describe truth, to be sure.  A relationship...with whom, or with what, to what end?

It is too depressing to go on from here.  The rest of the paragraph is as devoid of clarity, depth and simplicity as the rest.  I suppose that using a supreme act of the will one could find something edifying in these words but I would first ask, why should we have to go to such tiresome lengths to try to discern what it is the man is saying.  Pope Francis has been making many, to be blunt, rather odd statements since his election a few months ago.  At this juncture he does not seem to be operating on a terribly high intellectual level.  Many of his statements are merely sentimental, even puerile.  They are not challenging, they are not forceful, indeed they are in many cases totally unclear.  Is this still a case of new job jitters?  Or is this all we can expect from him for the remainder of his pontificate?

To be fair he has done a few interesting and praiseworthy things, most noticeably his September 7th day of fast and prayer for the Syrians which I gladly participated in.  On October 13th he is set to consecrate the "world" to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, a great good in itself though one always wishes a Pope would consecrate Russia specifically, in union with all his Bishops, as has been requested by no less than the Mother of God Herself.  And considering some of the positive initiatives coming from Russia of late one would think that the time for such a specific consecration is ripe.

We must balance these good things against the more troubling aspects of this papacy; we must keep our heads very firmly on our shoulders.  Francis is going to go down in history as either a great Pope, an average Pope, a mediocre Pope or a villainous Pope.  The Church has had all of those in Her 2,000 year history.  Contrary to our new Pope's cheerful demeanor we are living in evil days. Much will depend on our prayers both for him and the Church that has been entrusted to him.

That being said, he is an extremely bewildering man.

ISRAEL'S OPINION: "LET THEM BOTH BLEED"

From an article by Pat Buchanan, discussing the massacre of Christians by the Syrian "rebels" (bought and paid for with US tax dollars):

Here is Alon Pinkas, Israel’s former general consul in New York, giving Israel’s view of the Syrian bloodletting: “Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death. That’s the strategic thinking here.”

Charming.

Here is Buchanan's article in full:

http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2013/09/09/america-says-no-to-a-beltway-war/

God protect these innocent little Syrian Christians from the USA, Israel and their proxies

[UPDATE:  The "mad, bloodthirsty dictator Assad", to use the customary media way to describe him, has sent his soldiers into the town to save the Christians from the Syrian rebels, and is apparently making progress:  http://rt.com/news/syria-christian-village-freed-711/

Assad tries to save the Christians, the USA wants to bomb them.  Draw your own conclusions.]

[NOTED: It's always better to have someone else do your dirty work for you:  http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/whos-trying-to-stampede-congress-into-a-war-on-syria/]

DESCENT INTO DARKNESS

Over at the APROPOS blog editor Anthony Fraser posts this:

Criticism of the Pope

The Pope and Abortion etc.

One could not but reflect on reading  the Pope’s reply to his Brazilian interlocutor regarding abortion, on the flight back from Brazil, that his reply would have satisfied what we call the Justice and Peace crowd.   In an article in Apropos No. 16,  1994, we drew attention to the fact that the Justice and Peace apparatchiks in Scotland  seldom if ever attacked abortion etc.  In their defence they employed all manner of verbal gymnastics to justify their inactivity in that area - the essence of which was that pro-life issues must be dealt with in the widest context and without duplicating the work already done by other agencies.  Exasperation at the Church’s inactivity in this area led to a protest by the veteran pro-lifer, the late Fr James Morrow,  who remarked at a clergy meeting that ‘no organ of the Catholic Church in this country was meeting the need [to oppose Planned Parenthood]’, only to be met with what he described as ‘stony silence’.   The Pope’s equating of abortion with cheating and lying did not go down particularly well with his Brazilian interviewer.   The article, Descent into Darkness, by James Larson analyzes the Pope’s response in more detail particularly in the light of the pro-abortion and same-sex ‘marriage’ proposals of his recent hosts in Brazil.

Just click on the APROPOS link here at The Eye-Witness blog to read this brilliant article by James Larson to which Mr Fraser refers.  Mr Larson wins our admiration as a fearless defender of the Catholic religion, a man who is unafraid to speak plainly.

We join Tony in recommending, too, Christian Order magazine, edited by Rod Pead, which every Catholic should be subscribing to without fail.

IRONY UPDATE

In a perverse sort of way, this is funny.

http://rt.com/news/gulag-solzhenitsyn-prohibited-guantanamo-844/

Honor bound??

I remember when it was Soviet Russia that prohibited the reading of Solzhenitsyn.

SYRIA: SATURDAY, 7 SEPTEMBER 2013

Tomorrow I and members of my family will at the suggestion of our Supreme Pontiff, Francis, observe a day of fasting and prayer for Syria.  The Holy Father has couched this in diplomatic terms, saying he is doing this for peace in Syria.

I applaud him for this even while adding more specifics to these prayers, namely: that the Holy Family will put a stop to the American/Israeli plans to wipe out Christianity in the Middle East.  For that is what the goal is even though it is not stated, even though, in some obtuse political minds, it is not even understood.  I will pray for peace, as the Holy Father commendably asks, adding that that peace involves the frustrating of America's plans to topple a regime that has been protective of Christians.  With America "acting like a monkey with a hand grenade" in the Middle East combined with Israel's hectoring and badgering the political establishment to kill more innocents such prayers as the Holy Father suggests are urgent.  While the pitiful Abe Foxman screams that we must destroy Syria the Pope asks us to turn to Heaven in prayer.  I will offer the Fast and the prayers that there will be peace, true peace, in Syria.

