The Dance of the Modernists continues...

When Pope Paul VI of tragic memory was preparing to inflict upon the Church his Novus Ordo Missae permanently in 1968 he and his advisers made a very smart move.  To tamp down or eliminate the firestorm of protest that they knew would come by the illegal suppression of the Ancient Rite they created as it were a preemptive strike to gain worldwide sympathy for them, thus blunting the reaction against the suppression of  a Rite organically developed from the time of Christ.

That preemptive strike was the issuance of Humanae Vitae.  In issuing this encyclical worldwide respect and admiration for the Holy See jumped to the high heights virtually guaranteeing that any criticism of future papal actions would be minimal.  Cynically, they never intended to enforce the encyclical as was immediately evident when prominent Churchmen and priests publicly decried it and subsequently ignored it, confident in the knowledge that Rome would never take them to task. But the impression made upon Catholic minds was the important thing, and Pope Paul was regarded thenceforth as a hero - even while he, without fanfare, connived to bring about the most egregious abuse of episcopal power in all Church history, namely: the "abolishing" of the holiest thing on earth, the Mass of all time.

This two-step "dance" has been a Vatican favorite for five decades now and almost every time it has worked like a charm.  John Paul II was a great practitioner of this subterfuge.  First the faithful are lulled by a benevolent, sensible papal speech, encyclical or action and then promptly knifed in the back by the drivers of the real agenda.  Thus, following some wonderful words from Rome we would get Assisi, or craven apologies to Christ's enemies for the "evils" the Catholic Church has inflicted, or the installation of terrible men to high positions.  Every Pope since Paul VI has been doing this, if we want to honestly admit it.

This strategy is now being trotted out again - and then some - by the current regime.  After a number of benevolent gestures toward the Society of St Pius X, the Pope has now minimized the atrocious crime of abortion, downplaying its seriousness not only in clumsy papal interviews but by making it "easier" to be forgiven for this crime.  In what many call an act of mercy, the Pope has granted all priests the faculty of forgiving this mortal sin rather than the extremely solemn, dreadful meeting with a Bishop.  The fact that the forgiveness of this abominable act was left to the hierarchy underlined and emphasized its awful seriousness.  Now one can go to Confession - or what passes for Confession these days - and chat up the priest about not helping out the wife enough with family chores or losing one's impatience over the misdemeanors of the kids.  Imagine Mom in the Confessional (sorry, "reconciliation room"!) reciting a few minor offenses and then saying, "Oh by the way, I also had an abortion."   Your average priest today, sadly, will slough it off as just another offense, maybe adding a few not-too-stern words, and then giving her the Three Our Fathers and three Hail Marys penance.  Yes, of course she will receive absolution (provided the priest does his job) but isn't the gravity of the offense sort of minimized by this approach?

Not so, according to Msgr Fisichella who explains in this article from Vatican Insider.

The Pope’s decision to make the ability of priests to absolve the “grave sin” of abortion permanent, means Canon Law is to be updated too. Francis had granted priests this power as an exception during the Jubilee Year. The man in charge of co-ordinating the Holy Year of Mercy, Mgr. Rino Fisichella, explained this in his presentation of the pastoral letter “Misericordia et Misera”, with which Francis concluded the Jubilee that ran from 8 December 2015 to 20 November 2016. 

 “Canon Law currently stipulates that absolution for the sin of abortion is a faculty that lies with the bishop of the diocese concerned and in some instances, the bishop may delegate some or all priests in his diocese to absolve this sin,” explained the President of the Pontifical Council for New Evangelisation. “During the Jubilee, Pope Francis had granted all priests the power to absolve this sin, as a concrete sign that God’s mercy is boundless. Therefore, even people who commit this sin – which the Pope reiterates, is extremely grave – will have no trouble obtaining God’s forgiveness if they are repentant. Canon Law is a body of laws and whenever the Pope introduces a measure that alters the dictates of the law, the article that specific measure concerns, necessarily needs to be changed”. More specifically, Fisichella explained, responding to journalists questions, “a latae sententiae excommunication is revoked”. The provision, Fisichella added, does not only apply to women but also to “doctors, nurses and those involved in carrying out the abortion”, as long as they repent: “The sin applies to everyone, so forgiveness of this sin also applies to everyone practically involved.” 

