Rod Pead discusses "The Fundamentalist Option"

Rod Pead, editor of the invaluable Christian Order, is a writer and thinker much admired in these pages.  We urge our readers to subscribe to his superb publication, perhaps one of the very best of the few remaining continuing strongly Catholic publications.

In his January, 2016 editorial he tells it like it is.  Timid readers be warned,

The mouthy Bergoglian-magisterium struck again on 30 November, directing yet another volley of papal abuse at faithful Catholics. Addressing journalists on the plane home from his African jaunt, Pope Francis declared that

Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions. We Catholics have some — and not some, many — who believe in the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation, and doing evil.

Furious with these Catholic rednecks — these execrable Absolute Truthers! — he repeated: "They do evil."

"I say this," he added, "because it is my church."

The possessive pronoun says it all. A pontiff whose scandalous words and deeds manifest his stated belief that "There is no Catholic God," it behoves Francis to speak of "my church." For a church that demonises defenders and propagators of Catholic absolutes (i.e., dogmas of faith) is decidedly not the One True Church of Jesus Christ. Indeed, a church devoid of doctrinal absolutes is no church at all, but just another socio-political institution with welfare trappings. It is the social gospel 'church' of fevered Modernist imaginings, in which the natural trumps the supernatural, and social justice reigns in lieu of Christ the King.

Francis duly went on to further muddy the big "C" Church, historically and morally. "How many wars… have Christians [read Absolute Truthers] made?", he sneered gratuitously. In a thinly veiled apology for fundamentalist nit-picking, he then parsed the condom-AIDS nexus. For Francis, playing prophylactic Russian Roulette with bodies and souls is no big deal. "Let’s not talk about if one can use this type of patch or that for a small wound," he insisted, "the serious wound is social injustice, environmental injustice." And so the non-threat of CO2 trumps the real threat of Condomania.

Read the whole editorial here.

James Larson on the October Horror before us

Mr James Larson, in a new article on his blog, has brought to our eyes the terrifying reality of what is coming soon from a papacy rapidly going off the rails.  If Pope Francis goes ahead with what he is planning this October he will have taken a gigantic step toward the final de-legitimization of his papacy.

Almost daily, Francis gives scandal upon scandal, dissolving the Faith as he does so. Blogs and news venues are replete with these events so there is no need for me to rehash them.  But they dissolve trust, faith, hope, charity and the teachings of the one, true Church.  The souls that are being lost by this....it is too horrible to contemplate.  And now in an act that can only be described as an impiety he will celebrate the damnation of men and nations who fell into heresy and rebellion.

Whether he would do this because he is suffering from some sort of mental instability, or confusion, or downright malice, doesn't matter.  The damage done to the Faith, and the simple trust of people, will not be undone for generations.  To cheer on the rupture that tore the Church asunder in the 16th century is something one would expect from a Reformationist.  But from a Pope of Rome it is an insult, a scandal of supreme proportions, which will haunt the man to his grave.  As repulsive as the thought might seem we must "gird up our loins" and pray for this man that he does not go through with this.  A typical prayer for the Pope(s) can be found here.

In his new piece Mr Larson traces his early faltering steps toward his conversion to Catholicism, tying events in with the biblical story of Nabuchodonosor, and finally bringing it round to the horror planned for this October in Lund, Sweden.

From the Larson article:


Possibly no single event will more clearly unite all the elements of this Catholic disintegration than Pope Francis’ scheduled visit to Lund, Sweden on October 31, 2016 in order to kick off a year-long celebration honoring Martin Luther and the Protestant Revolution (culminating on Oct 31, 2017 – the 500th anniversary of Luther’s nailing his 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church). 

Along with Lutheran World Federation President Bishop Dr. Munib A. Younan and General Secretary Rev. Dr. Martin Junge, the Pope will lead an Ecumenical Commemoration and common worship service in Lund Cathedra – based on the Catholic-Lutheran Common Prayer, released in January 2016 by both the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity PCPCU) and the Lutheran World Federation (LWF). ThisCommon Prayer, in turn, “follows directly” from the publication in 2013 of the document titled From Conflict to Communion (the fruit of 50 years of ecumenical dialogue between the PCPCU and LWF). The Common Prayer praises Luther and “the many guiding theological and spiritual insights that we have all received through the Reformation”, and commits both Catholics and Lutherans to the premier guiding principle that all future relations should “begin from the perspective of unity and not from the point of view of division….”

