Athanasius Contra Mundum Interview with Fr. Ioannes Petrus

This was such an excellent talk!

I wanted to just provide the link and a short description so you too can take in this talk.

"Today Fr. Ioannes Petrus re-joins us for a wide-ranging interview which is perhaps the first one I did not script with pre-planned questions. We discuss voting, the trajectory of government in the West, the current Holy Father, the threat of Islam, Immigration and how Christians should respond to the crisis of our times."

He also touches on Savonarola and even defends the Borgias to a point.

Click HERE for the link

Why do evangelicals vote for Trump?

Trump and the most choosen of God, Jerry Falwell

Have you asked Trump or Cruz to come into your heart and be your temporal Lord and savior?

It's humorous to hear the talking heads [As compared to the mute heads?] blather on about the evangelicals supporting the Trump campaign. They are flustered by this support, saying they understand not how such people of faith could back such a bad candidate. [As compared to the the canadian mounte demigod]

Why is this such a wonder?

Evangelicals base their faith not on objective principles, but on the experiences that brought them to a belief in Christ Jesus.  Let us call it the magical joy of find unicorn Jesus. (since Jesus is who they make him out to be, so why not a unicorn?)  Trump is perfect for them because he is a showman. He is going to give the emotionalists their money's worth.  He will tell them what they want to hear, and whose to tell an individual evangelical they are wrong? It's a pick and choose religion, and if Trump is going to promise them something - and thump the erroneous bible he carries - of course they will love him.  He plays to the lowest common denominator, just like their faith plays to the lowest common denominator. And yes, the normalists like Wiegel and Novak do the same when they reject the kingship of Christ... oh you didn't know he did that? Hmmm....

Trump's got what evangelicals crave, he's got flag waving and emotions... maybe even tongues!

Yay go freedom! Religious freedom is soooooo much fun!

Political Messianism

Now I dont always agree with Mr. Skojak, but his podcast on the current political situation in the US

is worthwhile.  I agree with a great majority of it.

That being said, there are so many nominalists like Weigel and George that are sounding the doom alarms about Trump... but portray Cruz as America's next great hope. The same thing can be said of many traddies like Patrick Arnold who also will not allow the prospect that Cruz is not eligible for the presidential office if one claims to follow the orginalist arguments of the constitution.

I just dont understand what people really think will be, or is worth saving in this culture and the so called American founding as a whole. Trump is a goofball, and I dont trust a word he says, but neither do I just put my trust in Cruz who has bought into the #homoheresy by way of accepting the contraceptive lifestyle.  He promotes religious freedom, you may say... but I dont believe in such, and neither should any Catholic worth his salt.  The constitution is not a divine document and the preservation of the union (this blobistan) is not my concern. I dont offer incense at the altar of Lincoln, MLK jr, or Ted Cruz.  All are increadibly flawed men that bought and propagated error that currently leaves us in the cultural sewage we now see.

I for one am not voting for an ineligable protestant because I wish to follow the reasonable laws set about, which have never been amended. To do so would be to commit an injustice towards a just authority, and though a monarchist I live in a republic so I will observe the just laws therein.

Thats my rant... all hail megratron

Listen to the 1Peter5 Podcast by clicking HERE

Update: The young messiah and the case of nominalism

Brother Andre Marie of the St. Benedict center took on this issue as well in his radio show.
You can find it by clicking HERE
---------------------------------------------

So a new 'Jesus' movie came out during lent... no surprise
The movie contains grevious errors and even outright heresy... no surprise.

Catholics both lay and ordained are applauding the effort... exactly, no surprise.

You can even listen to the 3/11 show of Catholic Answers live in which Steven Grayanus reviews the movie and applauds it, all the while down playing the Christological error within as not important, because... well its complicated.

