Friday, December 30, 2016

Buchanan: Blind obedience to wishes of Israel is madness

The American, ultimately puritan idea that America must stand with the state of Israel and must be entirely slow to criticize it is pure madness. People worry about the influence of Russians in the election… when you consider how Israel influences politicians here its not even close… just remember that you and I are goy to them, and like Taqiya in Islam, we goys can be manipulated if the jewish cause is pursued.

“Donald Trump has a new best friend. “President-elect Trump, thank you for your warm friendship and your clear-cut support of Israel,” gushed Bibi Netanyahu, after he berated John Kerry in a fashion that would once have resulted in a rupture of diplomatic relations. Netanyahu accused Kerry of “colluding” in and “orchestrating” an anti-Israel, stab-in-the-back resolution in the Security Council, then lying about it. He offered to provide evidence of Kerry’s complicity and mendacity to President Trump. Bibi then called in the U.S. ambassador and read him the riot act for 40 minutes.

… While Kerry has been denounced for abstaining on the U.N. resolution calling Israeli settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem illegal and an impediment to peace, this has been U.S. policy for years.

And Kerry’s warning in his Wednesday speech that at the end of this road of continuous settlement-building lies an Israel that is either a non-Jewish or a non-democratic state is scarcely anti-Semitic …

Prime Minister Ehud Barak, the most decorated soldier in Israel’s history, has warned his countrymen, “As long as in this territory west of the Jordan River there is only one political entity called Israel, it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-Democratic.” “If the bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote” added Barak, “this will be an apartheid state.” Of John Kerry’s speech, Barak said, “Powerful, lucid … World & majority in Israel think the same.” …

You can read the rest HERE

US aid to Israel ‘meaningless,’ to be used against Palestine: Analyst

Israeli use of Pornography against the Muslim and Goy alike

... and yes I know this is not going to win me brownie points, but seriously people, just because they have blood related to Abraham, this does not make them special as our Lord tells them:

John 8: 31-59

[31] Then Jesus said to those Jews, who believed him: If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed. [32] And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. [33] They answered him: We are the seed of Abraham, and we have never been slaves to any man: how sayest thou: you shall be free? [34] Jesus answered them: Amen, amen I say unto you: that whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin. [35] Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever; but the son abideth for ever.

[36] If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. [37] I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. [38] I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father. [39] They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. [40] But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not. [41] You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God. [42] Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: [43] Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. [44] You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. [45] But if I say the truth, you believe me not.

[46] Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me?[47] He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God. [48] The Jews therefore answered, and said to him: Do not we say well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? [49] Jesus answered: I have not a devil: but I honour my Father, and you have dishonoured me. [50] But I seek not my own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.

[51] Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever. [52] The Jews therefore said: Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest: If any man keep my word, he shall not taste death for ever. [53] Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost thou make thyself? [54] Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom you say that he is your God. [55] And you have not known him, but I know him. And if I shall say that I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know him, and do keep his word.

[56] Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad. [57] The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? [58]Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. [59] They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

Thursday, December 22, 2016

Daughters of Mary, Mother of Israel's Hope are looking for a new diocese

So things are not looking particularly good in Tulsa. Before people do anything rash, pray for the bishop and his chancellery and don't send them angry letters or emails... like in the Ripperger situation prudence and meekness is the only way to make it through the situation.

From Okie Traditionalist:

This cold Advent evening I'm setting down my eggnog, heavy-hearted to report what I think is another public tragedy in the Diocese of Tulsa, relevant to traditional Catholics here in the Heartland.

The newly ordained bishop--Bishop David Konderla--is dismissing from his new diocese yet another religious community devoted to the traditional Catholic religious life, known by many local faithful for also actively participating in the Traditional Latin Mass (1962 Missal).

This time it is the Daughters of Mary, Mother of Israel's Hope, a public association of the faithful preparing for years for permanent approval, originally founded by now retired Bishop-emeritus Edward Slattery of Tulsa and Mother Miriam (a Jewish convert known for her talks on EWTN).

From their recent Advent/Christmas 2016 Newsletter (emphasis mine) LINK The new bishop of Tulsa told us earlier this month that he does not see a way forward for our community in the Diocese of Tulsa, Oklahoma. In a memo to Diocesan priests and staff, the bishop wrote: “After careful consideration and prayerful discernment, the Diocese of Tulsa has elected to end its affiliation with the Daughters of Mary, Mother of Israel’s Hope and allow the community to continue their apostolic exploration in another diocese.”

This is a great sadness to us and to many families and individuals in the Diocese of Tulsa and beyond who have worked so hard and given so much to establish our Priory and renovate the guest house that was donated to us. Yet, we are at peace...

Read the rest HERE

Again, prayers needed!

Monday, December 19, 2016

The Alt-Right: Concerning Milo

I have seen a few reposts, and even praises for Milo in regards to his Catholic friendly words he made in MN the other day.  Milo is a complicated character... sort of like Oscar Wilde.

Joseph Sciambra commented on Milo and I thought it was worth relating:


Monday, December 12, 2016

Friday, December 9, 2016

Monday, December 5, 2016

The Alt-Right: Copy and Paste

I was waiting for someone else to touch on this topic a little better. Low and behold those often associated with the Alt-Right did quite a good job of describing what it is and how it came about

"A specter is haunting the dinner parties, fundraisers and think-tanks of the Establishment: the specter of the “alternative right.” Young, creative and eager to commit secular heresies, they have become public enemy number one to beltway conservatives — more hated, even, than Democrats or loopy progressives.

The alternative right, more commonly known as the alt-right, is an amorphous movement. Some — mostly Establishment types — insist it’s little more than a vehicle for the worst dregs of human society: anti-Semites, white supremacists, and other members of the Stormfront set. They’re wrong.

Previously an obscure subculture, the alt-right burst onto the national political scene in 2015. Although initially small in number, the alt-right has a youthful energy and jarring, taboo-defying rhetoric that have boosted its membership and made it impossible to ignore.

It has already triggered a string of fearful op-eds and hit pieces from both Left and Right: Lefties dismiss it as racist, while the conservative press, always desperate to avoid charges of bigotry from the Left, has thrown these young readers and voters to the wolves as well..."

You can read the whole article HERE

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

KTMT: Departure from the Ordinary

Things just keep getting weirder.  We literally have prelates making things up as they go, saying a synod or a novel teaching must be followed because the Holy Spirit says so...

Where did these folks get their formation?

Seriously folks, double down in your prayers, the year of mercy is over, the age of novelty and fragile egos is just heating up!

Some resources on discerning authoritative pronouncements

The Three Levels of Magisterial Teaching

Vatican II and the Levels of Magisterial Teaching

Monday, November 28, 2016

Fr. Ripperger on Harry Potter

With the Amazing Beasts movie coming out, I figured it was a good time to lay down some relevant thoughts on this particular series.  He also addresses Tolkien to some extent:

There was also an argument of the month club debate from a while back on this issue which you can listen to HERE

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Roosh: Nationalism is a Trap

"More people are coming to the truthful conclusion that globalism is a failure and nationalism, where a country’s people and interests are valued above that of non-citizens, is the way forward. A problem is that the globalism-nationalism framework is exactly the type of dialectic elites can use to usher in a global war or crackdown to further increase their power.

The way the elites move an agenda forward is through a dialectic, meaning that two opposing ideologies rub against each other, create friction, and from that comes a desired result (i.e. “order from chaos”). Those in power either control or monitor the existence of both sides to guide and bend the dialectic to serve their ends.

The recent rise in nationalism, I speculate, has been allowed because previous dialectics such as capitalism vs communism and democracy vs terrorism are no longer useful in advancing the desired agenda. Soviet Communism is dead and increased terrorism did not allow planned wars in Syria and Iran to proceed like 9/11 did with Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, the white vs black race war is years late, stubbornly resistant to the gasoline that Obama pours onto the fire. A new dialectic must be nurtured, and so nationalism may just do the trick. Hillary’s recent alt right speech officially debuted American nationalism as the new “enemy.”…

Click HERE to read the full article

Oh and just for fun...