As we speak powerful lobbying groups are busy working the United States Congress urging them to authorize another blank war check to our glorious emperor.  Over at LewRockwell.com Thomas DiLorenzo gives us a list of who is strongly backing the war:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/who-wants-war-with-syria/

The Americans are behind the rebels.  Do not accept US equivocating on this point.  America is supplying them with money, weapons and strategy (I say this so that good Americans start to realize the present day realities).  Here is one result of that strategy:

http://news.antiwar.com/2013/09/05/syrian-rebels-pound-christian-village-as-siege-continues/

That should lay to rest any doubt about who is the ultimate target, and who it is that will suffer the most from the actions of the Axis.

I respectfully urge any who might read this to join Pope Francis tomorrow, September 7th, the First Saturday of the month and the eve of the birth day of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to pray and to fast for Syria, a land made holy by the presence there of Jesus Christ.

END NOTE:

As I write Russian war ships are headed toward Syria.  Obviously I don't know what this means since I am no expert on the Russian mind.  It may mean nothing.  President Putin, one of the few wise heads on the world scene, is certainly no fool and he knows very well that this whole scenario, particularly the chemical weapons story, is built upon malicious falsehoods.  We can hope that the military presence of a country that is not easily seduced by liars might cool down a few trigger-happy regimes itching to shoot missiles at the innocent.

CATHOLIC CULTURE WILL BE REBORN

CULTURE REBIRTH DEPT.

Catholic culture will be reborn and if our small internet efforts do anything they will, please God, contribute to this rebirth.  A Faith that gave inspiration to Dante, Mozart, Michelangelo and the great cathedrals of Europe is a Faith that will give such inspirations always, especially so when the hierarchy once again reconnects with the past that it has recently and so foolishly jettisoned.

Mr Timothy Cullen has once again offered some trenchant observations which we at The Eye Witness are proud to present to our readers.

“Kulcha”

By Timothy J Cullen

          Traditional Catholic culture is synonymous with European culture and to a great extent culture in the West in general. Just as the Church has devolved into a semblance of barbarism, so too has the West. Those who wish to preserve the glory and grandeur of the past had first best learn well of what it consists, then educate the young before it becomes too late to do so.

          Painting, architecture, music… These all sprang forth from love of the Faith. The West seems to have forgotten this. Indeed, the post-revolutionary arbiters of culture seem determined to erase this fact, claiming as they do that only works by those who toe the secular materialist line are worthy of the attention of “modern” man. Yes, well… And yet there are those who actually believe this brazen cultural indoctrination, a textbook example of social engineering if ever there was one. Know your enemy: read the writings of the so-called “Frankfurt School” and Antonio Gramsci. Warn the young against the exaltation of the ugly.

          The Remnant Press recently released a posthumous collection of John Senior essays. Senior was a Traditional Catholic cultural critic of the first order, a defender of the cultural values imbued by the Faith, author of The Death of Christian Culture and The Restoration of Christian Culture. His books should be in every Traditional Catholic’s home library. Also worthy of interest are those of another convert to Catholicism, the now somewhat controversial Renaissance art historian Bernard Berenson, who observed (correctly, I believe) that no painting can be considered “great” if no human figure is present.

          The “Eye Witness” blog has graciously asked me to contribute to their worthy effort and it is my hope to present brief essays dealing with the Catholic cultural heritage in art and music, to begin with. One assumes there is an interest in this, given the focus of the blog. This writer is not an art historian, simply an appreciator of the fine arts. His taste is eclectic and quite personal, as will be the mini-essays on this and that painting and sculpture by artists known, not-so-well known and unknown. Nearly six decades of art appreciation to draw on makes for quite the potpourri. The same is true for music appreciation, another of this writer’s themes (pun intended), one that will be addressed in due course.

          Therefore, without further ado: the Book of Kells.

          This writer is of Irish descent (and a citizen of the Republic of Ireland) and was made familiar with the Book of Kells at an early age. When Knopf & Co. issued in 1974 a handsome, 14”x10 ½” case-bound facsimile volume with many reproductions and a study of the manuscript, he was quick to purchase it. Forty years later, technology permits a digital viewing of the entire original manuscript at http://digitalcollections.tcd.ie/home/index.php?DRIS_ID=MS58_003v ; notwithstanding, this writer is content to leaf through the facsimile edition that has traveled with him for nearly forty years on four continents.

          The Book of Kells, named for the Irish abbey at which the book spent much of the medieval period, was likely created in the early ninth century. It is probably the best known of a series of richly illuminated, illustrated Gospel books created in the insular monasteries of northwestern European the pre-medieval period. The Book of Kells contains an image of the Virgin and Child that among other treasures is the oldest extant image of the Virgin Mary in a Western manuscript.

          This masterwork of illustration, illumination and art was created by monks, the very monks whose spreading of the Gospel civilized Europe and whose preservation of classical literature made possible the development of that civilization.

          An aside: a 1959 novel read by this writer in 1961 and re-read at least once a year ever since deserves mention here, given that it treats of monks in a post-nuclear-holocaust “society” who perform much the same function as the Hibernian monks did after the fall of Rome. The novel is A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller, Jr. and I cannot recommend it too strongly. I was 15 years old when I read it and while parts of it were difficult to understand (writing in Hebrew, quite a bit of Latin, many historical references I had to look up), it was so compelling a read that I stayed up all night to finish it. It is not overstating the case to say that it was this novel that awakened my interest in monasticism and in Catholic history in general and even fifty two years later, I believe the novel could prove inspiring to readers young and old alike.

          The artwork in the Book of Kells is of an intricacy that is at first nearly overwhelming. How in God’s name could ninth century monks living in primitive conditions in one of the world’s more inhospitable climates have created such a thing? Answer: precisely because it was that they were working in God’s name and not in their own names that inspiration and dedication combined to overcome all obstacles. Compare the painstaking detail of the magnificently illuminated initial letters, with the carefully crafted miniatures, compare these with vastly overpriced and overrated modern “art” by “masters” such as Andy Warhol and you will see how far as a culture and civilization we have fallen.