From Conflict to Communion is, in my estimation, the most satanically deceitful document ever to issue forth from a Vatican office. The extent of this deceit, spread over the space of approximately 50 pages, would certainly require a book for full exposition. But the foundations, and principle elements of this deceit, are easily exposed in a few pages. This I will attempt to do below.

Read the whole article here.

The Baptism Question

Great Saints have said "no"; great Saints have said, "yes".  Dogmatically, the Church has not spoken "ex cathedra" on the subject.

We are speaking, of course, of the concept of "baptism of desire".

Why is this important to talk about now?  The obvious answer to that is the vast ocean of confusion that the Roman Catholic Church has allowed to exist in its refusal to speak strongly and clearly about the fundamental teachings of Christ, preferring instead a sort of "syncretism-in-all-but-name" to be the guiding thought of the modern Church.  The key, vital point, however, is that the idea of baptism by desire is a speculative belief held by as many strong Catholics as it is opposed by other strong Catholics, and has not as yet been defined infallibly by the Pope(s).

As a side note I would only say that those who hold strongly to the "yes" position do not address other variations of this idea, e.g. Penance of Desire, Marriage of Desire, Holy Orders of desire, etc. which, as ludicrous as that may sound, would seem to follow logically from the original premise. Theologian I am not so my views are only those personally held.

I am not unaware that the issue of Baptism of Desire is controversial.  I do believe, however, that it can be discussed with Catholic charity on both sides of the question.

The following article by Brian Kelly tackles the issue head on, and we at The Eye-Witness are grateful for his permission to reprint it here. (The original can be found here.)

Baptism of Desire: Its Origin and Abandonment in the Thought of Saint Augustine

by Brian Kelly

Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the sacrament of the mediator. (Saint Augustine)

This article will focus on the question of explicit baptism of desire — as it was understood by most western doctors of the Church from the time of Saint Augustine (+430) until Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (+1787), the last declared theological doctor who wrote in favor of its saving efficacy. The subject matter will deal specifically with the origin of the theological speculation, as given by Saint Augustine in one of his early doctrinal letters, and then move on to prove from authoritative testimony that the African doctor reversed his opinion in his later anti-Pelagian writing.

Go Ye, Preach the Gospel to Every Creature, and Baptize

I wish to preface the following with an affirmation of the extreme importance of this issue in that the conversion of non-Christians to the Catholic Faith, in our day, is no longer considered a mission necessary for their salvation. The mandate of our Savior to “Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark 16:15-16), has been supplanted by a new gospel of salvation by sincerity through invincible ignorance. It is my intention to restore at least an appreciation for the zeal of the holy missionaries that went forth to convert the nations to Christ and to baptize the pagans and infidels who accepted the good news that is the gospel. These missionaries, whose exemplar since the sixteenth century is Saint Francis Xavier, were not distracted by any speculation about a baptism of desire. Xavier baptized three million pagans with his own hand. Biographers write that there were so many catechumens waiting to be baptized that assistants had to help him to lift his arm to perform the rite. Saint Francis Xavier never wrote a word about baptism of desire. Rather, he wrote these words from the Far East hoping to reach students aspiring for degrees: “How I would like to go to the universities of Paris and the Sorbonne and address many men who are richer in learning than in zeal, to let them know the great number of souls who, because of their neglect, are deprived of grace and are apt to go to hell. There are millions of nonbelievers who would become Christian if there were missionaries.” Was this missioner, considered the greatest after Saint Paul, misinformed?

 

Brother Francis Maluf, MICM

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Can’t Possibly Mean What It Says! This Doctrine is Too Hard! Who Can Hear it?

Among traditional Catholics who oppose the doctrinal cause of Saint Benedict Center, the vast majority maintain that their opposition is over Father Feeney’s rejection of baptism of desire. This has not always been the case, but it has become so more in the past twenty to thirty years. Prior to that, it was the defined doctrine itself, No salvation outside the Church, which disturbed those whom Brother Francis, in his treatise, The Dogma of Faith Defended, called “right-wing liberals.” These are the theologians who believed in the infallible authority of the Church, but were embarrassed over the literal sense of the doctrine. “God is all-merciful,” they stressed, “most men, surely, will be saved.”

In their efforts to drain the thrice-defined dogma of its literal sense, these overly optimistic theologians insisted that the dogma needed to be “interpreted” according to the sense of the living ordinary magisterium of our time. Even His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, postulated that what extra ecclesiam nulla salus really meant was that there is no salvation without the Church:

Kirill is interviewed about the meeting with the Pope

A polite message to Pope Francis (when he rides on airplanes)

        

The Laughable George Clooney

It is hard not to laugh at George Clooney.

