Monday, September 29, 2014

A note on the 1963 Conclave

The following is taken from the Book "The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story":

Cardinal Montini (Later Paul VI P.P.)

“The clashes within the conclave, according to Cardinal Testa, were intese. Cardinal Ottaviani fought to the end against Montini, pressing for the election of Cardinal Ildebrando Antoniutti, a sixty-four-year- old prelate from Friuli, who had considerable diplomatic experience, and who would have represented an interruption of the “Johannine” course. The stories that leaked out of the conclave tell also of Cardinal Siri’s refusal to make himself available for possible election, thus shifting the votes in his own favor toward the archbishop of Milan: “For the good of the Church, I did not want to oppose Montini,” the archbishop of Genoa confided to Benny Lai."


Thursday, September 25, 2014

Ten Days of Davies: The Last Interview

The following short exerpt was one of Michael Davies last interviews and was given to the English periodical "Christian Order"

After you read the article please do say a prayer for the repose of his soul.  The whole article can be read HERE

Michael Davies: Well round about 1953 or 1954 when I was doing my ‘A’ level examinations at school they changed the syllabus and so the syllabus for my year included the Reformation in England. I had a very good history teacher. He was an agnostic actually but he was very objective and it just seemed obvious to me that neither King Henry the Eighth nor Elizabeth the First had any mandate from God to start a new religion, which is what happened. Most people in England think Henry the Eighth founded the Church of England. Of course he did but then it went back to Catholicism under Mary Tudor. 
John Bishop: Yes for a few years. 
MD: But his daughter Elizabeth the First could be said to be the substantive founder of the Church of England. 
JB: Is there any truth in the legend that she secretly practised Catholicism? Lighting the candles and telling the Rosary beads in the privacy of her apartments? That for the sake of politics she played both ends against the middle? 
MD: Well she wasn’t really very religious at all. Her religion was really herself. You know she had her own liturgy in the Chapels Royal with her own vestments. Remember when she was dying she wouldn’t lie down and she wouldn’t let any Anglican minister come to her. She said they were just ‘hedge priests’. 
JB: I wonder what that meant? I know the term ‘hedge priests’ applies to those valiant priests who risked arrest, torture and death to bring the sacraments to the people of Ireland during the times of persecution 
MD: Yes. I have always found that a very strange expression on her part. 
JB: She had heard about them then. 
MD: Oh yes she knew them very well. 
JB: Perhaps she not only feared them but secretly admired them. Perhaps it was a bit of conscience at the end. 
MD: Well she offered to make St Edmund Campion Archbishop of Canterbury if only he would recant. 
JB: I find this very interesting. Of course your love of history started for you with a famously good teacher as you say. So then you went on to become a teacher yourself after your military service. Just tell me something of that Michael. You see, in contradiction to present day ignoramuses who have never been within a mile of a Regimental Sergeant Major’s moustache and condemn defending the territory and serving one’s country in time of trouble, I uphold the military virtues. 
MD: So do I.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

A Note to Fr. Paul Nicholson on the Issue of the SSPX

I came across an article by the Reverend Father Paul Nicholson today which was commenting on the recent events in Oklahoma City concerning the devil worshipers [???] and the response to their insanity and blasphemy. Now I don’t claim to be infallible or a theologian by any means but there are a couple things that stuck out like a sore thumb in the article and need to be corrected.

First saying that a Mass offered by a Society Priest is a greater evil than the mockery of a black mass is an unfortunate, and over-the-top exaggeration.  Catholics, in good faith, can assist at their [SSPX] masses and not come under the condemnation of any code of law or binding issue put forth by the church.  People constantly write to Fr. Z on this matter, and (having done his due diligence on the matter) he again and again relates that there is no restriction (aside from intention against the Holy Father) on going to the SSPX for Mass. 
Now perhaps Fr. Nicholson holds the view that the SSPX are in Schism.  Assuming that he might be ignorant on the point, let us look at the relevant issue.  If they are indeed schismatics then their confessions and marriage are valid just as the Eastern Orthodox and Orientals retain their sacramental jurisdictions.  Often the same people that say the SSPX are schismatic are the ones that deny they have jurisdiction to offer confession and marriage to people assisting at their chaples.  You can't have it both ways… either they are schismatics or they are not.  And according to many in the Vatican that are familiar with the situation, and have personally been involved with the reconciliation process, the Society is not formally schismatic or materially so by any means. 

On the charge that they are “Catholic Protestants”, I cannot shake my head enough.  This is the same rhetoric that made me stop holding Vericast with any validity when Tim Haines and Wilson Oreuella made the exact same mistakes in the broadcasts again and again, and when corrected continued to propagate the calumny. First, Protestants are heretics, Father, can you name one position that the SSPX takes that that is heretical?  Just name one.  Second, there is no such thing as a Catholic Protestant, which is the same logic that give us the Pro Choice Catholic. 