          Sadly, a new hardcover copy of the book I have now costs nearly two hundred dollars! The paperback edition does not do justice to the work. There remains, therefore, the digital display referred to above, seeing as quality books are now priced out of the range of the purchasing power of the average family. Be that as it may, however, do what you can to familiarize yourself and your family with this masterwork of Catholic art.

         

JEAN MADIRAN ON THE MASS

We have refrained for the most part here at The Eye Witness from discussing the much-discussed issue of Holy Mass for the very simple reason that a dozen other sites have dealt with it frequently and with intelligence.  We didn't feel that our efforts, such as they are, could have shed any more light on the question.  But as the late Jean Madiran has been on our minds of late we have decided to reproduce this article of his which comes to us from the APROPOS site.  In it Madiran opens our minds, revealing to us the actual historical events exactly as they played out during that time at the Council when the Ancient Rite Mass was abandoned in favor of the New Ordo.

We are ever grateful for the work of Anthony Fraser.  It was the special hallmark of both his print publication Apropos and his father's, Approaches, to bring to English-speaking readers the very best of European Catholic opinion.  They were instrumental in making the work of Jean Madiran known to a much wider audience.  It is to Anthony that we express our gratitude for making this Madiran piece available to us.

You can find this article in pdf form on the APROPOS site and we would highly recommend making a printed copy for your own bookshelf.



THE ABUSE OF POWER

(This is a translation of the editorial by Jean Madiran in the July-August 1976 issue of Itinéraires. It appeared in Approaches No 51-52, Nov. 1976, edited by Hamish Fraser (1913-1986). It is now posted on the Apropos website www.apropos.org.uk )

(1.) The Mass forbidden

This is a disastrous event, the most disastrous in the life of the Church since the promulgation of the New Mass and its Article 7 [of the Institutio Generalis]. It was not however an unforeseen eventuality. Our readers knew what we would think of it and what would be our attitude. We had declared our position in advance, as solemnly as we could, in our letter to Paul VI of October 27, 1972.

On that occasion we stated:

'Give us back the traditional, Latin and Gregorian Mass according to the Roman Missal of St. Pius V. You let it be said that you have forbidden it. But no pontiff, without an abuse of power, could prohibit the millenary rite of the Catholic Church, canonised by the Council of Trent. Obedience to God and to the Church would demand resistance to such an abuse of power, should it occur and not that it should be submitted to in silence .(1)

But here, in the Consistorial allocution of May 24, 1976 is the very abuse of power [we had spoken of]. Until then, the New Ordo promulgated in 1969 had not been reinforced by an obligation enforcing its use and excluding the Roman Missal [of St. Pius V].

This was the first of our arguments A,B,C,D on the traditional Mass(2). At Pentecost 1971, i.e. more than two years after its promulgation, Cardinal Ottaviani still maintained that 'The Traditional rite of the Mass according to the ORDO of St Pius V has not been abolished so far as I know.'

It was forbidden only in France, by an illicit prohibition, i.e. by the juridically schismatic directive of the French episcopate dated November 12, 1969. There was no difficulty in ignoring the valueless decree of an episcopate which already no longer had any moral authority. During this period, Paul VI let it be said that he had forbidden or abolished the traditional Mass, but he did not say it himself. (He also let it be said, contrariwise - and it was by Cardinal Gut, the then Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, that he allowed or had it be said - that in the matter of liturgical reform 'the Holy Father has frequently given in against his own will.’

Once more, at the beginning of the year 1975, in the procedure taken against Mgr. Lefebvre, the Pope's commissars told him [Mgr. Lefebvre] explicitly, that by order of Paul VI, liturgical questions were outwith the scope of their investigation. Which confirmed that in refusing to accept the New Mass Mgr. Lefebvre was guilty of no transgression which could be held against him juridically.

In June and in September of the same year, the letters of Paul VI to Mgr. Lefebvre still did not say a single word concerning the Mass. And under such circumstances, this omission was most significant. It reinforced the conviction of those who thought that in his heart of hearts Paul VI had no intention of prohibiting the Missal of St. Pius V, or that he recognised that he did not have the power to prohibit it. This has never been our point of view. It seemed to us that with all the strength of his own will, Paul VI was striving to effect the disappearance of the traditional Mass. But we observed that there was as yet no official ACT seeking to give the FORCE OF LAW to this wish. Paul VI had not dared [to go as far as that].

The shocking new feature of the Consistorial allocution of May 24 consists in the fact that for the first time he has dared to do so. Declaring that he was speaking ‘in the name of Tradition itself, and explicitly involving 'the supreme authority that comes to us from Christ’, he demanded that in obedience the traditional Catholic Mass be no longer celebrated. And there we have the consummation of a terrible abuse of power.

(2.) The pontificate of Article 7

The New Ordo, when it was first promulgated in 1969, included an Institutio Generalis i.e. an outline of principles serving as a general introduction, which spoke of the Mass as though it were no longer a sacrifice. This heretical tendency more or less present throughout it, was expressed most clearly in Article 7, in which the Mass was defined as a prayer meeting and a memorial assembly.

An unforeseen development of such shocking gravity and on such a question, is to the best of our knowledge without precedent in the history of pontifical documents. What seemed to come nearest to it was the error of Pope Honorius I, a long time previously, in the VIIth century, who after his death was condemned as a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople and by Popes St. Agatho and St. Leo II.(3)

But the heretical formulas signed by Honorius I concerned the question of the two wills of Christ, a question which at that time had not yet been explicitly ruled upon by the Magisterium. There is no such excuse in the 20th century concerning the question of the holy sacrifice of the Mass. That is why it seems to us that the quite extraordinary affair of Article 7 is truly without precedent.