The poor fellow cannot act and has no screen personality.  That is a given.  His family connections got him to Hollywood. A simpleton who imagines himself to be a great intellect, Clooney fancies himself a moral hero while he lionizes sodomy.  His movies are forgettable trash that appeal to those who enjoy quick jolts of entertainment bereft of ideas, humanity or even humor.

When mumbling your lines and giving the appearance of fake toughness on the screen wins you plaudits from the celeb drones who inhabit the world's movie theatres it becomes clear you don't have to expend much effort in improving your acting skills or lack thereof.  You can coast along until the public gets tired of you.

And they do get tired of you sooner than you think.  Think Kevin Kostner (remember him?)  Mr Kostner's only public appearances these days are when he is in the doctor's office dropping off urine samples.  Mr Kostner couldn't act either.  He was gloriously inept in the profession of acting. Bad as he was he was not much different from Mr Clooney, who will be forgotten soon enough.

But now Mr Clooney believes he is a statesman of sorts (!) and is angling to meet some heads of state. The first one on his list is Frau Merkel whom he believes is panting to meet him.  Maybe she is. In her doltish behavior she perhaps sees in him a kindred spirit.

Possibly this actor views the Merkel-Clooney Summit as his ticket into the history books.

As I said, Mr Clooney is laughable.

What actually is Patriotism?

Christopher Manion explains:

What ever happened to patriotism?

Webster’s defines the term as “love for or devotion to one’s country.”

But before there were countries, there was patriotism. The term itself derives from ancient languages (Greek and Latin) and refers to the land of one’s fathers.

Patriotism is pre-political. It is essentially human – which noun, by the way, derives from the Latin humus – dirt, soil. “Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return,” we are told on Ash Wednesday. “humus.”

Patriotism is founded in the natural law. It represents the honor we owe our forbearers and the land they tilled and bequeathed to us. We do not live in abstractions, we live a concrete, historical life.

One’s native land is as human as life itself. Our fathers taught us patriotism. Patriotism means family — love of our family for giving us life (making us “human”), love for our kin, our tribe, our neighbors, and the God who gives us life.

Patriotism does not mean love of government.

And that bothers politicians. Big time. Major league.

Read the rest here.

Joe Sobran, Defender of the Faith

Joe Sobran had a Renaissance mind along with a moral sense, a genial wit, and a seemingly effortless flow of felicitous phrasing. Whatever the topic, he was capable of entertaining while instructing, always conveying to the reader of his columns, articles, and essays (without the least touch of pedantry) something of the centuries—even millennia—of thought, experience, and expression underlying the topics at hand. Whether he was engaging religion, morals, politics, history, or literature, including his beloved Shakespeare, he presented truth from a fresh perspective, in arresting language, and with clarity and cogency.

Among the many friends Joe made are a number—like Robert Reilly, Pat Buchanan, and Paul Likoudis—who contribute testimonials to the effect that his writing had and has on them. One example that sums up Joe’s contribution and the depth of response he could arouse in his readers comes from Fr. Ronald Tacelli of Boston College:

During the final collapse of the Roman Empire, Livy wrote of ‘the dark dawning of our modern day when we can neither endure our vices nor face the remedies needed to cure them.’ In this astonishingly relevant book — astonishing, because some of its essays were written many decades ago — Joe Sobran . . . describes, with clarity, power, and great beauty, the remedies — really, the remedy, The Thing — needed to cure us. In this way,Subtracting Christianity can be thought of as Joe’s parting gift — maybe his greatest gift — to the civilization he loved so much. Profound gratitude is the only proper response.

Lifelong pro-life warrior Joe Scheidler (the defendant in NOW v. Schiedler) highlights another great cause of our era to which Joe showed great faithfulness. Scheidler refers to Sobran as “without question, the most persuasive and articulate defender of life and morality of the past 50 years.” This is not to be wondered at since the moral, philosophical, religious, and cultural issues bound up in abortion involve all the deepest gifts of Christianity and Western Civilization to the world’s understanding of human life and of what makes it valuable. So when Joe Sobran wrote on the human life issues of our era—abortion, euthanasia, bioengineering, cloning, and the like—he was offering the highest level of social criticism from a thoroughly baptized mind fully informed by the best that Christian culture has thought and written.

Read the whole article here.

Celebrating President's Day

"The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. 

The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."   (H.L.Mencken)

And more on the way!

(If we've left any morons out it was due to space limitations.)