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

The Alt-Right: The Dark Enlightenment

Unlike the Alt-Right as a whole I do find some possibility for agreement with people that are associated more with The Dark Enlightenment

From Wikipedia:

The Dark Enlightenment, or the neoreactionary movement (also simply neoreaction; abbreviated NRx by proponents), is an anti-democratic and reactionary movement that broadly rejects egalitarianism and Whig historiography. The movement favors a return to older societal constructs and forms of government, including support for monarchism and traditional gender roles, coupled with a libertarian or otherwise conservative approach to economics. Some critics have labeled the movement as "neo-fascist". (so yeah they cant beat you, they call you a fascist, but Franco was a good Fascist so sign me up)

If you want to go deep on the Dark Enlightenment I would point you to the following blog HERE

Friday, November 18, 2016

LMS and Fr. Murray on the Rigid Trad Fiasco

There are days I wonder what exactly he was trying to accomplish with such magnanimous humility

"It is very interesting that the Pope should say, one day, that Tradition is a unhealthy fashion which has swept overly impressionable young people off their feet. And then, a few months later, after
further reflection, that Tradition is a refusal to follow fashion, a refusal to adapt to the times, a refusal to receive impressions from outside.

Could it in some way be both? Young traddies fail to have the right principles, so they are swept up by a fashion, and they acquire the wrong principles, which they then stick to in an unreasonable way. This diagnosis is just about possible for one person, who undergoes a surprising change of personality halfway through the process, but it couldn't work for as an explanation of a whole movement. The idea, after all, is to explain traditionalism in terms of a particular character trait which traddies have. Is that trait the trait of being impervious to fashion, or being too open to it? It really can't be both.

When one meets this kind of incoherent account of a person't personality, it is an indication that the person giving the explanation hasn't grasped something. If your explanation of why Napoleon invaded Russia is psychologically incompatible with your explanation of why he signed a Concordat with the Church, then you need a new one.

What is it that Pope Francis can't understand? I am sure it would help him in his 'digging' if he actually met some young traditionalists, spent some time with them, and listened to them. As far as I know he has never done this. What might he discover?

He might discover that young Catholics who find out about the recent history of the Church, and of the liturgy, frequently have the impression that they have discovered something rather exciting, something rather glorious, which has been hitherto hidden from them. This is not about succumbing to a fashion, and it is still less about refusing to move with the times. It is an authentic, personal response to newly available information, and a newly discovered liturgical experience. "

Read the rest from Dr. Shaw HERE

"As regards Pope Francis’ statement that “to speak of a ‘reform of the reform’ is an error,” this notion is something that has been widely discussed and, in some ways, already put into effect (e.g., the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal and the new accurate translation of it into English) precisely because, as Pope Francis told Fr. Spadaro “Vatican II and Sacrosanctum Concilium must go on as they are.”

The reform of the reform is an effort both to implement the reforms of the Mass that the Conciliar Fathers voted for when they approved Sacrosanctum Concilium, and, as needed, to undo the innovations and accretions they never dreamed of, and that were introduced into the Roman Missal or became standard practice with the new Missal.

Those who love the EF Mass are serious, sane Catholics who seek God in the beauty of sublime worship. They deserve a sympathetic hearing from their shepherds. "

Read the rest of Fr. Murray HERE

Monday, November 14, 2016

So many prayers needed

So people are interested in turning to violence both physically and verbally... surprise, if violence if glorified from youth its going to happen

Conservative Catholics (not just progressive types) are taking the lead of an old quote from Pope Francis before he was Pontiff to put traditionalists on blast as rigid, selfish, immature and uncultured.

Cardinals are against Cardinals, Bishops against Bishops, etc.

In all honesty, Our Lady of Guadalupe came during a similar time of upheaval and distrust.

So if you are saying 5 decades of the Rosary kick it up to ten.  Our battle is not against flesh and blood, put on the armor of God and rest your concerns in the loving arms of Our Lady

Pray, Hope and Don't Worry

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Dead Baby Girl Resurrected on Hospital Chapel Altar

When I heard that they were upset with Fr. Pavon about "using" a child as a prop when placing the murdered child on the Altar, I couldn't help but remember a story from a short while back

A nurse in Brazil couldn’t bear to take baby Yasmin Gomes, who died shortly after birth, to the morgue, so she placed the tiny body in a box and carried it to the hospital chapel. She left the small box on the chapel’s altar, and when the baby’s grandmother and a mortician went to retrieve the body, they discovered a miracle.

“At first I couldn’t believe it; we couldn’t accept that it could happen,” Elza Silva, Gomes’ gran, said in a report from The Sun. “Then we saw that she was breathing. We hugged each other and started to shout, ‘She’s alive, she’s alive.’ It was a miracle.”

Hospital records show that Gomes was born alive in Londrina, southern Brazil, but died moments later. Though doctors tried to revive her several times, they eventually declared her dead.

Gomes’ mother, 22-year-old Jenifer da Silva Gomes, was devastated.

“My world crashed down right then. It was the most desperate moment when all my dreams were snatched away,” The Sun reported her saying.

“I can assure you, the child was dead. Her pupils didn’t respond to light,” said Ana Claudia Oliveira, the nurse who accompanied the birth and carried the baby’s body to the chapel, in The Sun article. “All her signs pointed to the complete absence of life. I saw it with my own eyes. She was blue all over, completely dead.”

But three hours later the infant was alive and well, in stable condition and recovering in an intensive care unit.

“People can make their own conclusions, but only those who were there know what really happened,” said Doctor Aurelio Filipak, the doctor who battled to save Yasmin Gomes and signed her death certificate. “In 20 years of medicine, I have never witnessed anything like this.”

The Sun reported the young girl’s family plans to change her name to Victoria, which means victory in Portuguese, and they believed her “resurrection” was a miracle.

“There is no explaining miracles,” the mother said. “They happen as God wants. If it was His will that our daughter had died, we would have accepted it, but He brought her back, so there must be a higher purpose in all this.”

Now it was learned that Fr. Pavon's diocese is looking into his actions.  Now I hope this is done in good will, and I think we should all pray for his Bishop that God's will be done.

But do consider neither the child nor the Altar were desecrated since the dignity of both was always respected just as much as when our Holy Father Francis placed a beach ball on an altar.  If a child can be brought back to life when placed on the altar when the parents recognized both the dignity of the child on and the altar itself, how great is it if once seeing the reverence given by Fr. Pavon for the child by resting the human being in the Holy of Holies a person should be spiritually brought back to life. 

When the abstract idea of a fetus is made concrete and its dignity displayed in the presence of the living God, lives can change!!

The article can be found HERE

But, but Stephen Colbert is such a good Catholic

Has anyone put together a list of all the perversity and disorder that Stephen Colbert has promoted over the years?  Seriously, Pelosi and Biden get justly run over, but this guy gets a break because he uses the word Catholic from time to time in a nice way and so many fawn

He promotes sodomy

He promotes contraception

He promotes abortion

But he teaches his Sunday school... as Ozzy Guillen says:

But need proof?

Oh hows about that election special on Showtime that everyone is spreading around... cause liberals are so profound in their thought... or petty and weak

Comedian on Colbert Election Special: ‘Get Your Abortions Now,’ We’re ‘F*cked’

“It feels like an asteroid has just smacked into our democracy,” she began. “It is so scary and sad and heartbreaking. And I just wish I could be funny. Get your abortions now because we're going to be fucked and we’re going to have to live with it.”

... and Colbert didn't speak up for the unborn.... what a great Catholic - New Evangelization in a nutshell, dialogue without ultimate purpose in mind.

Read the rest HERE

Friday, October 28, 2016

Breaking Luther: The real, unsanitized truth... that ain't chocolate


The following talk on the life and misdeeds of the heresiarch is well worth your time, especially in an age that tries to sanitize what is truly an unmitigated bad fella'


Tuesday, October 25, 2016

The Alt Right: Closer origin of the Neoreactionary Movement

I had promised to continue the series on the Alt Right since few people are willing to be honest and not over react to them.  Perhaps the best thing to do is to first explore the more current origins. So lets begin with the Neoreactionary movement, which can be also expressed as the Dark Enlightenment, but for our purposes here, I will separate the two, and talk about the latter later on.

The following is taken from a noted site:

Who Are the Neoreactionaries?

...Neoreactionaries believe that while technology and capitalism have advanced humanity over the past couple centuries, democracy has actually done more harm than good. They propose a return to old-fashioned gender roles, social order and monarchy...


...Perhaps the one thing uniting all neoreactionaries is a critique of modernity that centers on opposition to democracy in all its forms. Many are former libertarians who decided that freedom and democracy were incompatible.