The demands, the protests concerning it were very determined. The next year, Paul VI corrected Article 7 and also several others (Articles 48, 55, 56 and 60) in order to introduce some mention of the holy sacrifice. This correction brought some solace which led to an ignoring of the lasting effects of the quite extraordinary incident of Article 7.

It was noted, moreover, that that the new doctrine of the Institutio Generalis in 1969 was in contradiction with the other documents of Paul VI, which had been happily traditional - e.g. the encyclical Mysterium Fidei of September 3, 1965 and the Profession of Faith of June 30, 1968. This observation had a tranquillising effect on many people.

They indicted the [Vatican] bureaucrats, accusing them of having tricked and taken surprise advantage of the Pope's good faith by means of Article 7.

It is true that the various Vatican bureaux colonised in depth as they are by Modernism, Freemasonry and the Communist Party, are very active and guilty. But the supposedly pious hypothesis of surprise was scarcely reassuring. For in effect it meant supposing that Paul VI had either signed without reading, or read without understanding, the most formidable transformation of the Mass that had ever been enacted in the entire history of the Church. No matter how one looked at it, it was incredible, outrageous and most certainly disquieting. The pontificate which had promulgated Article 7 had by so doing accomplished something that all Catholics prior to 1969 considered to be absolutely impossible. The moral authority of this pontificate could not remain intact thenceforth save among those who no longer had the faith.

(3.) The insufficient correction

Since 1969 it is the doctrine of the first version of Article 7 which has been disseminated throughout the Catholic world - with the Holy See doing nothing to counter it save for this surreptitious correction of the Institutio Generalis, without any correction of the rite itself, of the new rite that was established in conformity with the doctrine of this first version [of Article 7].

It is in conformity with the first version of Article 7 that the French episcopate has taught as an alleged reminder of the Church's doctrine in the new missals that the Mass is no longer a sacrifice and that at Mass 'it is simply a question of recalling to mind [the Sacrifice of Calvary]’. Paul VI has let this be done. He did not intervene by means of a magisterial document. His two documents which have been cited concerning the holy sacrifice of the Mass, the encyclical Mysterium Fidei and his Profession of Faith are ANTERIOR to his Article 7. There is none posterior to it designed to contradict the erroneous doctrine of the first version of Article 7. And that is a second anomaly, as formidable as the first. For when so radical an error is disseminated at all levels in the Church, that is not the moment to cease encyclicals and professions of faith concerning this matter. It is the moment when it is necessary to reiterate them.

Although he was responsible for the first version of Article 7, Paul VI has done nothing apart from its surreptitious correction, to arrest the diffusion [of its errors]. He has not explained; he has not taught. The truth is that he has remained absolutely silent. Apart from the two brief allocutions of November I969, in the course of seven years he has not spoken of the Mass. Yet this was the period in which the Mass suffered the greatest upheaval ever known. This was the period during which the doctrine of the first version of Article 7 was established more and more each day within the Church, claiming for itself a legitimacy of which it has never since been deprived.

We have had these observations continually in mind. But hitherto we have given expression to them only with discretion and only in case of necessity. However, the situation now created by the Consistorial allocution of May 24, 1976 compels us to insist more than we would have wished and more than we have ever done concerning the legitimate suspicion attaching to the actual incumbents of the apostolic succession.

In so far as innovations, especially concerning the Mass, derive from the same source as Article 7, we prefer to have nothing to do with them.

Even when they are supposedly licit or anodyne, we refuse to accept them so long as this legitimate suspicion remains. We have shown this more by our deeds than by our words, as for example in the case of the liturgical calendar which we have preserved and reproduced each year as it was in force at the death of Pius XII.

Given the great uncertainty actually prevailing concerning authority, we take note of its suspect functioning, and we confine ourselves to what the Church has always taught and has always done. If reforms are necessary, they can wait. It is a pity, but it is inevitable. They will await the guarantee of a restored authority. As for the pretence today, seven years after the event, of forbidding the celebration of the traditional Latin Gregorian Mass according to the Roman Missal, it is not acceptable. The authority responsible for this prohibition is the same as that responsible for the first version of Article 7.

(4.) Conciliar evolution

On May 24, 1976, by his supreme authority, Paul VI has taken full responsibility for conciliar evolution as a whole. Invoking his position as successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, he orders the acceptance of 'the teaching of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that stem from it, its gradual application by the Holy See and the Episcopal Conferences under our authority willed by Christ'.

'With the same, supreme authority that come from Christ Jesus, we call for the same obedience to all other liturgical disciplinary and pastoral reforms which have matured in these years in the implementation of the Council decrees.’

It is indeed all and everything [that must be accepted]. And it is that indeed which is at issue.

The Salleron-Lefebvre interview

In the course of his January 15, 1976 interview with Mgr. Lefebvre, Louis Salleron asked him the question: 'What difficulty do you find in making the public act of submission that is being asked of you: i.e. submission to the Council, to post-conciliar reforms and to the orientations to which the Pope himself is committed.’

There could be no more opportune moment for once more reading Mgr. Lefebvre's reply attentively.(4)

‘I find the difficulty of equivocation bordering on falsehood’, replied Mgr. Lefebvre. 'From the "Council" one proceeds to "post-Conciliar reforms” and from there to the "orientations to which the Pope is himself committed". One no longer knows what precisely is involved. What is to be understood by the "orientations to which the Pope is himself committed"? Must we understand it to mean such of the orientations as involve the Pope personally (and what are these?), or the ACTUAL orientations of the Church, to all of which the Pope is committed?
 
When one sees what is happening in France - to speak only of our own country am I to think that, in its collegiality, the episcopate has submitted "to the Council, to post-Conciliar reforms, and to the orientations to which the Pope is himself committed"?
 