 But isn’t the Pope concerned about the criticisms? “I don’t see why granting the faculty of absolution for a sin like this to priests, who are ministers of reconciliation and forgiveness, should give cause for any concern,”

Well, it concerns many of us, Monsignor.

It is gratifying to hear from Msgr Fisichella that the Pope considers abortion a "grave sin".  I wonder, though, if he has considered that making it much easier to be absolved from it (similar to his desire to see marriages dissolved also much easier) he hasn't trivialized it somewhat.  I don't know.  I have long given up trying to decipher what is in Pope Francis' mind.

Thanks to the poor job of catechizing the Church has been doing since the late 19th century too many Catholics really have no idea of the nature of sinfulness, and this ignorance plays well with the program of the revolutionaries.  The notion of sin for many has become a dead letter not only to the people in the pew but far too many priests.  And Bishops, too.  Moreover, when was the last time you heard someone in the Vatican use the words "mortal sin"?   We have become essentially protestantized: "yeah, I guess sin does exist, but we're pretty much forgiven so I'm not going to lose a whole lot of sleep over it".  Ergo, Confession is a minority taste in today's merciful Church where in some parishes there is not even a regular time set aside for the Sacrament of Penance.

The Pope shows kindness of a sort to the SSPX and then drops this bomb.  In his own mind he may sincerely believe he has done well.  But we must never forget that Bergoglio, too, is one of the Great Uncatechized.

There is nothing new under the sun especially in a Rome deeply infected with Modernism.  Prudence therefore demands that the next time a kindly papal gesture is offered to long-suffering Catholics we should hang on for dear life, for the stiletto cannot be far  behind.

Conservatives and the Homosexual Agenda

We would like to recommend - but not for the fainthearted - the following article over at Chronicles by Mr Jack Trotter.  Before we go on we must warn the reader that sections of this article are repulsive in the extreme, so be warned of that.

If you can get through it you will find an eye-opening account of how this particular sex perversion has found acceptance in our country.  Some conservatives will not like the answer.  But when it is read dispassionately and with an awareness of what has been going on around us for a very, very long time we believe the reader will find it to be a convincing answer to the question, "Why has this horror descended upon us so suddenly?"

The article does not get into specific religious reasons for this acceptance of aberration, but regular readers here will see clearly that the phenomenon that Mr Trotter describes is very much at the heart of the current homosexual problem afflicting the Catholic Church.  If we read Mr Trotter's article and then read how Dr E Michael Jones described the Great Indiana Sellout recently we can see that a common theme runs through both pieces [see Jones' "Hoosier Hysteria" in the May 2015 issue of Culture Wars].  It is the connivance of Big Business (among others, obviously) that is at the heart of the promotion of this unnatural vice.  That theme tells us much.  Those who uncritically support every aspect of Capitalism may be disturbed by Mr Totter's shocking article. And those Bishops who hide behind the meaningless term "sexual orientation" may also be in for a shock.

For example, Jones re the Indiana Bishop's lacklustre response to the Indiana fiasco:

If by “sexual orientation”, the bishops are referring to a tendency or a temptation, the term is completely irrelevant to the debate because the law cannot adjudicate states of mind. If, however, by sexual orientation they mean homosexual behavior—the only meaning that makes sense in this debate—then the bishops had no choice but to condemn sodomy as immoral and proclaim discrimination against those who practice that unspeakable vice as justified. Instead of doing that, the Catholic bishops, who supported the RFRA during the run-up to its passage as law in Indiana, evaded the real issue by their equivocal use of the term “sexual orientation,” which allows Catholic bishops to speak out of both sides of their mouths whenever the gender ideologues provoke a church-state crisis.