Exactly what sort of monarchy they’d prefer varies. Some want something closer to theocracy, while Yarvin proposes turning nation states into corporations with the king as chief executive officer and the aristocracy as shareholders.

For Yarvin, stability and order trump all. But critics like Scott Alexander think neoreactionaries overestimate the stability of monarchies — to put it mildly. Alexander recently published an anti-reactionary FAQ, a massive document examining and refuting the claims of neoreactionaries. ...


...Yarvin proposes that countries should be small — city states, really — and that all they should compete for citizens. “If residents don’t like their government, they can and should move,” he writes. “The design is all ‘exit, no ‘voice.'”...

The Cathedral

...Neoreactionaries believe “The Cathedral,” is a meta-institution that consists largely of Harvard and other Ivy League schools, The New York Times and various civil servants. Anissimov calls it a “self-organizing consensus.” Sometimes the term is used synonymously with political correctness. The fundamental idea is that the Cathedral regulates our discussions enforces a set of norms as to what sorts of ideas are acceptable and how we view history — it controls the Overton window, in other words.

The name comes from Yarvin’s idea that progressivism (and in his view, even today’s far right Republicans are progressive) is a religion, and that the media-academic-civil service complex punishes “heretical” views.

So what exactly is the Cathedral stopping neoreactionaries from talking about? Well, the merits of monarchy for starters. But mostly, as far as I can tell, they want to be able to say stuff like “Asians, Jews and whites are smarter than blacks and Hispanics because genetics” without being called racist. Or at least be able to express such views without the negative consequences of being labeled racist. ...

You can read the whole article HERE

Friday, October 21, 2016

10/28: The Battle of Tours - A talk by Dr. Donovan (St. Stans)

On October 28th, Dr. Donovan will be giving a lecture on The Battle of Tours.  This was a great battle between Charles Martel and his forces against the invading muslims. 

Dr. Sean Donovan is a Milwaukee area physician and retired U.S. Navy Captain, now in private practice after 29 years' naval service. His last tour of active duty was with 1st Battalion, 25th Marines, in Fallujah, Iraq. He has published and spoken on medical and historical subjects in a variety of venues.

Dr. Donovan's interest in the Battle of Tours dates to an invitation to a wedding in Tours twenty years ago. At that time, the tragic events which have since befallen France and the West were nearly unimaginable; now France is once more at the center of a struggle with antecedents traceable to - and before - Tours in 732.

Dr. Donovan invites all interested to join in a consideration of the Battle of Tours, how it came to be fought, and its lasting historical significance. The event is open to everyone, and we suggest a ten dollar donation. A social will follow for young adults from the ages of 18 to 40. Hope to see you there!

This is being put on by Sursum Corda MKE, but all are invited to the talk.  Also, if you are a young adult you are invited to a social afterwards and many other events the following day. Feel free to come.  They ask that you sign up if possible for food reasons:

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Breaking Luther: St. Bellarmine rebukes Luther's idea of the Rock being the confession of faith

The following excerpt is taken from the book "On the Roman Pontiff (De Controversiis Book 1)" by St. Robert Bellarmine.  Until only a couple years ago this text had not been translated into English, but thanks be to God Ryan Grant, the founder of Mediatrix Press has translated many of the great saints works.  Please support Ryan and his company, it is a great gift to the church!

“Therefore, four questions must be explained to us. First: whether Peter might be that rock upon which the Church shall be founded. Second: whether that foundation might be the ruler of the whole Church. Third: whether Peter might be the one to whom the keys are given. Fourth: whether the full power to govern the Church should be understood through the keys. On the first question there are four opinions...

The fourth is of Luther and the Centuriators, that faith or the confession of faith is the rock, concerning which the Lord spoke in this place...

The fourth opinion remains, which is common among nearly all Lutherans, and at first glance appears to be confirmed by the testimony of the Fathers. Accordingly Hillary teaches: “The building of the Church is the rock of confession . . . This faith of the Church is the foundation: through this faith the gates of hell are weak against it: this faith of the kingdom of heaven holds the keys.” St. Ambrose says: “The foundation of the Church is faith.” St. John Chrysostom: “Upon this rock I will build my Church, that is faith and confession.” Likewise Cyril, explaining this citation: “I reckon he called the rock is nothing other than unshaken and firm faith of the disciple.”

Illyricus adds: “If it is founded upon Peter, and rather not upon the confession of Faith of the Church, then immediately it would have fallen. For Peter soon ran at the point of the Lord’s passion, and he fell. Moreover in the same Chapter of St. Matthew, it is said to him: ‘Get behind me Satan, you are a scandal to me, because you do not have a sense of what is of God.’ Thereupon he denied Christ a third time, and not without a great curse.”

I respond: Faith, or confession, is considered in two ways. In one way it absolutely followed itself, and without any relation to the person of Peter: in the second way with relation to Peter. In the first way it appears our adversaries would have it that faith is the foundation of the Church, but certainly they are deceived. If it were so, why didn’t the Lord say, instead of: “I will build upon this rock,” “I am building,” or “I have built my Church”? Many had already believed that he was the son of the living God, as early as the prophets, the Blessed Virgin, Simeon, Zachariah, John the Baptist, the apostles and remaining disciples.

Next, faith taken up absolutely is rightly called the foundation of justification and of all strength, as Augustine says: “The house of God is founded by belief, erected by hope, perfected by love.” But the foundation of the Church is not properly faith. There ought to be a foundation of the same kind, as well as the rest of the building. The Church is a congregation of men, just as of living stones, therefore the stone, which is the foundation, ought to be also some man, not some virtue.

Last, that pronoun this most clearly showed that through the rock faith cannot be understood absolutely: for it is referred more closely to the one named rock: next, it had been said to Simon: “You are rock,” not to faith; therefore it behooves us to accept faith in the second way is the foundation, and to say not any faith you please, but the faith of Peter, and not of Peter as a private man, but as the shepherd of the Church. It coincides with that, which we said in this regard, that Peter is the foundation.

Therefore the faith of Peter is the foundation of the Church for a two-fold reasoning. First, that on account of the merit of his faith Peter attained that he should be the foundation of the Church, as Jerome, Hilary, Chrysostom and others show on this place. Secondly, because Peter is chiefly in the very matter the foundation of the Church, that since his faith cannot fail, he ought to confirm and hold up all the others in faith. Thus, the Lord said to him: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith should not fail, and when thou hast converted strengthen thy brethren.”

Therefore, by reasoning of his indefectible faith, Peter should be the firmest rock, sustaining the whole Church; it is the same thing to say “upon Peter” and “upon his faith” the Church was founded, and the Fathers cited speak in this manner. For St. Hilary, after he had said the faith of Peter is the foundation of the Church, and receives the keys of the kingdom, he adds on Peter himself: “He merited a preeminent place by the confession of his blessed Faith,” and a little after: “Hence, he holds the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence, his earthly judgments are heavenly, etc.”

Therefore, as he had said, “faith is the foundation and holds the keys,” so now he says Peter by reason of his faith merited a preeminent place, that is, that he should be the head, or foundation, and should hold the keys. And he says the same thing most beautifully about Peter: “O happy foundation of the Church by the solemn decree of a new name.”

For equal reasoning St. Ambrose, where he says the faith of Peter is the foundation of the Church, he notes the same thing: “He did not refuse to his disciple the favor of this word, that he should also be Peter, who as the rock should have solidity of steadfastness and firmness of faith.”

Chrysostom explaining in both citations, why it is that the Church is built upon the confession of Peter, introduces the Lord speaking thus: I will build my Church upon you.”

Next, Cyril also says the foundation is not any faith, but that unconquerable and most firm faith of St. Peter; and he writes that Peter himself is the rock, upon which the Church is founded.

Now I respond to the objection of Illyricus, firstly with the commentary of Jerome for this chapter: when Peter was told: “Get behind me Satan” and when he denied Christ, he was not yet the foundation. Therefore the place Christ promised him, he had intended to give to him after the resurrection. Add, that Peter did not err on the faith, but was merely ignorant of something, when he was told, “Get behind me Satan,” and he was lacking in charity, not in faith, when he denied Christ. That we will teach in its proper place in the treatise on the Church.”

Monday, October 17, 2016

I don’t remember hearing that...