The article by Father, which you can read in its entirety HERE (and increase his stats because it’s petty at this point) is probably put together in good faith with well-meaning intentions. I don’t claim to know his intention, but objectively these attacks are sins against charity, calumny and slanders that are below this good priest.  I do have a theory that when the SSPX decided against the personal prelature in 2012 many people saw it as a personal attack and used scapegoating to attack the SSPX without asking for the why?  What do you want the SSPX to hold to, to sign to in order that they be reconciled?  What do they hold to that is not Catholic?  Have you any clue as to why they lost their status to begin with (I gave a sneak peak just a few days ago in my Ten Days of Davies piece on Lefebvre)?

Please, I beg of you knock it off with the rhetoric and pray for the Pope and the Society that they may come to an agreement that will benefit the Church as a whole. 

A couple articles you might be interested in reading are as follows:

Rene Girard’s Mimetic Theory and the Scapegoat: HERE

Understanding the Vatican Statement: “SSPX already is in ‘Full Communion’, but in a State of ‘Imperfect Reconciliation’: HERE

Lefebvrianism: HERE

Ten Days of Davies: Vatican II talks (Part II)

Vatican II - Part 3 of 4 - The Protestant Connection
Progressives were eager to work together with Protestants. This meant that Protestant observers of the Council often played not only a role but even a determining role in its sessions. Michael Davies discusses the Protestants in question, their Catholic allies, and the specific influences they had. Taken from: My End is My Beginning: The Analogy of Contemporary Christianity

Vatican II - Part 4 of 4 - The Liturgical Revolution
Michael Davies is most known for his work on the liturgical revolution. Here, he summarizes how the movement for liturgical reform transmuted into the monster that it became, and then used Vatican II, the organs established to effect the reforms of Vatican II, and the "spirit of the Council" to create the new liturgy. Taken from: My End is My Beginning: The Analogy of Contemporary Christianity



Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Ten Days of Davies: New Davies Talks on Vatican II (Part I)

Below you will find Parts One and Two (of four) of Michael's talks on the council given at the  Von Hildebrand Institute in 2001.

The First video talks about how the "liberals" conspired before and during the council to bring it under their control.  Keep the Faith describes the talk as follows:

"The program for Vatican II was quite different from that which was examined and ultimately promulgated once the Council began. Why is this the case? Michael Davies shows that an organized group of progressives took advantage of the lack of organization of traditionalists and pushed the Council down an unexpected direction."

The Second Video talks about what Pope Benedict Called the Virtual Council, that is how the media manipulated the council to their own ends with help from within and without.  Keep the Faith describes the talk as follows:

"Progressives understood the use of the media in a way in which their opponents did not. Moreover, media men were often on exactly the same wavelength as the progressives anyway. This, Michael Davies explains, allowed the two groups together to give shape to the Council's development."

Tomorrows post will contain Part 3 and Part 4 of the series.  Please enjoy the talks but also support this wonderful apostolate "Keep the Faith"


Monday, September 22, 2014

Ten Days of Davies: Michael gets into a debate on William Buckley's Firing Line

I think I have posted a link on this in the past but now I will provide additional things for you to chew on.

The Program was Firing Line, with host William F. Buckley (Founder of the National Review).
Mr. Buckley was a practicing Catholic until he died and one of the shows he invited Mr. Davies, Fr. Malachi Martin and Fr. Joseph Champlin, who worked for the USCCB at the time as a liturgical adviser, to discuss the struggle to maintain Catholic orthodoxy.  The debate was heated to say the least.  Fr. Martin was not a designated debater but an expert questioner brought in by Firing Line to propose questions more formal in nature.

Below I have posted a clip from the program on line as well as the transcript and a link to rent or buy the episode.  the following is an interesting part of the exchange:

Mr. Buckley: Well, lets pursue the question of whether there is a dilution implicit in the new form of the Mass over against the Tridentine Mass. As you know, the Protestants have been arguing very heatedly on the various revisions of the King James Bible with one segment insisting that there is a theological dilution. Do you believe that there is? 
 Fr. Champlin: Do you? 
 Mr. Buckley: In the new order? 
 Fr. Champlin: I don’t think so. Let’s go back to one of the earlier things that Mr. Davies mentioned about the dilution of the sacrifice notion and the priesthood and so on. When the new missal – the Vatican II document, or the new missal of Paul VI – came out, this was one of the criticisms. In the introduction to the ritual – or the introduction to the general instruction of the missal -  very clear notion of how the sacrifice of the Mass is present in the new order of Mass, how the priesthood is very clearly there, how the priesthood the layperson different in essence from the priesthood of the ordained person is still present there. The whole notion of the sense of the sacred is in fact present, and I think the kind of sense that he said at the beginning that the new Mass takes away from that – I don’t think it’s a dilution. I think it tries to bring that notion of the transcendent and then communitarian and bringing together; and the kind of abuses that he was talking about are abuses, but not the teaching of Vatican II.  I don’t see the new Mass as a dilution of what we had. 
 Mr. Bukley: Do you have a comment on that , Mr. Davies? 
 Mr. Davies: I certainly do.  As Father says, correctly, in the new missal there’s an introduction – there’s a thing probably that most people watching wouldn’t know called the “general instruction” to the new Roman missal. Well, when it came out --  First of all, you just had the new order of the Mass --  you didn’t have a complete missal with all the readings – you just had the new order of Mass which had this general instruction with all the articles explaining it. Some of theses articles, they were just totally protestant. For instance, they explained the nature of the Mass, Article 7 – they said it’s the coming together of the people under the presidency of a priest which is a  -- There’s nothing formally heretical in it, but its totally acceptable to Protestants. Article 48 said that during the Mass that the Last Supper was made present. That is heretical, actually. Well, when the missal which Father mentions – with this Forward, that came out in 1970, and the Forward he has mentioned – the premium, in Latin – as he said, it states every doctrine of the Council of Tent absolutely orthodox – ii in an orthodox manner – and says this is what the new Mass is intended to enshrine; but I think this Forward is the most damning indictment of the new Mass ever published – the fact that within a year of its publication, they had to put an introduction to it, saying, “Oh, yes, well, it really is Catholic after all.  It really is meant to show this.” It’s a far more demining indictment than anything traditionalists have written about it… “

Click here for the link to the full video and transcript

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Ten Days of Davies: In defense of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

The following excerpt from an article entitled  Apologia Pro Joseph Ratzinger first appeared in "Christian Order" in 2004.  Michael described himself as a "Traditionalist", but this title didn't mean that he was opposed to Rome on principle. He was an ardent defender of Archbishop Lefebvre, but he was also happy to speak to those charged with negotiations with the society.  Michael was even persecuted for his friendship with Cardinal Ratzinger by other Traditionalists, yet as you will see in the following article he was not afraid to take fellow believers to task for stirring controversy where none was brewing:


Apologia Pro Josef Ratzinger


I am using the term Apologia as Newman did, in the sense of a reasoned explanation, and not in the sense of an apology. The great defender of orthodoxy in the post Vatican II Church certainly has no need to apologize for anything he has said, written, or done in the last forty years. Every Catholic who loves the faith is considerably in his debt.

I was prompted to write this brief apologia as a response to an attack upon the Cardinal by one James Larson in the February 2004 issue of Christian Order, in which this layman, who displays no discernible sign of theological expertise, has the temerity to make an accusation of heresy against the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), formerly the Inquisition.

Such temerity almost defies belief. I would be somewhat surprised if Larson even knows what heresy is, and so I will tell him. It is the pertinacious denial of a truth that must be believed by divine and Catholic Faith - Canon 1325 - 2 of the 1917 Code and Canon 751 of the 1983 Code. Such truths involve such dogmas as that of the Trinity, The Resurrection, The Real Presence, The Immaculate Conception, the Infallibility of the Pope. The denial has to be pertinacious, that is the person guilty of the denial must have been admonished by his legitimate superior and refused to retract. By no possible stretch of the imagination can the Cardinal have been considered to be guilty of heresy in its correct sense, even in his younger days when he had some rather liberal ideas. One does not know whether to laugh or cry at Larson’s arrant and arrogant nonsense. Having had the honour of meeting Cardinal Ratzinger regularly over the past ten years I know that he would certainly laugh even more than I did at the Larson diatribe.

Read the rest of the defense HERE


Friday, September 19, 2014

Ten Days of Davies: The campaign against Monsignor Lefebvre

One of the more, shall we say, controversial aspects of Mr. Davies works was his defense of Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre in the book "Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre".

Monsignor Lefebvre is a hard topic for many to look at objectivly.  There are hard feelings on both sides of the issues with many good points equally made.  However, few people that comment on the SSPX really know the issues involved with their stand.  There are plenty of false narratives about, but I think if you want to comment on the SSPX you must understand Marcel Lefebvre and the grave injustice done to him and the society from the beginning.