Logically, I must think so, since no public act of submission has been asked of the French Episcopate by Cardinal Villot or the Sovereign Pontiff. It is therefore to the destruction of the priesthood, to the changing or the negation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to the abandonment of moral values, to the politicization of the Gospel and to the constitution of a national Church centred on the episcopal conference and the secretariat of the episcopate that I must subscribe to bear witness to my Communion with the Catholic Church and the Vicar of Christ? It is absurd. My Catholic faith and my duty as a bishop forbid me to do so.'


Paul VI stands surety for, guarantees and in the name of obedience imposes as obligatory the entire process of Conciliar evolution that coincides with the self-destruction of the Church which he deplored on one occasion in a few words, but to which he has since made no further reference for years. He no longer speaks out as he did on one occasion against this execrable ‘post conciliar mentality’ (such were his actual words) that he found guilty of 'propagating the vain hope of giving the Christian religion a new interpretation’(5) .

Yet it is this new interpretation which dominates the Church Militant, by the words and deeds of those whom Paul VI declares to be and keeps in commission with him; but from which communion he excludes only Mgr. Lefebvre. After making this clear, he proceeds in his Consistorial allocution of May 24, 1976, to complain of the errors of those at the other [liberal] end of the spectrum. But only to point out that those who subscribe to these errors 'are not very numerous…but they make a lot of noise’.

It is not therefore the immense post-Conciliar drift of entire episcopates that he calls in question; nor does he proclaim the few responsible for so much noise to be 'outside the Church'.

All this is coherent, arranged and calculated: yes, Paul VI protects and imposes Conciliar evolution as it has been put into operation by the episcopal conferences. It is not therefore a question of examining whether or not the Council could in theory have been or should be interpreted and implemented in a manner different to the way in which it has been interpreted and implemented. The interpretation now taking effect, the implementation now under way, such as they are, fully correspond with the will of Paul VI.

It is he who has made the Council and it is he who is interpreting it: it is he who promulgated the Conciliar texts and it is his authority that guides their implementation. We were not unaware of this. But until now this factual state of affairs had not received explicit confirmation by a demand for entire submission formulated in the name of the supreme authority.

That too is an event which makes the year 1976 as black as the year 1969. [Hitherto] the
entire moderate opposition insinuated that prevaricating, falsifying, deserter-Bishops were no longer in communion with the Pope. But on May 24 Paul VI replied that he is in communion with them.

It is with Mgr. Lefebvre that he is not in communion.

Our position

We are irrevocably bound to all that Conciliar evolution disowns, despises or destroys. We are irrevocably bound to the historic entity of the Church by which divine revelation has been transmitted until our time, to this historic entity of the Church that is systematically insulted by modern impiety, by the filial impiety of Churchmen and by Conciliar impiety.

We are irrevocably bound to the universal stability of the words and sacraments of salvation which transcend time and space. We are irrevocably bound to the Roman Catechism, to the Catholic Mass, to the traditional faith: to the only guarantees, the indispensable guarantees, that our prayers and our hope are not going adrift, dreaming of a mythical Saviour, a creature of our imagination and our passions, displacing the real and living Jesus Christ Our Saviour.

Conciliar evolution is each day going further away from the word, the doctrine and the law of Jesus Christ. It is open to the world, open to Communism, open to nothingness.

We are irrevocably bound to the apostolic succession and the primacy of the Roman See: but not to the caprices and defections of its incumbents, who are not dispensed from the application of the principle that it is better to obey God than men.

Let us say, calmly, gently, without anger but not without resolution in this ghastly aftermath of consummated disaster: behind the Conciliar evolution there is the hand that guides it. We have known for a long time whose is this hand. We have always avoided striking at it. But it is indeed necessary to repel it or at least to escape from it if it now comes itself to strangle us.

Jean Madiran

Appendix

The facts concerning the prohibition

Here are the terms in which Paul VI expressed himself concerning the Mass on May 24:

‘It is in the name of Tradition that we ask all our sons and daughters, all the Catholic communities, to celebrate with dignity and fervour the renewed liturgy. The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14th June 1971(6) has provided for, with the authorization of the Ordinary, the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine populo. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way(7) did our Holy Predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed(8) under his authority, following the Council of Trent.

With the same supreme authority that comes from Jesus Christ, we call for the same obedience to all the other liturgical, disciplinary and pastoral reforms which have matured in these years in the implementation of the Council decrees.’

Paul VI thus invokes the precedent of St Pius V in his reform of the Mass, he (Paul VI) has proceeded 'in no different way' ('haud dissimili ratione') to St Pius V, he can in turn 'in no different way' make his reform obligatory.

But this is precisely the point: the manner in which he acted is not the same; nor is the obligation.

I. The manner of acting

(1.) In his revision of the Missal, St. Pius V at no time signed and promulgated so incredible an anomaly as that of the Institutio Generalis which he required to correct surreptitiously the following year. His moral authority remained intact. But not that of the Pontiff responsible for Article 7. It is the actual abuse of power by Paul VI that leads us to underline this point of such capital importance. When one has signed and promulgated a definition of the Mass that makes it a simple prayer meeting and a memorial assembly,
it does not suffice thereafter to add a further correction.

Here for example is what I read in a journal of June 6: 'Liturgical problems have given rise to strange attempts, as for example, the first version of Article 7 of the Ordo. The Pope had it corrected.'

Such a presentation of the facts does not conform to the truth. There was not a 'strange attempt', then on the other hand a saving intervention by Paul VI imposing a correction. It is Paul VI in person and in his capacity as Sovereign Pontiff, who signed and promulgated the first version of Article 7. If one wishes one can choose never to speak of this article. But if one does speak of it, it is not permissible to create the impression that Paul VI's intervention in this matter consisted only in correcting an Article 7 for which he bore no responsibility. The [person] responsible, the signatory, the promulgator of the first version of Article 7 was indeed Paul VI himself.