The desire by some to flee from the visible and actual, lets be clear, actual Petrine office held by Pope Francis is quite boring. Why do these folks flee from the trial? How much has been written by these self appointed doctors, and yet how often as their work led people to pray, fast and give more alms for the love of Christ and his Church?

I dont remember Dom Bosco relating the sea would be calm. I don’t recall that before the sea became so the Man in White safely brought the ship in before the storm hit. The storm is here, be a man, embrace the trial with charity, clarity and just piety.

Vision of Dom Bosco

It is not the call of any single prelate, clergyman or gun totting blogger to declare anything in regards to Peter. Know your roll. If you are not willing to do at least twice the amount of time praying you do complaining, please do us all a favor and stop causing greater scandal. Thank you.

Pray for Peter
Pray for your bishop
Pray for your priest
Pray for the Church

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

160+ Relics coming to St. Stanislaus on October 26th

This will be the sole Milwaukee stop for the Treasures of the Church ministry

Treasures of the Church is a ministry run by Fr. Carlos Martins of the Companions of the Cross. This is an experience of the Living God through an encounter with the relics of His saints. The exposition begins with a multi-media presentation on the Church's use of relics. After the presentatioon, stay and venerate the relics of some of your favoite saints!

The following link takes you to a list of the relics that will be present for the exposition:

Friday, October 7, 2016

The Heresy of Race: Chesterton as prophet in showing the connection between Hitlerism, Prussian identity and the Jewish notion of racial superiorit

Note: I do not necessarily agree with everything said by the authors herein, but it is worth understanding without name calling

** I will first post a link to GK Chesterton’s article on how the Jewish understanding of racial superiority and how it influenced the prussian mind that would later have a role in Hitlerism(fyi, the Church does not support the idea of race, she recognizes ethnicities, but ones DNA is not regarded in Catholic tradition) . After which I will post a short excerpt from a website that goes more into depth on the essay. Finally, it is worth noting some parallels in the current build up of Russian identity as the Third Rome and so forth. So here we go

The Judaism of Hitler – GK Chesterton

Click here for article

“...Deliquescent religious syncretism always weakens the integrity of the cultural immune system and subverts a healthy resistance to intrusive and destructive ideologies and alien faiths. But, in addition to this kind of Dialectic of “Solve et Coagula” – i.e., a sort of Hegelian process of emergence and convergence, or amalgamation and “aggregation into larger political units” – Chesterton also saw another, narrower and more concentrated development: namely, a certain very incongruous combination of “heathenry and heresy;” a sort of Hegelian consolidation of “Old Testament Christianity” and a New Heathenism. It was the ideology of Prussianism: an eclectic amalgamation of Lutheranism and Neo-Paganism, which then developed into the Neo-Paganism and Hitlerian “Heresy of Race.” It appeared to him to be deeply rooted in Prussia, although Chesterton saw it coming from even deeper spiritual and historical sources, as we shall see...

Chesterton's deep discernments and warnings about the impending danger of a “narrow national and tribal fury” and the towering weakness of intellectual and spiritual Pride should help us understand, in order to resist, both aggressive American “Exceptionalism” today and its self-destructive arrogance, and Christian (as well as Judaic) Zionism's comparably insolent sense of “Chosenness” and “Morally Immune Exclusiveness.” Like Chesterton's own “vivid conviction” about neo-Pagan “Prussianism,” we see these later developments, too, as “a poison to the world.”...

One of Chesterton's specifically profound and farsighted essays, entitled “The Judaism of Hitler,” will, furthermore, help us see the deeper background of World War II; but it will also aid our understanding of the current wars we are in, and not only in the Middle-East. We may also thereby come to realize why there are now so many growing barriers, and even legal penalties, as well as various psycho-techniques of intimidation, set up against any candid scholarly inquiry into certain neglected or hidden truths of history, especially the history of World War II, but even of World War I. Chesterton himself saw that “the Armistice” after World War I was not truly a “Peace,” but rather, only “a Truce”: a mere temporary “stacking of arms,” full of bitterness, and with a latent explosiveness, indeed. Chesterton, reflecting upon the then-impending second War in Europe and the wider world, saw “Hitlerism” itself as a further manifestation of “Prussianism,” though with an admixture of some new “biological,” as well as “Asiatic” and often “Gnostic,” ideological variants. “Hitlerism's” own “racial arrogance” prompted the generous and humble Chesterton to make his own trenchant “analysis of the heresy of Race,” and to resist the permeating and resurgent spiritual disease of Pride.

In a certain sense, “Hitlerism” was for Chesterton a sort of “New Prussia,” with an added Asiatic spirit of the Huns, as well as the haughtiness of “the Nordic Man” and a new form of an old thing: “the heresy of Race.” Because of this combination of cruelty and cold Pride, Chesterton himself retained that “vivid conviction that Prussia was Prussianism and Prussianism a poison to the world”  – like their contemporary Asiatic analogue, Japanese militarism. But, he adds, with his unmistakable irony: “General Goering may be trusted to teach us better; till we learn at least thatnothing is so anarchical as discipline divorced from authority; that is from right.”[11] (The New American Empire, however, with its own blinding Pride, seems not yet to have learned this lesson: this truth about Power divorced from moral authority and its ill-fruits of anarchy.)

Because of its own pervasive Pride, Chesterton mightily opposed the martial ideology of “Prussianism” and the “Prussian militaristic government,” even from its inception; but he especially opposed its later public dominance over what he calls “the Old Germany,” which included “Austria,” as well. His reasons for his resistance are important, and timely:

As man may say, as a scientific fact, that there is in Northern China a well of petroleum, we said [before, during, and after World War I] that there is in Northern Europe a fountain of poison. It is a fact; it continues to flow. It is obviously nonsense to call it Germany. It is not really satisfactory even to call it Prussia. It is much more satisfactory simply to call it Pride. It is a thing of the spirit; it is not a nation; it is a heresy [a combination of “heathenism and Lutheranism”]. It is an idealoutside the European ideal; outside what most of us would call the normal human ideal. It is something alien to Europe, which Europe cannot digest and did not destroy.

Thus, as of the early 1930s, especially, says Chesterton: The result is that Prussia begins to reappear; which means that Militarism [as in Japan and in Kemal Ataturk's Turkey] begins to reappear. Prussia means Prussianism now exactly as it meant Prussianism then; it always did, it always does, and (short of a spiritual conversion) it always will. Prussia is a patch of eighteenth century heathenry and heresy [and of Old Testament Christianity], which never did believe, nor (to do it justice) generally pretend to believe, in any sort of international ideal or common code of Christendom [much less the Creed of Catholic Christendom]. From the first command of Hohenzollern to the last appeal of Hitler, it [“Prussianism”] is the most simple, one-sided, savage tribal patriotism .... The consequence is that Prussia is the one European State that [as of the mid-1930s] may at any moment wage [like America today] an aggressive war. We all said this steadily for five years [1909-1914] ...; and some of us have always refused to unsay it. But a good many [the New Pacifists] seem to have been ashamed for ten years [1919-1929] of having told the truth; and are still ashamed, even when [circa 1933-1935] the truth has once again come true.

The reality called Europe made sense to Chesterton only when “you see Europe as Christendom.” Therefore, this alien thing called “Prussianism” (as an ideology and spirit, and a stunting deformation) is something difficult for him to characterize with fair adequacy. He says:

It is difficult to find a fit word for it [this alien spirit] .... The nearest definition I know is this. The civilized man, like the religious man, is one who recognizes that something exists besides himself .... what medieval people called Christendom or the judgment of all Christian princes; what any Christian will call the conscience of man as a witness to the justice of God .... But in one way or other that is the test; that the man [or nation] does not think his dignity lowered by admitting a general law [like the Natural Moral Law or the Ten Commandments or the Sermon of the Mount]though it might go against him.

Further describing this truly alien and destructive spirit of “Prussianism,” Chesterton says:

There does really lie to the north-east between us [in Britain] and the Christian State of Poland and the almost Asiatic State of Muscovy, a real independent source or spring of the opposite spirit [to traditional Christian Europe]. It is not only something that praises itself; it is something that needs no praise except its own .... He [i.e., the Prussian] is simply proud of himself and his sort; and would be equally proud of wrecking [Catholic] Christendom or enslaving humanity. This is the problem of Prussia, which is not even the problem of Prussians, but only of Prussianism. It is certainly not the problem of limits they have accepted and the [Prussian] leadership they have obeyed. But the point is that something unbaptized and barbaric does remain among the [European] nations; as it would say unconquered; as we should say, unconverted; and, anyhow,entirely unrepentant.