The following is an exerpt from Davies book, which you can read online in its entirety HERE

Apolgia Pro Marcel Lefebvre:  The Campaign Against Écône
"On 26 March 1974 a meeting was convened in Rome to discuss the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X (which will be referred to hereafter simply as the Society of St. Pius X) and its principal foundation, the Seminary at Ecône. 
Present at this meeting were Cardinal Garrone, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education; Cardinal Wright, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy; Mgr. Mayer, Secretary of the Congregation for Religious; Mgr. Mamie, Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg - the diocese in which the Society first obtained canonical authorization; Mgr. Adam, Bishop of Sion – the diocese in which Ecône is located. It was decided that a report on the Society and Seminary should be compiled. 
With surprising speed the requested report was dispatched within four days, on 30 March 1974. It had been compiled by Mgr. Perroud, Vicar-General of the diocese of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg. This report, accompanied by a letter from Bishop Mamie, was sent to Cardinal Garrone. 
On 30 April 1974 Mgr. Lefebvre and Mgr. Mamie met at Fribourg.At some time in June 1974, Pope Paul is alleged to have convoked the ad hoc Commission of Cardinals. While it cannot be claimed with certainty that this is untrue, it is certain that the document convoking the Commission has never been produced. As will be shown later, this document was one of the items which Mgr. Lefebvre's advocate would have demanded to see had not the Archbishop's appeal been blocked. It is not unreasonable to presume that one reason why the Archbishop was denied due legal process was that a number of serious irregularities would have been brought to light. It can hardly be a coincidence, in view of the criticisms aroused by the doubtful legality of the proceedings against Mgr. Lefebvre, that when a Commission of Cardinals was convoked to examine the case of Fr. Louis Coache, a traditionalist priest who had been deprived of his parish for his defense of the traditional Mass and catechism, great care was taken to leave no legal loopholes. The text of this document will be cited under the date of 10 June 1975. It will also be made clear that not one shred of evidence proving that the Pope had approved of the action taken against the Archbishop and his Seminary was produced until 29 June 1975. Pope Paul stated in a letter of this date, which is included in its chronological order, that he had approved of the action taken against the Archbishop in forma specifica (this term will also be explained under the same date). It is not unreasonable to conclude that this was an attempt to give retrospective legality to what must certainly be one of the greatest travesties of justice in the history of the Church. 
On 23 June 1974 the Commission of Cardinals met and decided upon a canonical visitation of the Seminary. 
The Apostolic Visitation of the Seminary at Ecône took place from 11-13 November 1974. The two Visitors were both Belgians: Mgr. Descamps, a biblical scholar, and Mgr. Onclin, a canonist. The Apostolic Visitation was carried out with great thoroughness. Professors and students were subjected to searching and detailed questions concerning every aspect of life in the Seminary. However, considerable scandal was occasioned by opinions which the two Roman Visitors expressed in the presence of the students and staff. For, according to Mgr. Lefebvre, these two Visitors considered it normal and indeed inevitable that there should be a married clergy; they did not believe there was an immutable Truth; and they also had doubts concerning the traditional concept of our Lord 's Resurrection.1 
On 21 November 1974, in reaction to the scandal occasioned by these opinions of the Apostolic Visitors, Mgr. Lefebvre considered it necessary to make clear where he stood in relation to the Rome represented by this attitude of mind. "This," he said, "was the origin of my Declaration which was, it is true, drawn up in a spirit of doubtlessly excessive indignation.” 
In this Declaration he rejected the views expressed by the Visitors, even if they were currently acceptable in the Rome which the Visitors represented in an official capacity. 
In this Declaration, he stated: 
...we refuse...and have always refused to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies...No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries. 
It is difficult to see how any orthodox Catholic could possibly disagree with Mgr. Lefebvre concerning this. It is all the more significant, therefore, that the Commission of Cardinals subsequently stated that the Declaration "seemed unacceptable to them on all points." 
It is also important to note that this Declaration was not intended as a public statement, let alone as a Manifesto defying the Holy See. It was intended to be a private statement solely for the benefit of the members of the Society of Saint Pius X. 
However, the Declaration was leaked without Mgr. Lefebvre's permission, and because the text, or extracts from it, were being used in a manner which he could not condone, he authorized Itinéraires to publish the full and authentic French text in January 1975. An English translation of this Declaration was published in Approaches 42-3 and The Remnant of 6 February 1975. 
It is particularly significant that the Commission of Cardinals persistently refused to view this Declaration in the context of its origin: as a private reaction of righteous indignation to the scandal occasioned by the views propagated by the two Apostolic Visitors who had been sent to Ecône by the Commission of Cardinals.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Ten Days of Davies: On the Trial of St. John Fisher

One of the greatest attributes of a teacher is to be a storyteller.  That is the ability to relay information in a way that is both educational and enticing for others to hear.  Mr. Davies in his wonderful work St. John Fisher relates the following in regards to the reprehensible trial of St. John Fisher:

You can read the whole book online HERE

St. John Fisher: Part 20 The Trial of St. John Fisher
"The fact that the trial was a complete sham, and that the judges were not there to administer justice but to execute the vengeance of the king, was made clear when the cardinal was told by Audley, the Chancellor, that he was not there "to dispute, but to hear his sentence of death for transgressing maliciously the statutes of the kingdom, by which the king was head of the English Church". The cardinal made a brave, straightforward answer. He had not contradicted those statutes maliciously, but with truth and holy intention, as they were opposed to Scriptures and to our Faith. There was no equivocation in that reply.