We as a nation have been the victims of yet another "color revolution", with the colors of the rainbow doing the dubious honors.  That Revolution has engulfed nearly everything even, to be sure, numerous Catholics, clerical and lay.

The Cardinal Dolan Affair from last December is the prefect example of what happens when, as Jones puts it, Bishops speak out of both sides of their mouths.

The Trotter article is here:  http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2015/October/39/10/magazine/article/10829598/

Travel Tips when visiting the Holy Land

Travel brochures are often rather vague about what to expect when travelling in foreign countries and for that reason we thought that these tips for travelling in the Holy Land might be useful.

If you become injured while there, and have any Arab ancestry, this might be helpful to know:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/israel-paramedics-accused-medical-violations-160419061726256.html

In case Tel Aviv decides to start bombing innocent Christian Arabs in Gaza while you're there, you will need to find a good place to watch the killing and destruction...like these folks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/world/middleeast/israelis-watch-bombs-drop-on-gaza-from-front-row-seats.html?_r=0

When there you may wish to sample the local TV fare.  Here is an example:

https://youtu.be/9RY83mAr5uA   [Please note this WARNING:  this is an extremely offensive, risque and blasphemous mockery of Our Lord's Crucifixion.  Personally, I wouldn't bother watching it, unless you have a very strong stomach.]

The travel brochures also probably don't mention that it might be a good idea to stay away from Israeli soldiers.  A good reason might be this one:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/24/middleeast/video-israeli-soldier-palestinian-suspect/

(Of course, if you think such things are good ideas, you could join the protest: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-soldier-idUSKCN0XG2N2 )

If you wish to watch parades in the very land where Christ walked, this would be a plus:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/tel-aviv-boasts-one-the-worlds-largest-gay-pride-parades

Tel Aviv is also a favorite destination for many diverse groups:

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/travel/tel-aviv-declared-world-s-best-gay-travel-destination-1.406699

Other than that, enjoy your trip to the Holy Land!

Memo to Antonio Spadaro SJ: Drop Dead

A Church of wannabe Napoleons.  Funny, really.

I get a kick out of watching these nonentities, these little dictators who have assumed positions of power and/or influence in the Vatican, acting like the Martinets they have always longed to be. This particular martinet, one Antonio Spadaro, is dismissing the people in the pew again.

One has to wonder if he takes a deep breath and beats his chest before gracing us with his pronouncements.

To say that I have lost my patience with these people would be giving them a certain kind of respect.  Do they deserve respect?  They deserve none.  They deserve to be driven bodily out of Rome by Catholics holding torches, tar and feathers. They insult our intelligence.  Their arrogance is laughable in a sick, twisted sort of way.  They revel in that arrogance.  They serve a Pope who is unfortunately very much like them so they feel quite at home among the poseurs, the hypocrites and the weirdos the Pope has appointed.

But who is Spadaro, really?

By any standard of measurement Spadaro is a failure.  His academic career was undistinguished, his journalistic skills meagre.  He is one of those mysterious men who "has risen without trace". He came from nowhere but clearly had the right contacts.  Looking at his Weakland/Cupich-type face I shudder to think of what kind of contacts.

Mr Spadaro, who has the ear of the Pope, is telling us, with the smugness so characteristic of agenda-driven men, that Amoris Laetitia is what it is and we should deal with it.

Uh-huh.

It is not a stretch nor an excercise in hyperbole to state that Amoris Laetitia will be responsible for souls ending up in Hell since it directly contradicts the words of Jesus Christ about adultery.  Is he really comfortable with that?

I would imagine Spadaro has never really considered Hell as anything but a medieval abstraction. It would be revealing to know if he even believes there is such a place.  Or is he like our current Pontiff who believes there is a Hell but nobody actually goes there.