We shall soon see that this “Prussianism,” in Chesterton's farsighted understanding, is at the roots of “Hitlerism” and its own “racial arrogance,” although “Hitlerism” ultimately drew upon an older source, as well. The idea of a “Chosen People” can very easily become pervaded with the spirit of Pride, which is, once again, not a spiritual strength, but, rather, a towering spiritual weakness.

In such “Prussianism,” as in the more intense “racial arrogance” of the later “Hitlerism,” Chesterton would always say: “There is that fountain of poisonous pride, there is that isolated idolatry of self.” Moreover, he would add:

And clear and honest thinking must not shrink from starting afresh with that first fact [i.e., that the 1918 Armistice was not a Peace], that there is in Christendom, unconverted and unconquered, a force that is not Christian. Surely it is not so very impossible to believe that it was this [“Prussianism”] that threatened the world with war in 1914; when it is obviously this [i.e., this “Prussianism” which is to be found in the new Hitlerism and in the very “Judaism of Hitler”] that threatens it with war now [in the mid-1930s]?

With characteristic magnanimity and humility, Chesterton says:

Let us forget for a day whatever we may think about the faults of others [like the Pride of “Prussianism”]; and pray that we may not again wreck the hope of the world by faults of our own. Let us pray that if the challenge [of a New War] does indeed come again, we may not meet it byrandom slander or roaring self-righteousness .... Let us pray to be delivered from the vices and vulgarities of our own [decadent and post-Christian] civilization; and all the more if we sincerely believe that it is still a civilization, and may need to be defended from something that is still a savagery.

Becoming more specific about the deeper and now more developed “Prussianist” threats in “Hitlerism,” a modest Chesterton winsomely adds:

If the ruin that fell on the House of Hohenzollern [in World War I] was, as I still believe, a doom earned and provoked by the dehumanized pride of Prussia, we [Christians and British] must not forget that the vast economic collapse [in 1929] that has affected the victors [in World War I] hasalmost as much of the quality of a great historical judgment; and the rebuke of fate to our own mercantile and mechanical [and now psycho-electronic] culture. In so far as modern men can face such facts frankly, they will be worthy to find peace or fitted to face war.

With this brief background-consideration of “Prussianism” and its own “poisonous fountain of Pride,” we may now examine the more censored and explosive topic of “Hitlerism” and its cognates and antecedents.

Chesterton forthrightly says: “Hitlerism is almost entirely of Jewish origin” With his drollery and charm, he notes at once that “This truth might not have the soothing effect which I desire;” and playfully adds that “This simple historical explanation, if it were written on a post-card or a telegraph-form, and addressed to Herr Hitler's private address, might or might not cause him to pause in his political career, and reconsider all human history in the light of the blazing illumination with which I have furnished him in these words”! These words, he then seriously contends, “are none the less strictly historical” and must now be more amply examined.

Admittedly, says Chesterton, the creative and imitative Germans

Produced a sort of Prussianism that was praised or blamed as militarism; but they borrowed the idea of militarism from the French .... The greatest of the Prussians [Frederick II, Frederick the Great of Prussia] did not even conceal his contempt for Prussia. He refused to talk anything but French, or to exchange ideas with anybody, except somebody of the type of Voltaire. Then came the liberal ideas of the French Revolution, and the whole movement of German Unity was originally a liberal movement on the lines of the French Revolution. Then came the more modern and much more mortally dangerous idea of Race, which the Germans borrowed from a Frenchman named Gobineau. And on top of that idea of Race, came the grand, imperial idea of a Chosen Race, or a sacred seed that is, as the Kaiser said, the salt of the earth; of a people that is God's favourite and guided by Him, in a sense which He does not guide other lesser peoples. And if anybody asks where anybody got THAT idea, there is only one possible or conceivable answer. He got it [the idea of a Chosen Race] from the Jews.

With a view to Nineteenth-Century and to Twentieth-Century Weimar Germany, Chesterton then says, with trenchancy and some softer irony, the following: It is perfectly true that the Jews have been very powerful in Germany .... But the Germans will find it very hard to cut up their culture on a principle of Anti-Semite amputation .... But again, it is but [i.e., only] just to Hitlerism to say that the Jews did infect Germany with a good many things less harmless than the lyrics of Heine or the melodies of Mendelssohn. It is true that many Jews toiled at that obscure conspiracy against Christendom; and sometimes it was marked not by obscurity but obscenity. It is true that they were financiers, or in other words usurers; it is true that they fattened on the worst forms of Capitalism; and it is inevitable that, on losing these advantages of Capitalism, they naturally took refuge in its other form, which is Communism. For both Capitalism and Communism rest on the same idea: a centralization of wealth which destroys private property. (Materialism is modern lingo for this)

Probing deeper into this mystical “idea of a Chosen Race,” our author concludes:

But among the thousand and one ways in which Semitism affected Germanism is in this mystical idea, which came through Protestantism [originally a kind of “Old Testament Christianity,” as often noted]. Here the Nordic Men, who are never thinkers, were entirely at the mercy of the Jews, who are always thinkers. When the Reformation had rent away the more Nordic sort of German from the old idea of human fellowship in a Faith [the Catholic Faith] open to all, they obviously needed some other idea that would at least look equally large and towering and transcendental. They began to get it through the passionate devotion of historical Protestants to the Old Testament.

That is to say:

By concentrating on the ancient story of the Covenant with Israel, and losing the counterweight of the ideal of the universal Church of Christendom, they [the Protestants, especially the “Prussianized” or “Hitlerized” Protestants] grew more and more into the mood of seeing their religion as a mystical religion of Race. And then, by the same modern processes, their education fell into the hands of the Jews.

By way of further explanation of this last sentence, Chesterton observes:

There are Jewish mystics and Jewish sceptics; but about this one matter of the strange sacredness of his own race, almost every Jewish sceptic is a Jewish mystic. When they insinuated their ideals into German culture, they doubtless very often acted, not only as sceptics, but as cynics. But, even if they were only pretending to be mystics, they could only pretend to understand one kind of mysticism. Thus, German mysticism became more and more like Jewish mysticism”

It is worth reading the article in full HERE

Finally, with all this insanity from the Russians wanting to be recognized as the “third Rome” (already heretical seeing as they think authority for the Church rests with the empire and not with Peter), we can see how the influence of super race theory noted in John 8:39 (where the Jews pounded their chests with pride saying they were of the seed of Abraham and therefore superior) just moves from central Europe to the ole’ sleeping bear. It’s not a secret who funded the Bolshevik revolution, and that the Russians now should fall into the same trap as the Germans, and yes we as the Exceptional Americans (as Beck put it we are exceptional because we believe Man can rule himself... does anyone else see any problems here with that idea?) Just keep a close eye on Russia and the US as both are likely to be pitted against each other to “see” who is more exceptional, or shall we say superior?

Since this is always a Hot button topic since the term "Jewish" is in use, it is worth again noting that what is being talked about here is an idea propagated originally by the Jewish people, but it does not come intrinsically from their being.  Most Jews do not think as such, but the idea is so far beyond them at this point that its origin is not relevant unless you are willing to tackle "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit" E. Michael Jones has hit on along with many of the saints and Doctors of Holy Mother Church.  And, if your response is that this is anti-Semitic, take it some place else, you don't know my background and your definitions are vague and therefore useless.  The point is not to hate anyone, only to correct a false understanding with charity before others pay for bad ideas.

Pray for the Jews, and pray that the Puritan and Orthodox heresies will cease before more problems arise.

Oh and pray for Pope Francis and your Bishop, we all need many, many prayers!

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Revelations to St. bridget on the fall of the angels, their knowledge and His love for her

The following excerpt was taken from "The prophecies and revelations of Saint Bridget of Sweden:

The teaching of Christ to his bride about how she should live and also about how the devil admits to Christ that the bride loves Christ above all things, and about how the devil asks Christ why he loves her so much and about the love that Christ has for the bride.