The jury of twelve men dutifully brought in their verdict that the cardinal was guilty of treason. As Fisher had been deprived of his bishopric he was treated as a commoner and condemned to death by being hanged, drawn, and quartered.

Then immediately upon this verdict that same Thursday, the 17th day of June, was like judgement of treason given against him as was given against the holy Carthusians, of

The jury of twelve men dutifully brought in their verdict that the cardinal was guilty of treason. As Fisher had been deprived of his bishopric he was treated as a commoner and condemned to death by being hanged, drawn, and quartered. 
Then immediately upon this verdict that same Thursday, the 17th day of June, was like judgement of treason given against him as was given against the holy Carthusians, of drawing, hanging, cutting down alive, throwing to the ground, his bowels to be taken out of his belly, and be burnt, he being alive, and his head to be cut off: and his body to be divided into four parts, and his head and quarters to be put where the king should appoint. As he listened to the dreadful sentence which condemned him to a traitor's death, he stood erect and the colour rushed into his sunken cheeks, His escort closed around him, to take him back to the Tower. But he still had something to say.

“My lords, I am here condemned before you of high treason for denial of the King's supremacy over the Church of England, but by what order of justice I leave to God, Who is the searcher both of the king his Majesty's conscience and yours; nevertheless, being found guilty, as it is termed, I am and must be contented with all that God shall send, to whose will I wholly refer and submit myself. And now to tell you plainly my mind, touching this matter of the king's supremacy, I think indeed, and always have thought, and do now lastly affirm, that His Grace cannot justly claim any such supremacy over the Church of God as he now taketh upon him; neither hath (it) been seen or heard of that any temporal prince before his days hath presumed to that dignity; wherefore, if the king will now adventure himself in proceeding in this strange and unwonted case, so no doubt but he shall deeply incur the grievous displeasure of the Almighty, to the great damage of his own soul, and of many others, and to the utter ruin of this realm committed to his charge, wherefore, I pray God his Grace may remember himself in good time, and harken to good counsel for the preservation of himself and his realm and the quietness of all Christendom.” 


Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Ten Days of Davies: A supporter of Summorum before it was cool

Way before the possibility of Summorum was even spoken of in Rome, Michael Davies was out and about demanding the ancient rite be restored to its dignity within Holy Mother Church.  It was his contention that the promulgation of the 1962 missal should once again be the major focus of matters liturgical in the Church.  There was some debate as to what would Pope Benedict promulgate as the ancient rite, be it the 1962 or 1965 missal, or even earlier missals.  Michael touches on this below.

The following article from The Latin Mass Magazine was written by Mr. Davies and its relevence to Summorum cannot be understated.  You can read the whole article HERE.  The following in an excerpt:

The liturgical destruction did not begin in 1969 with the promulgation of the new rite of Mass, the Novus Ordo Missae. The debacle was well under way in 1965 when the Vatican allowed its liturgical bureaucrats to begin revising the Missal that had last been revised in 1962. The 1962 Missal incorporated the mainly rubrical changes contained in the General Decree Novum Rubricarum of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of July 26, 1960. This rubrical reform had been ordered by Pope Pius XII, and few of the changes would have been noticed by the layman using a pre-1962 Missal apart from the omission of the second Confiteor before the Communion of the Faithful. In pre-1962 Missals in the Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae, X, 6, this Confiteor is stipulated. In the same section in the 1962 Missal it is not mentioned, but nowhere in the rubrics is it forbidden. Apart from this omission the ordinary of the Mass was not changed. 
  No layman could help noticing the changes made to the Ordinary of the Mass in the 1965 Missal, and there can be little doubt that its purpose was to prepare the faithful for the revolutionary changes that were to be introduced in 1969. By design or by coincidence the preparation for this revolution followed precisely the strategy of Thomas Cranmer, the apostate Archbishop of Canterbury, prior to the imposition of his English Communion Service of 1549. One of the principal features of the Catholic liturgy had been stability. Developments in the manner in which Mass was celebrated did occur, but they crept in almost imperceptibly over the centuries, and the Missals in use in England and throughout Europe in the sixteenth century had remained unchanged for at least several hundred years. The faithful took it for granted that whatever else might change, the Mass could not. In order to avoid provoking resistance among the Catholic faithful Cranmer deemed it prudent not to do too much too soon. Parts of the Mass were celebrated in the vernacular – but, many insisted, it was still the same Mass, so why risk persecution by protesting? New material was introduced into the unchanged Mass, which while open to a Protestant interpretation was in no way specifically heretical; once again, why protest? 
An important innovation was the imposition of Communion under both kinds for the laity at the end of 1547. Catholics in England made the mistake of conceding this change without opposition for the sake of peace. The great Catholic historian Cardinal Francis Gasquet writes: 
It was, after all, only a matter of ecclesiastical discipline, although some innovators in urging the incompleteness of the Sacrament, when administered under one kind, gave a doctrinal turn to the question which issued in heresy. The great advantage secured to the innovators by the adoption of Communion under both kinds in England was the opportunity it afforded them of effecting a break with the ancient missal.


Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Ten Days of Davies: Take Down of Medjugorje

In doing some research for these posts I came across an article alerting me to a work Mr. Davies once put out about Medjugorje.  Make no mistake about it, Michael was fiercely against the supposed apparitions and this work, which you can read in its entirety HERE, is a must in coming to a full understanding of what happened in that little Slavic town.
The following is a short exerpt from the text.

Medjugorje after Twenty-One Years —1981-2002: The Definitive History

By Michael Davies
...On 3 July 1981, the date specified for the final apparition, Father Tadija Pavlovic, pastor of a neighbouring parish, came to Medjugorje to help hear confessions. He was present in the presbytery when what was to be the final apparition took place. There were, in fact, two apparitions, one lasting ten minutes and one five minutes. All six seers affirmed that the apparition had told them this would be her last appearance. Father Pavlovic was shocked when he learned from one of his parishioners that there had been further apparitions on 4 and 5 July. Never again has he gone to Medjugorje to celebrate Mass or hear confessions. According to the seers the apparition had a change of mind concerning her final appearance, and decided to visit them each day. Two years later, in 1983, Vicka was asked by a Father Janko Bubalo why the apparitions had continued after 3 July 1981. She replied: “Really, I cant remember any of this. If someone (i.e. one of the seers) has said this, then it must have been intended to ensure that we were left alone.”
  On other occasions Vicka seems to have had no problem with her memory: I remember very well asking her: Our Lady, for how long will you stay with us?...She answered: As long as you wish, my angels. Imagine, as long as we wish! That means: forever. We did not have the courage to tell her.On another occasion when asked the same question, the apparition replied:
 “Have you had enough of me already?” Can one imagine Our Lady saying this?...

Monday, September 15, 2014

Ten Days of Davies: Against the Sedevacantists

Michael Davies was indeed a Traditionalist, but you always knew that he stood firmly with Holy HERE
Mother Church.  One of my favorite works from him was a small book entitled “I Am With You Always”, which is an apologia for the Church against the sedevacantists.  The following is related within that book which I do encourage you to pick up for your own use

The Duty of a Catholic 

The Doctrine of indefectibility does not protect us from harm done by weakness, poor judgement, or lack of liturgical sensibility on the part of a Pope. In the present crisis we can see that the Holy Ghost has done sufficient to prevent the Church from failing in her divine constitution, an no more. This should both comfort and strengthen the faith of traditional Catholics, and inspire them to play their full part as members of the Mystical Body  to restore that Body to sound health again. The first requirement to achieve this must be to obtain as many celebrations of the traditional Mass as possible. The number of such celebrations is increasing daily. The second is to work respectfully, as Mgr Gamber expresses it, for the eventual restoration of the 1962 Missal as “the primary liturgical form for the celebration of Mass”. Dietrich von Hildebrand described by Pope Pius XII as the twenthieth century doctor of the Church, reminds us that: 
"The faithful are not obliged to regard all ordinances as good and desirable. They can regret them and pray that they be taken back; indeed, they can work, with all due respect for the Pope, for their elimination."
The fact that the Latin Missal of Pope Paul VI can not be described as bad, evil, or intrinsically evil does nto mean that we must consider it an acceptable substitute for the traditional Missal. The devastating critique of the 1970 Latin Missal sent to Pope Paul by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci makes this quite clear. In their covering letter they explain to the Pope that:
"The Novus Ordo Missae – considering the new elements susceptible of widely differing evaluations, which appear to be implied or taken for granted – represents as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass which was formulated by Session XXII of the Council of Trent, which by fixing definitively the “canons” of the rite, erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery."
Msgr. Klaus Gamber could envisage only one realistic solution to the present crisis in the liturgy:
"In the final analysis, this means that in the future the traditional rite of Mass must be retained in the Roman Catholic Churc… as the primary liturgical form for the celebration of Mass. It must become once more the norm of our faith and the symbol of Catholic unity throughout the world, a rock of stability in a period of upheaval and never-ending change. "
Will such a day ever come? Who can say? It may well be that we are even now in the last days. What we can be certain of is that it is our duty to work for this restoration however faint our chances of success may appear at present. In the days of the Arian persecution, when St. Athanasius was a hunted fugitive, excommunicated by the Pope, who would have imagined that the day was drawing near when true Catholics who had been forced to worship outside thaie parish churches would be able to return to them in triumph? We must pray for a pope such as Paul IV, St. Pius V or St. Pius X, who will not shrink from taking the measures needed to restore orthodoxy whatever the consequences. It would indeed be preferable to have a Chrch reduced to a fraction of its present size, but composed of true Catholics, rather than a Church composed of hundreds of millions of Catholics, a large proportion of whom have no right to the name. Cardinal Newman wrote: 
"May God Arise and shake terribly the earth (though it be an awful prayer), rather than the double-minded should lie hid among us, and souls be lost by present ease … Let Him winnow us, till the chaff be clean removed:  though, in thus invoking Him, we know not what we ask, and feeling the end in itself to be good, yet cannot worthily estimate the fearfulness of the chastisement which we so freely speak about."
However lamentable the state of the Church at present, however terrible the trials and tribulations we may have to face – Our Lady of Fatima warned us of them – we must under all circumstances remain in the barque of Peter which is the one Ark of Salvation. Pope Leo XIII warned us in Satis Cognitum:
"The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same forever: those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ the Lord. Leaving the path of salvation they enter on the path of perdition."