Really, at this point I could care less what he believes or doesn't believe.  He is nothing and one day will be dead like the rest of us.  I did have to snicker at his "tweets" aimed at the four Cardinals who are asking for a simple clarification on certain points of the Pope's Amoris Laetitia. He likened them to "witless worms" in what he apparently imagines to be a scintillatingly clever retort to the Cardinals.  Junior High School stuff.  Note to Spadaro: worms generally crawl out of the woodwork. Where did you crawl out of?

So, Mr Spadaro your words will not have the slightest effect on the truth of Christ's words, even if in you personal fantasies you may think they do.

Just go away.  Or drop dead.  Either way works.

A Liturgy never at rest

Several years ago the late Anthony Fraser reproduced on his blog a piece which awakened in this writer the sudden realisation that what the overriding idea of the liturgical revolutionaries at the Second Vatican Council must have been was an attack on our peace and our solace.

The millenia-old Catholic Latin liturgy provided the stability that gave us that peace and that solace, and ever since that ancient Rite was suppressed by a brutal abuse of episcopal power, an abuse which continues unabated to this day, our souls have been increasingly troubled.  I don't for a single moment believe that those who find the ever-changing, always new New Mass to their liking have peace in their hearts.  How could they, when almost every month brings us another change in the "style" of saying Mass, another banal musical composition thrown into the mix, ever more relevant and up-to-date vocalized responses of the Mass goers who are obligated to spout forth their uninteresting and mostly ill-considered thoughts, their gripes, to ride their favorite hobby horses, and who are obliged to grab and shake the hands, shoulders, head and who knows what of their neighbor in the pew?  It is to keep us continually off-balance, waiting for the next shoe to drop, the next "improvement" to be implemented, that was the true goal, I am certain, of the liturgical iconoclasts.

Psychologically, this never-ending state of flux in which Catholics find themselves can be dangerous not only spiritually but, dare I say, mentally.  What average mind can concentrate on prayer when the Mass is a kaleidoscope of lousy music, forced participation (so forced that it becomes an embarrassment to the participator as well as everyone else), uninspiring architecture and decor and a priest who might feel more at home at the London Palladium rather than at the altar of God.  That, I am coming to believe, was the main point of those who brought to the Church this pseudo Mass: never to leave us in peace, or solitude, never allow us to contemplate what is supposed to be happening at the altar. (I use the word "suppose" deliberately.  At so many new Masses one really doesn't know what is happening at the altar, if anything.)

Lest I be accused of lack of objectivity on this I hasten to point out that in some Ancient Rite Masses I have attended one can find this same forced participation, usually in the form of an usher ceremoniously placing some hymn book into your hands as you enter the Church with the expectation that you had better be singing with everyone else when the time comes.

I am aware that this is only a personal opinion, open to disagreement from Catholics who see things very differently on this matter. And I will add that Congregational singing, if done reasonably well, and done at the right time, and done only briefly, can be edifying.  [I am reminded of the lovely, spontaneous Congregational singing of the Pater Noster during a priestly ordination Mass in the Ancient Rite which I had the pleasure of attending in Wigratzbad, Bavaria, using the musical setting proper to the Mass.  The people were not hectored into doing this; it was spontaneous, it came from their hearts.] But in this writer's view it must not dominate the traditional Mass.  Equally doubtful is the use of the early 20th century innovation called "the dialogue Mass", where the congregation is expected to answer all the responses to the priest, leaving the altar boys with little to do but sit at he foot of the altar like mute dummies. This kind of Congregational chatter can have the effect of demolishing any attempt at quiet contemplation by those in the pew who might like on occasion to adore their God in silence.