Dave Armstrong (whom I have had disagreements with in the past) has recently wrote about the nominalism and grevious problems within the movie:


"The Young Messiah is the latest “Bible movie” to appear. The problem is that it’s not (technically speaking) all that “biblical.” We know very little about Jesus’ childhood, and so the film draws from extrabiblical sources of mostly dubious historical value. For background’s sake, it’s drawn from Anne Rice‘s 2005 novel Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt. Rice has since left the Catholic Church and “organized religion” (I have written about the inadequacy of her reasoning in that respect). As soon as I saw the first TV ad for this movie my immediate reaction was to be suspicious of it. I highly suspected that it would portray the young Jesus in a way that was contrary to the Catholic faith, in terms of Jesus’ own self-consciousness and omniscience. I haven’t seen it, but this is indeed the case, according to several sources. One of my roles as a professional Catholic apologist is, of course, to be a sort of watchdog, and I write occasionally about religious films, from that standpoint — not from the purely artistic perspective (though I like art — especially music — as much as the next person).
Thus, following that distinction, I’m not asserting (I want to make it clear) that there is no good in it whatsoever or that it can’t possibly be a good movie qua movie, or move people, or even bring some into the faith or a deeper faith walk (God may use whatever and whomever He likes for that purpose); but it is so suspect that I would strongly recommend avoidance of it, lest someone receive wrong theology from it (more on that below).

I was happy to learn that the director consulted Christian theologians and didn’t include some aspects of Rice’s novel that were thought to be too controversial. Indeed, The Young Messiah has been glowingly reviewed by Cardinal Seán O’Malley, Archbishop Thomas Wenski, and Archbishop Charles J. Chaput. These distinguished men of the Church (I once met Abp. Chaput and am a great admirer of his) seem to see nothing wrong with the movie at all, which (with all due profound respect to the office of bishop, and with trembling) is disturbing to me and a curiosity. Steven D. Greydanus, “everyone’s” favorite Catholic movie critic, wrote an almost ecstatic review. He links to a second piece he wrote specifically about Jesus’ self-awareness. I must, again, respectfully disagree with his summary of the issue of Jesus’ human knowledge (Steven’s not a bishop, but I like his work a lot!). He stated that “when and how Jesus came to the conscious human knowledge of his identity that he did not have at conception is not a matter of clear scriptural teaching or defined Catholic dogma.” This is untrue. There are several aspects of development of the human knowledge of Jesus (an extraordinarily complicated aspect of Christology) that are legitimate and perfectly orthodox. But not knowing Who He was (or growing into that awareness) is not one of these. Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is a solid source for the determination of what the Church teaches on a doctrinal and dogmatic level. It will soon be updated, by the way. My good friend, Dr. Robert Fastiggi, of Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, is involved in that. Dr. Ott provides the following dogmatic statements (his bolding):

Christ’s soul possessed the immediate vision of God from the first moment of its existence. (Sent. certa.) . . . Christ’s soul possessed it in this world . . . from the Conception. . . . (p. 162)

Christ’s human knowledge was free from positive ignorance and from error. (Sent. certa.) Cf. D2184 et seq. (p. 165)"

You can read the rest of it HERE

+jmj+

On Profound Crisis in the Church: Roberto de Mattei (Against Normalist Notions)

The following article can be found in the 4/15 edition of The Remnant.