Chapter 34

“I am the creator of the heavens and the earth. I was true God and true man in the Virgin’s womb and I rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. You my new bride have come to an unknown place. Therefore, you must do four things: First, you must know the language of the place. Second, you must have proper clothes. Third you must know how to organize your days and your time according to the custom of the place. Fourth, you must become accustomed to the new food. So, since you have come from the instability of the world to the stability, you must learn a new language, that is, the abstinence from useless and vain words and sometimes even from permissible ones in order to observe the importance and virtue of silence. Second, your clothes should be humble both in the interior and exterior so that you do not extol yourself inwardly as being holier than others, nor your time should be ordered in such a way that just as you before used to have much time for the needs of the body, so now you should only have time for the soul, that is, to never again want to sin against me. Fourth, your new food is abstinence from gluttony and from delicacies with all prudence, as far as your human nature can endure it. The abstinence that goes beyond the capacity of human nature is not pleasing to me, for I demand the rational and taming of lusts.

Then the devil appeared in the same moment. Our Lord said to him: “You were created by me and have seen all justice in me. Answer me now whether this new bride of mine is lawfully mine by proven justice. For I allow you to see and understand her heart so that you may know how to answer me. Does she love anything else as much as me or would she take anything in exchange for me?”

The devil answered: “She loves nothing as much as you, and rather than losing you, she would suffer any torment, if only you gave her the virtue of patience. I see like a bond of fire descending from you to her and it ties her heart so much that she thinks of and loves nothing but you.” Then our Lord said to the devil: “Tell me how she pleases your heart or how you like this great love I have for her.” The devil said: “I have two eyes; one is corporeal, although I am not corporeal, and with this eye I perceive temporal things so clearly that there is nothing so secret or dark that it could hide itself from me. The second eye is spiritual, and I see so clearly with it that there is no pain so small that I cannot see and understand to which sin it belongs. And there is no sin so small or slight that i do not see it unless it has been purged by repentance and penance. But, although there are no body parts more sensitive and vulnerable than the eyes, I would still much rather desire that two burning torches without end penetrated my eyes than for her to see with the eyes of the spirit.

I also have two ears. One is corporeal, and no one can speak so secretly and silently that I do not immediately hear and know it through this ear. The second ear is spiritual, and no one can have such a secret thought or desire for any sin, that I do not hear it through this ear, unless it has been washed away by penance. And I would gladly prefer that the suffering of hell, surging forward like a stream and spreading the most terrible hot fire without end flowed through my ears than that she should hear anything with the ears of the spirit. I also have a spiritual heart, and I would gladly let it be ceaselessly cut to pieces and constantly renewed to the same suffering in order for her heart to grow cold in your service and love.

But, since you are righteous, I now have a question for you that you may answer. Tell me, why do you love her so much? Why did you not choose someone holier, richer and prettier for yourself?” Our Lord answered: “Because justice demanded this. You were created by me and have seen all justice in me. Tell me, while she is listening, why it was justice that you should have such a bad fall and what you were thinking when you fell!” The devil answered: “I saw three things in you. I saw your glory and honor being above all things, and I thought about my own glory. For this reason I became proud and decided to not merely become your equal, but to be even higher than you. Second, I saw that you were mightier than all others, and therefore I desired to be mightier than you. Third, I saw what would happen in the future, and since your glory and honor are without beginning and would be without end, i envied you and thought that I would gladly be tortured forever by the most bitter punishment if, thereby, you would die. And with such thoughts and desires I fell, and immediately hell was created.”

Our Lord answered: “You asked me why I love my bride so much. Assuredly, it is because I change all your malice into good. For since you became proud and did not want to have me, your Creator, as your equal, therefore, humiliating myself in all things, I gather sinners to myself and make myself their equal by giving them my glory. Second, since you had such an evil desire that you wanted to be more mighty than I, therefore I make sinners more mighty than you and partakers in my power. Third because of your envy against me, I am so full of love that I offered myself up and sacrificed myself for the sake of everyone through my death.” Thereafter, our Lord said: “Now, devil, your dark heart is enlightened. Tell me, while she is listening, what love I have for her.”

The devil answered: “If it were possible, you would gladly suffer the same pain in each and every limb just as you once suffered on the cross in all of your limbs, before losing her.” Then our Lord answered: “Since I am so merciful that I do not refuse my mercy and forgiveness to anyone asking for it, ask me then humbly for mercy and forgiveness to anyone asking for it, ask me then humbly for mercy yourself, and I will give it to you.” The devil answered: “Never shall I do this. For when I fell, a punishment was established for every sin and for every worthless word and thought. And every spirit or devil that fell will have his punishment. And before I would bend my knee before you, i would rather swallow all the punishments in me, as long as my mouth could be opened and closed in punishment, so that my punishment would be forever renewed.”

Then our Lord said to his bride: “See how hardened the lord of the world is and how mighty he is against me because of my hidden justice. I could indeed destroy him in a moment through my power but I do not more injustice to him than to a good angel in the kingdom of Heaven. But when his time comes, and it is now approaching I shall judge him with his followers. Therefore, my bride, may you always persevere in good deeds. Love me with all your heart. Fear nothing but me. I am namely the Lord over the devil and all things created.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

The Alt Right: Kek Worship

It has been my intention for a while to write a little on the Alt-Right since the media has pinned them as bigots, xenophobes and racists.  I don't necessarily disagree with this take; however, like any movement there are good and bad parts to it that need to be appreciated and condemned respectively.

Now, within the movement are sub-groups of people that are not afraid to bring their faith into the public square, including a few Catholics.  One of these, of which I have mentioned in the past, is Davis Aurini.  Mr. Aurini has recently come across some concerning aspects within the movement, namely the deification of Kek and Pepe the Frog.  So without further adu:

Friday, September 23, 2016

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Some great talks on creation by the Kolbe Center

For a very long time I considered evolution and Big Bang theory to be a matter of truth. I would laugh alongside Peter Kreeft when he would mock creationists. Sadly, but in a joyful manner, I find myself taking the position that Genesis was in-fact a historical text and the evolution and big bang theories are nothing more than a joke. I don't say this flippantly, but only after long consideration from studies on physical evidence and the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers.

There is so much to be known:


Friday, September 16, 2016

KTMT: Bishop to bishop letters are magisterial just because... lol

As I have stated in the past I will reserve my takes on the current papacy; however, there is something to be said about how poorly catechised trads and neo catholics are.

First, lets be clear, all these statements carry about as much authority and binding influence as a glazed donuts do to the appetite of a boulder... absolutely none. Personal letters from a bishop to a bishop or to a person do not constitute magisterial teaching, no matter how frustrating.  To say otherwise would necessarily lead to Pope Liberius' ambiguous letter to his fellow bishop constituting formal teaching, which we deny as Catholics in accordance with the formal teaching from Vatican Council One.

Yes he said the gates of hell would not prevail, this does not mean that a Pope cannot hold to an erroneous take, such would be a personal sin because the proposed teaching would be a novelty, thus when subjected to the ordinary magestarium, as all teachings are, would violate one if not more of the marks of the church and could be ignored as a novelty by the faithful.

Francis is the Pope, I have no reason nor pride to believe anything else at this point.  Is he a great or a bad Pope? History will decide that... I am personally not giddy but if we do more complaining than praying for Peter in the midst of this storm nothing will be fixed any time soon.

Remember that modernists be they bishops or laymen, formal or material, have no interest in formally changing doctrine. They are either consciously or unconsciously aware of the old adage, "Lex Orendi, Lex Credendi". If the practices are changed, an end around can be had to effectively change teachings without formally submitting such. Which is one of the reasons why Bugnini, who asked that the ancient rite be abrogated, was denied permission to formally abrogate the Rite of St. Gregory, but was allowed to do informal restrictions, effectively abrogating its use until really Benedict released Summorum Pontificum.

So, end game... this is not the end. An Irish Paper, even a Vatican paper... dare I say an encyclical or ecumenical council that proposes and even seems to bind the faithful to a novelty is nothing more than one bad night at a hotel in relation to eternity as Teresa of Avila would say.  Its not worth getting hot and heavy about.  The Church doesnt fall under this or that Pope, Rome is not the seat of the Anti-Christ yet, though its entirely frustrating. If you approach the Popes comments as binding and play them off that leads to the confusion seen below.  So, be level headed. Pray, hope and dont worry.  Its not like this is catching God by surprise.  Its that simple

When St. John Bosco had his vision of the Barque of Peter out in the midst of the storm it presumes that Peter took his ship out in the midst of the storm to begin with, the solution is to keep our sights on the Eucharist and Our Lady, offer up the sufferings and be grateful for the trials to grow in and merit from.