Why did he do it?

The first hypothesis, the most obvious one, is that he did so because this Article 7 either expressed his own thought or at least did not offend it.

People may dismiss this hypothesis as unworthy of examination, they may do so wrongly: but, if they do dismiss it, it is then necessary to admit that Paul VI had signed it without reading it, or read it without understanding it. Which is scarcely better.

We point this out in order to establish the fact, made clear by the phenomenally extraordinary business of Article 7, that Paul VI in no way acted in the same manner as St. Pius V.

After Article 7, prudent virtue would not be so presumptious as to impose on the celebra-tion of the Mass the greatest upheaval in the course of its history.

(2.) The revision of [the Mass by] St Pius V, in conformity with the requests of the Council of Trent, did not have the objective of confecting a new Mass, but simply the unification and regulation of the traditional Mass. The difference is abysmal.

(3.) St. Pius V did not have the Missal revised with the help of heretical experts, called together in their capacity as heretics rather than as experts, with the intention of arriving, as in the case of Paul VI, at a reform which they [the heretics] could accept.

II. A parenthesis: the word ‘canonised’

In passing, let us define a term. In our letter of October 27, 1972 to Paul VI, we spoke of the millenary rite of the Catholic Church canonised by the Council of Trent. It seems that there could be misunderstanding concerning the word 'canonised'.

'Canonised'! Yes, but not in the sense in which a Pope canonises one who is Blessed and inscribes him in the catalogue of the saints.

No more than it means canonised in the manner of one of the books of Scripture: i.e. included among the books said to be canonical.

But canonised in the sense of established by legal title. I said canonised simply canonised (and not invented) in order to recall that the requests of the Council of Trent, put into operation by St Pius V, called for a regulation of the existing Mass and in no sense for the fabrication of a new Mass.

There is yet another difference, it is indeed the essential difference, concerning both manner and method, between the Missal of St Pius V and that of Paul VI.

The Council of Trent had as its intention that of 'arresting the process of Protestant disintegration of the rites of the Mass', a disintegration that was 'encouraged by the innumerable varieties in Catholic missals and by abuses which the (Conciliar) fathers called by name under these headings: superstition, irreverence and avarice'.(9)  It particularly sought to avoid 'that the people should be offended or scandalised by new rites'.

It specified that ‘legitimate customs' would remain secure.

As for the traditional Mass, abandoned and 'de-canonised’ as it has been by the hierarchs of self-destruction, even if it were left no more than the right of immemorial custom, that at least could not be taken from it. It could be done only by a judgment declaring this custom to be abusive and evil: which is moreover the implicit if perhaps unconscious but inevitable implication of the actual prohibition.

III. The obligation

St Pius V did not abolish, on the contrary, in matters appertaining to rite, he confirmed legitimate customs having more than two centuries of existence.

In particular, he confirmed the right of Churches or communities having a Missal of their own, approved from the time of its institution. It is thus that the promulgation of the Roman Missal of St Pius V allowed the Dominican rite, the Lyonnais rite, the Ambrosian rite (at Milan) to subsist.

These rites have been preserved until today: but they too have just been suppressed, or, more precisely, forbidden, by the Consistorial allocution of May 24. I do not know what is and what will be the situation at Milan. But the Dominican rite and above all the Lyonnais rite have been used up to this year at the Lausanne Congress of the International Office of Associations for Civic formation.

Paul VI does not except them. He imposes his Missal as an obligation which does not tolerate the legitimate derogations stipulated by St Pius V.

Moreover, the obligation imposed by St Pius V was clearly and normally enunciated in the Bull quo primum tempore of July 19, 1570, which promulgated the Missale recognitum. On the contrary, the acts of Paul VI in 1969 are characterised by extreme confusion and uncertainty concerning the obligations which they indicate or do not indicate. Nowhere does there appear the explicit will of conferring on the new Missal an obligation excluding use of the previous Missal. Juridically, by the constitution Missale Romanum of April 3, 1969, Paul VI merely authorised and established a new Mass (without suppressing the old), by virtue of a title of particular derogation concerning the non-abrogated prescriptions of the Bull Quo Primum. Hence the circulars applying it stipulating under what conditions or on which dates the cele-bration of the New Mass would be permitted. (In France obligation derived only from the episcopal directive of November 12, I969.) Seven years after the event, in the Consistorial allocution of May 24, 1976, Paul VI invokes his 'supreme authority that comes from Christ’ to declare that the celebration of the traditional Mass is forbidden. Such a prohibition had already been enunciated but only either as an opinion (that of Solesmes) or as an administrative instruction. The FIRST ACT of Paul VI himself in this sense is that of the Consistorial allocution.

Two additional observations

To this it is necessary to add two observations both of which are conclusive:

1. No ACT of Paul VI ABOLISHED the Bull Quo Primum of St Pius V. It is not by way of abolition, but by way of replacement, that the Missal of Paul VI seeks to take the place of the Missal of St Pius V in an obligatory manner. ‘Novus Ordo promulgatus est, ut in locum veteris substitueretur’. (The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old.’ ' Paul VI in his Consistorial allocution.)

There is therefore no reason for asking to what extent Paul VI WOULD HAVE a right to abolish the Bull Quo Primum: the fact is that he HAS NOT abolished it. He has therefore not abolished the indult granted in perpetuity to all priests, regular and secular, without exception for both sung and low Masses.

In the words of the Bull Quo Primum tempore:

'Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used. Nor shall bishops, administrators, canons, chaplains and other secular priests, or religious of whatsoever Order on by whatsoever title designated, be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us. We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal.