But the authors of the Novus Ordo, I do absolutely believe, wanted us to never have a moment's peace.  This bowdlerization of a Mass is truly bad performance art. It so suited their larger bad ideas of updating everything else in the Church.  Their updating has been a complete success: the Church is in chaos, hundreds of thousands are apostatizing, not one in a thousand Catholics have even a nodding acquaintance with their Church's history or doctrine, and who have joined the merry band of unbelievers who can without pang of conscience accept the homosexual buggering of the entire earth or drop few if any tears over the aborted children thrown into trash heaps (or, more efficiently, used as fuel to heat buildings, as is done here and there in England) and who can be relied upon to act like zombies whenever a national election takes place and vote in some monster or another to lord it over us.   If your mind can never be anchored to the quiet beauty of the Mass, the ancient one, of course, it becomes nearly impossible to collect your thoughts, indeed it becomes difficult to reflect upon anything that matters. Those few who attend such performances in their churches and still come out sane and thoughtful are indeed a very special group.  I know some of them; they are remarkable.  The fact that there are only a few of these people suggests that the liturgical innovators have achieved the success they wanted.  They have reduced most Catholics into Mass-going Protestants and some (most of whom must write for Patheos) into gibbering idiots.  Their Mass will certainly not "restoreth our soul".

Cries of anguish over this sad farce of a Mass are being heard more and more, such as this heart-wrenching piece over at Vox Cantoris.  Attendance at it troubles us, wounds us inside.  Yes, I have heard the argument that attending this weird spectacle they call "Mass" can be like kneeling before Our Crucified Lord, joining in His sufferings, and therefore a good act.  It is possible I imagine to do this....for a time.  But not indefinitely.  Even the mourners eventually walked away after Our Lord was dead on the Cross.

A liturgy never at rest means a soul that is never at rest.

A few thoughts on this latest Fatima news

[This post was written in May of this year when the Father Dollinger/Cardinal Ratzinger controversy vis-a-vis the Third Secret was in full swing.]

The first thought being that it is not news.

The mystery of the Third Secret has yet to be fully and definitively solved but even so we have enough information to know that it certainly has something to do with the present crisis in Holy Church, and that this crisis had been brewing for years before the Fatima visitations.

The article by Maike Hickson making the rounds is interesting even though some of it is material that was rehashed from previous sources.  Thirty five years ago the eccentric but fascinating Abbe Georges de Nantes, not to mention numerous other serious scholars of the Fatima apparitions, had pretty much concluded that the famous third secret was being kept hidden by Rome precisely because it would call into question their cherished Vatican II and every thing that has flowed from that putrid lake. The late Brother Francis, MICM had grave suspicions about the contents of that secret and reasoned that the reason Rome is sitting on it is because it must deal with one of the great "taboos" that Rome refuses to talk about any more.

In Hickson's article the author reveals that she had a personal conversation with Father Dollinger, a confidant of Cardinal Ratzinger, and that he states that the secret spoke of a "bad Council and a bad Mass".  Without something more substantial than Hickson's hearsay to go on we have to say two things.  First, that the statement is a bit too pat.  Second, that in any case great tragedies would obviously flow from a Church gone off its rails (certainly the conclusion of many serious Fatima scholars regarding the hidden Secret) which would surely include disaster in the Liturgy and a doubtful Council.  The question then arises that if, as Father Dollinger says, Cardinal Ratzinger himself knew all this how do we explain his subsequent actions as Cardinal and Pope?  These stories related by Hickson in her article raise far more questions than answers.

Between the words and writings of prudent people like Frere Michel, Brother Francis, MICM, Hamish Fraser (and his late son, Tony), Father Joaquin Maria Alonso, CMF (see his The Secret of Fatima, Ravensgate Press) we have more than enough to conclude that the Third Secret of Fatima, the hidden one, most definitely refers to the tragedy we are now living through.  If this Dollinger revelation is true, well and good.  It confirms what many others have suspected anyway.

Whenever some new "startling revelation" is reported my first thought is to be skeptical and keep my thoughts to myself.  In this case while I keep my skepticism I have opened up my thoughts merely for the purpose of reminding some readers that there is nothing that new in these allegations and that others have already done the long, hard, patient digging to come up with sensible conclusions based not on mere hearsay but solid factual investigation, not to mention good old horse sense..  I believe Dr Hickson would have done her readers a service by making allusions to previous studies on this matter which we may be allowed to think she was already aware of.