Ferrara makes it pretty clear below

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

The world-famous International Pilgrim Virgin Statue of Fatima is coming to St. Stans

The tour of the world-famous International Pilgrim Virgin Statue of Fatima is a nation-wide call to prayer and penance for peace in our nation and conversion of hearts. That’s because prayer is more powerful than any army on earth. Our Lady promised, “in the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.” The tour and your prayers will create an outpouring of grace to allow Our Lady of Fatima to claim her dominion over our country through her Immaculate Heart.

The world-famous International Pilgrim Virgin Statue (IPVS) of Fatima is one of two “twin” statues sculpted in 1947 by famous sculptor José Thedim. The image reflects the precise instructions of Sister Lucia. Her desire was that the pilgrim image represent Our Lady’s position when she revealed herself as the Immaculate Heart to the Shepherds in 1917. Our Lady of Fatima through the Pilgrim Virgin Statue, set forth from Fatima in May, 1947 to claim her dominion and become the Pilgrim of the World, carrying first to devastated Europe after WWII the message of peace...

On October 24, 1952, Pope Pius XII blessed the statue and imparted a special blessing on the work of the Fatima Pilgrim Tours. Throughout the subsequent decades, John Haffert traveled worldwide with the statue, organizing peace tours. The most famous peace tour occurred on October 16, 1992 when six bishops descended on Red Square in Moscow carrying the Pilgrim Virgin Statue. It was crowned at midnight in front of Lenin’s tomb.

The statue has visited more than 100 countries, including Russia and China, bringing the great message of salvation and hope, “the peace plan from Heaven,” to countless millions of people. Many miracles and signal graces have been reported wherever the statue has traveled. On September 1, 2014, the custody and mission of this world-famous statue was placed under the auspice of The World Apostolate of Fatima, USA – “Our Lady’s Blue Army,” and continues her journeys throughout the world with its principal statue custodian Patrick L. Sabat.

About the St. Stan's visit from the Apostolate of Our Lady of Good Success

"The schedule is still being worked on, but you can count on this statue arriving on Oct 6th around 10 AM and staying at our parish until Oct 7th, Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary, after 8 AM Mass. We are hoping that we will have a GREAT turn out for these events on those 2 days! Please pray your rosaries this month for a GREAT success with this wonderful event!

Hoping to have 2 Masses on Oct 6th, benediction,and a night time procession after the evening Mass and before All Night Vigil - we will really need people to stand guard and watch one hour with Our Lord and Our Lady on this night! Let's work together for a beautiful 22 hours with Our Lady of Fatima as I believe she has chosen all of us to help her rekindle this beautiful devotion to Her Immaculate Heart during this 100 anniversary celebration in the Milwaukee area! As she said: "In the End my Immaculate Heart will triumph" May she first triumph over our own hearts! She is counting on all of us!"

Monday, September 12, 2016

A short note on Fr. Ripperger and Bishop Konderla


There is a huge temptation for many out there to show anger at the present situation.  Please, please keep yourself from falling in the trap of not observing piety and humility.  If you are a consistent listener of Father's talks you will note that his love of obedience is always on his mind.

Remember that it is not your job to start a fight. This did not catch God off guard, he has permitted it for a reason and in both humility and obedience Fr. Ripperger and his Order have humbled themselves in Holy Obedience.

Pray for your Bishops, pray for your priests!

If I have not been clear do not make the situation worse by calling up the diocese, prayer for the Bishop and Father are needed not anger. It is in Gods hands either way, dont insert yourself

Friday, September 9, 2016

Great Catholic statesmen of the 20th century

We all know about FDR, Churchhill, Stalin and off course Hitler.  But, how little we know about the other statesmen, statesmen that were Catholic and lived their faith.

This video addresses some of such men.  Hopefully in the future I will write more on each

Éamon de Valera - Ireland

Charles de Gaulle - France

Francisco Franco - Spain

Karl von Habsburg - Austria-Hungry


Wednesday, September 7, 2016

The meaning behind the sacrificial elements of Bread and Wine

The following excerpt was taken from Nicholas Gihr's fantastic work "The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass":

The Sacrificial Elements

The grain of wheat, which is the fat of the land, and the grape, which ripens in the sun, in a manner contain the marrow and blood of the earth, are also intended mainly to renew man's substance and to refresh his blood, and are, therefore, the chief means for the nourishment of his life. Nowhere do these grow wild, but in all places they thrive only by man's careful and laborious cultivation; and when he has harvested the ears and gathered in the grapes, it is still by renewed labor that he must prepare them for food and drink. If, therefore, on the one hand, bread and wine are gifts of God, they are, on the other, products of man; the sweat of his brow cleaves to them, before they are changed into his flesh and blood. Hence they are eminently suited as gifts of man to God; in presenting them we offer to God our fatigue and labor, and in the offering of these gifts we bring to God, so to speak, our flesh and blood, our body and life. Therefore, before our Lord can give and leave us His Flesh and Blood as a sacrifice, we must offer to Him bread and wine, in that we separate and withdraw these articles from the ordinary wants of life, and reserve and sanctify them for Him for His Sacrifice. Consequently, in ancient times the Church permitted the faithful in general to bring bread and wine to the house of God and to place them on the altar, and the priest accepted them as well for the Sacrifice as for his daily support. " : Ears of wheat and bunches of grapes are the most noble and most valuable products of the vegetable world; they compose, so to speak, the flesh and blood of the earth. These "firstlings of God's creatures and gifts" 2 represent, therefore, nature in her entirety, which is in a manner offered to God in the oblations of bread and wine, obtained one from the ears of wheat, the other from the grapes. The offering of bread and wine then symbolizes also the donation of man himself and of his life; for bread and wine are the most excellent means of nourishment, that serve to support and strengthen corporal life.

Therefore, the Psalmist says (Ps. 103, 14 15): "The Lord bringeth bread out of the earth for the service of men, and wine that it may cheer the heart of man." Thus the gifts of bread and wine serve symbolically to represent the offering to God of all created things, as required of man. In the bread and wine, man offers himself and all that he is. It may then be inferred that the separate species of bread and wine are suited to represent the separation of the Blood from the Body of Christ, the painful death of Christ, Christ's bloody sacrifice on the Cross.

The Church requires that the matter used for the Consecration be not only valid and as far as possible genuine, but, moreover, that it be permissible and as far as possible perfect. The bread destined for the sacrificial action must have been made of pure wheaten flour, that has been mixed with natural water and baked in the fire; and that the bread be pure, whole and fresh. The sacrificial wine of the vine must have been pressed from ripe grapes, fully fermented, not soured, nor settled, nor artificially composed; as to the color and taste, it may be red or white, strong or light, naturally sweet or tart. With regard to the color, it is to be re- marked that, although red wine symbolizes more perfectly than the white the Blood of Christ, still white wine is to be preferred, because in its use at the altar cleanliness can more easily be observed. Another prescription respecting the sacrificial elements is that the bread is required to be unleavened and the wine to be mixed with a little water. The use of unleavened bread and the mixing of wine with water have a higher meaning, and are, therefore, strictly pre- scribed by the Church; although they are not required for the valid- ity, yet they are absolutely required for the lawfulness of the Consecration.

The bread should be unleavened. This is a strict ordinance of the Church for the priests of the Latin rite, while on the united Greeks it is as strictly enjoined, according to an old custom, to consecrate only in leavened bread. In the East the Armenians and Syro-.Maronites (like the Latins) use un- leavened bread.