Since its Davies on Sedes why not laugh about antipope Michael


Sunday, September 14, 2014

Ten Days of Davies: Remembering Michael Davies

Michael with Cardinal Ratzinger
As Holy Mother Church celebrates the tremendous feast of the Exultation of the Cross, I find it a wonderful time to remind all my readers (the five or so of you) of one of my favorite Catholic authors, one Mr. Michael Davies.

On September 25th, 2004, Michael passed away from his battle with Cancer, never getting to see the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum which he was sure Cardinal Ratzinger (if made Pope) would bring to reality.  He was a man of many titles: a journalist, a debater, a theologian, but perhaps the title that he most loved was a teacher.  When you listen to his talks you notice how he is always bringing up his work as an elementary school teacher, and how much he loved it.

True to form he was a teacher for all of us, me especially.  I credit Mr. Davies with educating me on the purpose of liturgy and traditional topics.  Such topics remain controversial to this day even with the ‘conservative’ click of Catholics backing down when the traditions of Holy Mother Church come under fire.  Yet it was the perseverance of grand teachers like Mr. Davies that seemed, and truly remain, a light in the darkness.

Dumb Ox Writings is pleased to announce that as a tribute to Michael Davies we will be posting ten straight days of works put forth by Michael Davies. 

We do hope you enjoy them, and only request that you say one Hail Mary each day - totaling 10 for the number of years he has left us since - for his poor soul!

Friday, September 12, 2014

A sign of the times


There is a bar on my way into work that had on its sign: "Free Beer when the Brewers win 12 straight!"

Well, today it reads "Free Beer when the brewers win three straight!"

Now I understand there are less then 12 games left but the collapse is epic!!!

Thursday, September 11, 2014

In line with his predecessors?

Consider this "Don't shoot the messenger part II. Public scandal demands public rebuke and correction... call it common sense

h/t: Rorate-Caeli and Church Militant

Monday, September 8, 2014

When Cardinal Ottaviani squared off with Cardinal Bea on Religious Freedom/Tolerance

Two years after the title for Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity was invented and promptly given to Venerable Pius XII’s confessor Cardinal Bea, a battle of two conflicting understandings of the church’s teaching on the Religious Toleration/Religious Freedom came to ahead.  The story is related in Roberto de Mattei’s  book The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story:

Bea and Ottaviani square off

Buy the Book!!
On June 19, 1962, the next to last day of the final session, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bea came into direct conflict. Two schemas were presented: one from the theological commission and the other from the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. Bea, in presenting his schema, asserted that it was focused on non-Catholics and corresponded to the “aggiornamento” of current living conditions in the Church desired by the pope. Ottaviani vehemently retorted that the secretariat had no right to deal with the question for which the Theological Commission was competent.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre recalls this episode, of which he was a [sic] eyewitness:

"I must relate to you a minor incident that occurred in 1962, when I was a member of the Central Preparatory Commision of the council. We held our meetings in the Vatican, but the last one was dramatic. Among the papers given to the Central Commission there were two on the same subject: One came from Cardinal Bea, president of the Commission for Unity , and the other from Cardinal Ottaviani, president of the Theological Commission. When we had read them, when I myself had read the two schemas, I said: “It is very stange that there are two completely different points of view on the same subject, that is religious liberty or the Church’s attitude toward other religions.” Cardinal Bea’s was entitled De libertate religiosa; Cardinal Ottaviani’s – De tolerantia religios. Do you see the difference, the profound difference? What was happening? Why two completely different schemas on the same subject? At that moment, during the meeting, Cardinal Ottaviani stood up and , pointing with his finger, said to Cardinal Bea: “Eminence, you did not have the right to compose this schema, you did not have the right to do it because it is a theological schema and therefore within the competence of the Theological Commission.” And as Cardinal Bea stood up he said: “Excuse me, but I did have the right to compose this schema as president of the commission on Unity; if anything concerns unity, certainly religious liberty does.” He added, turning to Cardinal Ottaviani, “I radically oppose what you say in your schema De tolerantia religiosa”… It was the final session of the central commission, and we could clearly perceive, on the eve of the council, displayed in fron of us, the whole battle that would take place during the council. This means that these things had already been prepared before the council. Cardinal Bea certainly did not compose his schema De libertate religiosa without having reached an agreement with other cardinals."