It is not my intention to denigrate either Mrs Hickson or any of my fellow internet colleagues who have taken up the story, all of who certainly have a great interest in matters relating to Fatima and who are correct to write about these matters.  But historical perspectove must always be kept in mind whenever we put pen to paper.

Here is a fine article from 2008 which does a much better job at explaining these mysteries of the Third Secret:

http://catholicism.org/the-third-secret-of-fatima.html

I highly recommend it.

Is the Banana Republic finally over?

One hopes so even if severe doubts remain.  Frankly I expect no drastic changes with the new administration simply because Mr Trump has not demonstrated yet, at least to this writer, that he actually understands the forces which propelled him into power.  His recent interviews would seem to confirm that.

Yes, he has vague notions about this or that policy issue, but the platforms, planks and suggested appointments (thus far) do not bode well for conservatives sick and tied of sodomy, war-mongering and control by unelected elites.  Mr Trump walked, I believe somewhat unwittingly, into a nation-wide revolt against the sickness and filth of our government.  I say "unwittingly" because many of his pronouncements did not seem to gel with what the voters wanted.  nevertheless the voters gambled on him and he won.  We will now have to wait and see what happens.

Everyone is on edge over what he is going to do or not do.  The Queer Brigade ostensibly is worried though I cannot for the life of me understand why.  Has he not made it abundantly clear in his campaign and at the convention, and in recent interviews, that he has no interest in tackling their nation-destroying proclivities?

The war-mongers who want unlimited death and destruction in the Middle East are worried.  But why?  Mr Trump is appearing to surround himself with the same types who created all that death and destruction.  Even the execrable and truly psychotic John Bolton is trying to worm his way into the new administration.  Can Trump withstand this kind of pressure to keep us out of these immoral and unjust wars of aggression against nations and people who have done us no harm?  I hope so but have my doubts. (This writer hopes we will not have four more years of Bush/Obama: http://www.fff.org/2016/11/14/trumps-foreign-policy-four-years-bush-obama/)

Prudence and realism should be our attitudes now.  And if we wish to act we must keep the pressure of The Donald to "drain the swamp" as he so colorfully put it.

Music for The Rigid

      


      

Imagine a man who has contempt for this, and all it represents, and sits on St Peter's Chair.

Gary Potter on the election

"Although these lines won’t reach readers until after the event, in real time they are written prior to the November 8 presidential election. The voting won’t affect what is said because neither of the major-party candidates, not the one who can’t be trusted nor the other who is corrupt, is a person a Catholic would want for U.S. President, not a Catholic who understands that the laws of a nation should buttress Christian living, not militate against it – the kind of laws that existed when Christendom did and Jesus Christ was recognized as King of society.

From the point of view of such a Catholic the ideal presidential candidate would be one who campaigned for an end to legal abortion on demand, no-fault divorce and same-sex marriage, among other things.

Of course such a candidate is inconceivable today. No fringe party would nominate him or her, let alone the Democrats or Republicans. If one did, he or she would not be elected. The American people, to the extent such a people can still be said to exist, aren’t that Christian anymore. Modernity has them too strongly by the throat.

They aren’t unique in this respect. Though Russia is the one major country left in the world in which Christianity plays a visible role in its public life, a poll a few days ago showed seventy percent of Russians opposed to making abortion illegal. This even after the head of their Church, Patriarch Kiril, went before the State Duma (parliament) to appeal to legislators for it.

In Catholic Poland, leaders of the governing Law and Justice Party let it be known in early October that they planned to introduce legislation that would outlaw all abortion for any reason, including the life of the mother, but backed down when thousands of women went into the streets of Warsaw and other major cities to protest.

Is there any country where women wouldn’t protest against such a law, or where the government wouldn’t knuckle under when they did? Not these days. These days are dark and promise to become darker (the choice facing voters on the 8th testifies to that). Will Christians ever see light again? France’s great nineteenth-century prelate Cardinal Pie knew when they would."

Read the whole article.