No ecclesiastical superior can interfere with this privilege by any kind of prohibition, by neither internal nor external jurisdiction. This indult has no need of any subsequent approval, permission or consent. No regular or secular priest (says Quo Primum) can be validly 'obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by us'.

2. A custom, and above all an immemorial custom is abolished by the Church only if it is not a legitimate custom. Even if it did not benefit from the indult granted in perpetuity by St Pius V, the traditional Catholic Mass would at least benefit from the right of immemorial custom. To suppose that it could be forbidden it would be necessary to suppose it to be evil. But if the traditional Mass is supposed to be evil to the point of requiring to be forbidden, the new Mass put in its place would necessarily be another Mass; not the same [Mass] preserved in substance and improved in manner of presentation, but a Mass substantially different.

Let us suppose (by hypothesis, or for the sake of argument) that the new Mass of Paul VI were excellent in all respects and that it corresponded happily to all the legitimate pastoral requirements of our time. In this case, one could at the most reproach the Old Mass for its archaic language, its old-fashioned vestments and other similar features. This was precisely the reproach made concerning it by Paul VI in his allocution of November 26, 1969 when he spoke of rejecting, by his reform of the Mass, 'the antiquated silk vestments in which it was regally adorned’.

Yet the accepted French translation somewhat softens the bitter irony of the original Italian text of this declaration. But even in its attenuated form, it is painful enough to have to reproduce it, insulting, peculiar and shallow as it is. But to continue, let us suppose, as we have said (by hypothesis or for the sake of argument), that in the Old Mass there were obsolete trappings and that the reform of the Mass was limited to the bringing of these features up to date. Well then, even if this could justify the creation of a new Mass, it could not in any case justify the prohibition of the Old.

If [the Old Mass] were supposedly incapable of pleasing other than old folk, it would be necessary to leave it for people supposedly old: such is the Catholic way concerning all reforms designed not to correct an evil but to get rid of something out of date.

Consider this most carefully: if the Old Mass and the New were substantially the same Mass, if it were merely a question of bringing language and appearances up to date, there would be no reason for its prohibition.

Conversely, if the New Mass makes inevitable the prohibition of the Old, it is implicitly
but necessarily because it is deemed foreign to it, incompatible with it, and is seen as the expression of another religion.

The only reason there can ever be why one Mass should require the prohibition of another, is a reason in terms of religion, of faith.

On the one hand, Paul VI gives an assurance that Conciliar reform preserves intact the substance of the faith, of the Mass, of the Sacraments; and that it changes only the presentation, formulation and trappings. But on the other hand he condemns as placing themselves outside the Church those who cling to the old trappings, formulation and presentation. But if it were a question of no more than external appearances good in themselves, there would be no matter or motive for condemnation.

That Paul VI condemns and prohibits the traditional Mass while he does not condemn the French Mass at which, in conformity with the first version of Article 7 [ we are assured] ‘it is simply a question of recalling to mind the unique sacrifice already consummated, the perfect sacrifice in which Christ offered Himself’’(10): this poses a question not of pastoral tactics or aggiornamento but of religion.

That Paul VI considers the French and Dutch episcopates to be in communion with him, and Mgr Lefebvre not to be in communion with him: that poses a question not of discipline but of faith.

Jean Madiran


NOTES

1 'Letter to Paul VI' in our book 'Réclamation au Saint-Père, the second volume of l’Hérésie du XX0 siecle' (Nouvelles Editions Latines).

2 On this point and on those which follow see the special Itinéraires supplement, ‘La messe, état de la question’.

3 Concerning the details of these events cf. Itinéraires No. 177 of November 1973, pp. 300-305 (and also the article in Approaches No. 14, Infallibility, Old and New, by G.A. Lawman.)

4 [This interview was reported in full in the June 1976 issue of Approaches, 49-50, pp.49-56.]

5 In his exhortation 'Petrum et Paulum' of February 22, 1967.

 6 This instruction …was in reality a Notificatio which was published in a suspect and lamentable manner, without either date or the author’s name. We examined the unhappy circumstances attending its publication and the unhappy elements of its contents in Itinéraires No. 159 of January 1972 (p.136 ff.). The only Roman document to which the Consistorial allocution makes reference is therefore the latter, which is so outstandingly defective. On the other hand, it is to be noted that Paul VI makes no reference to his apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of April 3, 1969, which promulgated the new Missal. This Apostolic Constitution in fact decreed no obligation, no prohibition.

7 Haud dissimili ratione

8 ‘Recognitum’ says the Latin text, as it has always been said of the Missal of St Pius V. But it is important to note that the Italian text, which is from Paul VI's own pen, says ‘riformato'. Hence the French translation of La Croix ‘ de la même façon que la réforme de Saint Pie V avait été rendue obligatoire.’ [which is substantially the same as the above English translation cited from L’Osservatore Romano of June 3, 1976].

 9 Abbé Raymond Dulac, Itinéraires, No. 162, April 1972

 10 [This statement which appears in the New Missal for Sundays issued by the French Hierarchy is manifestly heretical. For canon 3 of The Council of Trent’s statement concerning the Mass states: ‘ If anyone says that the Sacrifice of the Mass is a …simple memorial of the sacrifice offered on the cross and not propitiatory… let him be anathema.’ Yet while Mgr. Lefebvre is suspended a divinis because of his fidelity to the Catholic theology of the Mass, this scandalous and unashamed heresy on the part of the most influential episcopal conference in the Universal Church has not even caused the mildest of ripples on the complacent waters of the Rhine-polluted Tiber. Note by Editor, Approaches.]

STS SERGIUS AND BACCHUS, PRAY FOR SYRIA (AND FOR THE WORLD)

As the United States prepares to go on another unprovoked murder rampage, which will cost the lives of untold thousands of innocent Christians and Muslims in Syria, we ask our readers to pray to
Saints Sergius and Bacchus, that they may intervene with Our Father in Heaven to put a stop to this screaming injustice, this madness.