Among the Greeks it appears that leavened sacrificial bread, from the most ancient times, was exclusively or at least generally used. The historic question has not as yet been solved, what kind of bread the Western Church used for the Sacrifice during the first ten centuries. Three different views prevail regarding it among Catholic theologians since the seventeenth century, when the controversy was most animated. P. Sirmond S. J. ft 1651) in his Disquisitio de azymo, sem- perne in usu altaris fuerit apud Latinos defended the assertion (in its universality at any rate exaggerated and incorrect), that the Western Church in the middle of the ninth century consecrated exclusively leavened bread. Christopher Lupus O. S. Aug. (f 1681) first opposed this opinion. But as its chief opponent Mabillon O. S. B. (f 1707) came forth, who principally in his Dissertatio de pane eucharistico azymo ac fermentato defended the diametrically opposite opinion, namely, that in the West the constant and general use of unleavened sacrificial bread had prevailed (among the Apostles only, he admits the partial use of leavened bread). Cardinal Bona O. Cist, (f 1674) takes a middle view, employing the inconclusive arguments used by both opponents, to make it probable, that the Roman Church until late in are equally valid matter of the Sacrifice: the one as well as the other has its peculiar mystical signification. Yet there are more numerous and better reasons for the usage prevalent in the Latin Church; hence the rite of the latter is to be preferred. These reasons are principally the following :

a) The example of Christ at the institution of the Eucharist. The Saviour kept "on the first day of unleavened bread" the Pasch with His disciples therefore, at the time in which the Jews, according to the ordinance of the law, were obliged to have nothing leavened in the house or to partake of it. Consequently, it is generally admitted that Christ consecrated unleavened bread. Although the words of the Lord to His Apostles and their successors commanding them to do the same as He had done at the Last Supper, may not have been a formal command to consecrate unleavened bread, still it is evident that in so grave and sacred a matter the example of Christ should not easily be departed from. To depart from it, the Church has not the slightest reason; on the contrary, she has every reason to retain the use of unleavened bread after the example of Christ, since in many respects the unleavened merits a preference to the leavened bread.

b) The unleavened bread symbolizes very appropriately the Eucharistic Victim and the Eucharistic Food of the soul. The leaven penetrates and soon leavens the entire mass of flour in which it is mixed, changing it into savory bread; from this point of view the Saviour (Matt. 13, 33) calls the Divine Truth and Grace a heavenly leaven that transforms mankind. Otherwise leaven is usually employed in an evil sense. Namely, it displaces the flour in its working, that is, in its fermentation works decomposition or decay; therefore, it serves as a figure of the unclean, the perverse and the corrupted. Unleavened bread, on the contrary, which has undergone no such process of fermentation, is a symbol of purity and cleanliness. Accordingly, only unleavened bread can appropriately indicate the superhuman holiness and purity of the Eucharistic Victim, as well as the incomparable purity and incorruption of the Eucharistic Food of the soul.

c) Inasmuch as unleavened bread calls to our mind, how un- speakably pure and bright the transfigured Body of Christ is, at the same time it also reminds us of the purity of heart and body with which we should approach the Table of the Lord and receive the Food of Angels. According to the counsel of the Apostle (i Cor. 5, 7-8) we must purge out the old leaven of sin and passion, of wicked- ness and wantonness, that we may be "a new paste, as we are un- leavened" and be enabled, when thus sanctified, to partake of the immaculate Flesh of the Eucharistic Victim. These thoughts are beautifully expressed in the Paschal Hymn which says: "Christ is our paschal sacrifice, while for unleavened bread we need but heart sincere and purpose true" (pura puris mentibus sinceritatis azyma}.

b) To the sacrificial wine a small quantity of natural water must be added, according to Apostolic ordinance and the strict discipline of the Church. As this commingling is a holy ceremony, it must take place at the altar before the Oblation and be made in the chalice itself. Even a drop answers the purpose. It is, moreover, advisable and always safe to pour but a little water into the chalice, that the wine be not too much weakened and thus perhaps be spoiled. This mixture is so important and, therefore, so strictly prescribed, that it would never be allowed for a priest to begin the Holy Sacrifice, if he foresaw that no water could be procured. Profoundly significant are the reasons that favor the fitness of this ecclesiastical ordinance and practice.

a) The example of the Savior. That the Lord at the institution of the Eucharist consecrated wine mixed with water, is beyond a doubt. And in favor of this is the circumstance, that the addition of water to the wine at the Paschal meal was a permanent and universally practiced custom from which the Lord surely did not depart. The ancient liturgies and holy Fathers are unanimous in asserting that the Savior mingled the Eucharistic chalice with water. Thus from the time of the Apostles the Church has every- where and at all times faithfully followed after the example of her Divine Master, and has ever consecrated only wine mixed with water. She regarded it, as St. Cyprian writes in his letter to Caeci- lius, as proper that at the mixing and offering of the chalice of the Lord, she should observe the true tradition thereof, in order that at His glorious and triumphant return He may find us adhering strictly to that whereunto He had exhorted us, observing what He had taught and doing what He had done.

Besides this historical reason there are also mystical and sym- bolical reasons.

6) The wine destined to be changed into the Blood of Christ is mixed with water at the altar, that by these two elements the blood and water which flowed, on the Cross, from the wound in the side of Christ may be represented. The piercing and opening of the Heart of Jesus, with the stream of blood and water issuing there from, is a wonderful event and, at the same time, one full of mystical meaning, which should in a very special manner engage the attention of men; for the Evangelist, in speaking of it, mentions this passage of the Prophet: "They shall look on him whom they have pierced" (John 19, 37; Zach. 12, 10). For this occurrence proves not only the truth and reality of the sacrificial death of Christ, but it, moreover, involves a profound symbolism; for the stream of blood and water which proceeded from the wounded Heart of Jesus symbolizes all the graces and blessings that flow to us from the passion and death of Christ. The water, namely, symbolizes Baptism, which is the laver of purification and regeneration; the blood signifies the Eucharist, the fountain of reconciliation and strength unto life eternal. But since Baptism is the beginning, the Eucharist, the end and complement of the remaining sacraments, they are all included in these two principal ones. The outpouring of blood and water from the pierced side of the Redeemer, therefore, symbolically expresses that all the sacraments have their origin in His sacrificial death, that is, that they derive from it their power and plenitude of grace. But the Church is the only lawful possessor and administrator of the sacraments, by virtue of which she in her members is ever undergoing purification and sanctification, enlivened and fructified: hence the holy Fathers behold in the pierced Heart of Jesus also the divine origin of the Church. They say that from the opened side and breast of the second Adam, while slumbering in death, the new Eve, that is, the Church, was formed and came forth. 2 In the Office of the Sacred Lance and Nails it is said: "Thou, O Lance, hast opened to the world the life-giving side, whence came forth the holy Church." Thus from the pierced Heart of Jesus, that is, from the stream of blood and water proceeding therefrom, the pure, immaculate Church was born, and thence the inexhaustible fountain of her graces originated. The rite of the mixing of wine and water in the chalice can and should remind us of these mysteries.

c) The commingling of wine and water in the chalice refers also to that intimate, mystical relationship existing between Christ and His Church. 3 Under this meaning, the noble, precious element of the wine, considered as to its qualities and effects, as well viewed as to the approaching consecration into the Blood of Christ, is taken as a symbol of the God-Man; while the running, flowing water is a speaking figure of unstable, perishable man. "The waters which thou sawest," said the Angel to John, "are peoples and nations" (Apoc. 17, 15). Like wave on wave nations, one oil the other, press upon the stream of time; like billows chasing and rolling on one another, and lost in the deep, generations of men rise, one on another, to sink again in turn into the grave of eternity. The drops of water which have been poured into the chalice no longer exist of themselves, but they are diffused in and incorporated into the wine, partaking of its qualities. Similar is the union of the faithful with Christ: by virtue of this union a change takes place in them and they are made partakers of the divine nature, that is, by sanctifying grace they are made children of God, and by the bestowal of heavenly glory they become heirs of God. For from the Head, Jesus Christ, who is filled with all the treasures of the divinity, the unction of grace flows down to His members, descending even to the hem and extremity of the garment of the Church (Ps. 132, 2), so that she becomes wholly penetrated with the precious flow of heavenly gifts. We are to understand by the commingling of wine and water before the Oblation, first of all, the sacrificial Communion between Christ and the Church, that is, this ceremony is intended to place before our eyes that Christ as the Head, in union with the Church, as His mystical body, offers sacrifice and is offered in sacrifice at the celebration of Mass. Hereby, at the same time, is indicated that unspeakably intimate and exalted relation, which is realized and perfected between the children of the Church and our Redeemer by the Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist. This is that supernatural espousal of which the Apostle wrote to the Chris- tians of Corinth: "I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you a chaste virgin to Christ" (2 Cor. u, 2). It commences here below in sanctifying grace and is consummated above in eternal glory.