To get around the doctrinal obstacles, the secretariat proposed a new “para-diplomatic” way of expressing the faith, which consisted of couching dogmatic topics in contemporary terms without addressing them from a dogmatic perspective, but rather leaving them vague in the name of the primacy of the pastoral approach.

The Secretary for Promoting Christian Unity expanded his role, moreover, through the influence that he exerted on the “mixed commissions.” Most of these commissions in fact duplicated the curial dicasteries and were composed of bishops who were faithful to Rome. While the Theological Commission rejected all interference by Bea’s secretariat in the composition of the schemas, other commissions agreed to form “mixed commissions” with the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, for instance the Commission for the Discipline of the Sacraments. The best Collaboration Occurred with the Liturgical Commission, whose secretary was Father Annibale Bugnini. Bea’s secretariat asked, in February 1961, for “the widest possible use of the vernacular.” In
April Bea himself intervened: “We must strongly oppose the idea that [liturgical] Latin is a sign of unity. It is more a sign of uniformity than a sign of unity.”

On October 22, eleven days after the opening of the council, John XXIII elevated the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unit to the rank of a commission. This new status gave the organization the right to present schemas to the General Assembly and to correct them. Its role would be decisive.


So for those of you keeping score of what the current Prefect for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Kasper, is doing currently with the marriage issue, let not your hearts be troubled, that position is a pile of rubbish and always has been… lol… we are doomed!... no but seriously LOL!

Friday, September 5, 2014

One of the best Vortex's I've seen in a long while!

I wasnt planning on posting today but when I watched this Vortex I just had to share it.

I think it speaks for itself!

Im guessing Catholic in Brooklyn will complain... but thats what she does... lolROFLMAO


Thursday, September 4, 2014

A possible miracle attributed to Fr. Kenneth Walker's intercession

Fr. Kenneth Walker
I have known about this story or a while now, but I did not want to post anything without letting some time pass, and corrections allowed to be made.  Having said that I think enough time has passed and it seems the events in question have not been refuted, rather they have been affirmed.

I hope you still remember the story about the Fraternity priest Fr. Kenneth Walker who was murdered in his Arizona rectory.  We found out a few days later that Fr. Walker had received extreme unction before he died by Fr. Joseph Terra FSSP, so we had relative confidence that Fr. Walker had departed this world in friendship with our Lord.

“Remember Fr. Kenneth Walker FSSP – the young Priest who was killed at his parish in Phoenix? Following the tragic news of his murder he immediately found a special place in my heart. I have been asking Fr. Walker to intercede for me personally on a private issue since he died and he has done wonders for me keeping me afloat in a very difficult situation. 
Well, two other the priests in the FSSP have a Monk nephew – Br (X), who was diagnosed with cancer. Br (X) mother asked for Father Walker’s intercession in his illness and he has been miraculously cured. The paperwork from the doctor says that it is unexplainable by medical science. There is also a rumour that papers are submitted to Rome to open a case for Fr. Walker’s canonization! 
At the moment nothing has been confirmed, but personally I have no doubt this young man is going to be made a saint. 
Here is a note from Br (X) mother:QuoteThis week, we were very blessed to receive the news that the cancer spot that showed up on Br (X) last test has disappeared. His PET scan was completely clear. Deo gratias! He told us about the cancer being active right after Fr Walker’s funeral. I told him I was going to ask Father (Walker) to obtain for us a completely clear scan. He looked at me like I was speaking Chinese. He was probably thinking, “Now she going to go and spoil it for me when I was going to offer it for souls!” Sorry little Brother/son! Looks like Heaven sided with me this time, with help from Fr Walker!”
The Following note was made in Fisheaters for what its worth in verifying the dioceses position on the matter:

"According to my source at FSSP headquaters, permission was indeed granted by the Oklahoma bishop (I assume Bshp Slattery) to pray specifically to Father Walker. They are currently in the process to make sure no one prayed to anyone else. If not, official papers will be sent to Rome to open up the case for Father Walker!
As a side note an online friend after hearing about the miracle prayed to father Walkerand recieved an answer within 90 minutes regarding something she has been stressing over for months. Perhaps he will be the Patron Saint of Quick Resolutions."

Please pray for Fr. Walker and Fr. Terra, who is still recovering!

h/t Fisheaters