These great Saints are highly venerated in the East and it seems fitting that we should invoke their aid at this terrible moment in history.

The USA and its allies are set to once again commit war crimes.  Please pray to Sergius and Bacchus that they may facilitate a Divine Intervention to stop this evil.

[NOTE: It is with disgust that I must mention that these two great Saints, thanks to the droolings of a self-styled "historian", are being blasphemously invoked as the patron saints of sodomy.  I know...just when you thought that depravity could not go much lower this comes along.  Christians (and non-Christians) with half a brain have already rejected such diseased reasoning.  But we thought we'd better forewarn you in case some monumental idiot tries to push this nonsense on you.]

WHO WILL STOP THE US/ISRAELI-BACKED SLAUGHTER OF SYRIAN CHRISTIANS?

Who will stop this?  I do not know.

Will it be Russia?

Will it be the Pope?

Neither of them seem willing to take on the US/Israel hegemon and its British, French and German stooges.  They could, if only they would.  But it doesn't seem like they will.  Another unjust war of aggression will unleash the extremists who will burn more ancient Churches, ancient manuscripts, works of art, and will scatter, kill and decimate the few remaining Christians in Syria.

But, you see, no one cares.  Not even some of our good, fellow Catholic bloggers.  This saddens me to no end.  Many blogs will rightly condemn the murder of Christians by Muslim madmen but will stop short of naming the causes, of exposing the behind-the-scenes puppeteers who are merely using the Muslim extremists as pawns in a much larger game and to shift blame away from themselves.

But what I find even more astounding is that, given the fact that some bloggers may not have taken the trouble to acquaint themselves with the other side of the story they are more than willing to accept at face value the outright lies emerging from the Obama administration (as they were accepting of the lies of the Bush people) regarding a so-called "chemical attack" which is clearly a trumped up, staged event designed to lead the American populace into cheering on their next war.  We are not saying there was no chemical attack.  What we are saying is that if there was one it was not committed by the Assad regime.  Assad is not suicidal after all.  For months the propaganda machine was spewing out the line that if there was ever a chemical attack incident in Syria that would be the "red line" that would be crossed.  And, what do you know?  As if on cue, the so-called "red line" was crossed!  But wait.  The Assad people said, bring in the UN inspectors to look into this chemical attack story.  America says, "sorry...too late".  The world's bully wants another war so no investigation is required.  But wait...the UN inspectors come anyway - but are now being, as we speak, shot at by mysterious "snipers" hampering them from their work.  Does this sound like a typical Grade Z Hollywood fantasy?  It should, because it is.

Let us think about that.  The Obama people are spying on everyone, listening to your calls, reading your mail, shoving the crimes of sodomy and abortion down our throats, persecuting the Catholic Church rather openly with their "mandates", are creating every kind of strife and discord imaginable and are constructing a totalitarian despotism every bit as cruel as those of recent history...and despite all of that Catholic bloggers are still willing to support them when it comes to these terrible wars of aggression.  Mind-boggling is too mild a phrase to use to describe this.  Do our fellow Catholic writers have to see Obama burning Cardinal Burke at the stake before they will awaken to the fact that every action that comes from this regime is anti-human?

The Catholic Knight Blog is not one of those blogs:  here they fearlessly tell us what is going on.

Vox Cantoris is another blog that understands what is really at stake.

My dear fellow Catholics, we all know well that we cannot agree on every little thing.  But we must be united when it comes to big issues, issues of the Faith and of those who hate the Faith.  The war mongers hate Catholicism with a hatred so Satanic that it is startling to watch them in action.

But we will watch them:

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2013/august/24/us-set-to-launch-iraq,-the-sequel,-in-syria.aspx

http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/25/us-britain-and-france-agree-to-attack-syria-within-two-weeks/

http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/25/report-claims-us-israeli-trained-rebels-moving-toward-damascus/

http://rt.com/news/lavrov-syria-press-conference-003/

http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2010/04/former-latin-patriarch-of-jerusalem-michel-sabbah-hamas-is-protecting-us/

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=60865

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/anthony-gucciardi/chemical-weapons-false-flag%E2%80%A8/

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2013/08/27/syria-a-classic-false-flag-atrocity/

http://www.novinite.com/articles/153195/Vatican%2BBlasts%2BPossible%2BArmed%2BIntervention%2Bin%2BSyria

If the above articles are unable to convince my fellow bloggers that the "bad guy" in this fight is not Syria then I will have to give up trying.  Perhaps some readers here wish I would change the subject.  It is hard to do so.  The screaming injustice of US/Israel actions enrages the world, this writer included.  Soon the drones, the hellfire missiles, the bombs and the ground troups will descend upon poor Syria and innocent men, women and children will be blown to bits.

Why doesn't anyone care?

Cardinal Rai has written to the Pope twice on the matter of the destruction of Christian civilization in the Middle East.  I do not know if he received any reply.

[UPDATE: Said an Anonymous commenter on the Chiesa site:

 "The West, said Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Rogozine, moves in the Islamic world "like a monkey with a grenade" ...

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Aug-27/228873-russia-says-west-acting-in-muslim-world-like-monkey-with-a-grenade.ashx#axzz2dHEeC1AQ

Perfectly stated.]

[UPDATE:  From the AntiWar website: "Eliot Cohen, argued in a Washington Post op-ed Monday that “a bout of therapeutic bombing is an even more feckless course of action than a principled refusal to act altogether..."

A "therapeutic bombing".  Incredible.  And Mr Cohen objects to that; he wants more devastation.  These people are monsters.

One can only hope that one day Mr Cohen and those who think like him might experience such therapy for themselves.]