On Profound Crisis in the Church


(Special Report on a Lecture by

Roberto de Mattei

Roberto de Mattei)
By Vincent Chiarello
COSMOS CLUB, April 9, 2014—The stately Cosmos Club of Washington D.C., located in “Embassy Row” of our nation’s capital was the site of a recent talk by the Italian historian of religion, Roberto de Mattei. The attractive external design of the Cosmos Club is reminiscent of French la belle époque style architecture, and was constructed at the turn of the 20th century.
A crowd of more than 100, including at least four Catholic priests, attended the one-hour lecture in which de Mattei laid out the consequences of Vatican II, the expanded details of which are included in his recently published, The Second Vatican Council, an Unwritten Story.
Roberto de Mattei serves as President of the Lepanto Foundation, which, although American in its origins, maintains an office in Rome and is associated with Italian Christian organizations such as Marcia per la Vita - the March for Life.
He is the editor of the Italian journal,
Radici Cristiane (Christian Roots), and for his work with the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, the Holy See awarded him the insignia of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great.
He is also the author of The Vicar of Christ: Between the Ordinary and the Exceptional, and teaches Church History at the European University of Rome, where he is the head of the Faculty of Historical Sciences. 
De Mattei became a focus of attention when he was recently relieved of his position at Radio Maria, a Vatican radio station, after four years. He was told by Radio Maria’s Director, Fr. 
Livio Fanzaga, the priest who hired him, that the principal reason for his dismissal was that he had not affirmed the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church (my emphasis), something that still puzzles de Mattei and many others. 
In an interview prior to his departure to the U.S., de Mattei stated that he believes that his support in gathering signatures in support of the Franciscans of the Immaculate to offer the Tridentine Mass was “not liked by certain high ecclesiastics, who asked Fr. Livio for my head.” He then added that since Vatican II, while calling for “dialogue” with separated brethren, “...they (the anti-Traditionalists in the Vatican) use a fist of iron toward those within the Church who do not want to stray from the unchangeable Tradition of the Church.” 
Why he would become a troublemaker, subversive, or even a heretic to certain members of the Vatican’s dicastri (departments) was a theme, amongst others, that he would try to explain as part of the lecture at the Cosmos Club. 
In attempting to describe the changes in the Church over the past half century, Professor de Mattei sought to connect, as a historian, not a theologian, the impact of other cataclysmic events such as the French Revolution, “the mother of all revolutions,” to changing attitudes in the Church, something that another contributor to The Remnant, Prof. John Rao, has also described. 
As a historian he could see the early evidence of those consequences as Vatican II unfolded over the arc of a half century, and which are now clearly detectable to any observer. Noticeable changes from the Church’s earlier attitudes, de Mattei emphasized, came about as the Church increasingly adopted, perhaps unwittingly, the philosophical framework of the Italian Communist, Antonio Gramsci, who claimed that Socialism/Communism would “march through the institutions,” but in a nonviolent way. Gramsci’s philosophical victory, de Matttei maintains, is in claiming that “objective truth” would overtake that of “supernatural truth,” and that religious belief would slowly be replaced by a philosophical framework in which in order to survive the Church must modernize. That transformation is described by de Mattei as “principle giving way to praxis,” a situation in which the Church has increasingly “ceased to fight” for its principles. The historical evidence of that reversal, among other accommodations with modernism, “the synthesis of all heresies,” can be found the documents of Vatican II. 
While it is fair to say, as one questioner did, that although few recall the four Constitutions of the French Republic during the Revolution, most recall at least one major historical consequence: the guillotine. De Mattei reiterated that it makes little sense to examine the documents of Vatican II in a vacuum; it is what has historically happened to the Church in the intervening half century that really matters. To de Mattei there could be no question that a “profound crisis within the Church” now engulfs it. 
Many in the audience that night were aware of the paper delivered by Walter Cardinal Kasper in February of this year to a gathering at the Consistory on the topic of the family in preparation for the Synod that will be held in the Vatican this coming October. The German Cardinal’s paper expressed his (emphasis mine) belief that there should be a willingness by the Church to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive the sacraments of the Church, including communion. As if on cue, major newspapers in the U.S. and Europe seized upon the prelate’s words to theorize that the Church was, indeed, making an effort to accommodate its principles with the modern world, a primary objective – aggiornamento – of Pope John XXIII in convoking of the Second Vatican Council. Those in the audience who wondered if de Mattei would broach that subject were not disappointed, for Kasper’s proposal came under scrutiny almost at the start of the historian’s talk. 
Referring to Cardinal Kasper’s approach as “sociological,” de Mattei described the proposal as being framed in a way that pits “Church doctrine versus real-life convictions of many Christians,” as if one were at odds with the other. Further, the end result of such “situational ethics” changes would, aside from its antithetical nature to Catholic dogma, lead most certainly to “Catholic divorce” and permission of cohabitation. Cardinal Kasper’s overall approach was, then, a plea which de Mattei described as, “...the Church must adapt to the forces of history, not history to the unchanging principles of the Church.” 
Cardinal Kasper’s novel approach to re-thinking the sacrament of marriage is a direct historical result of Vatican II’s emphasis on “pastoral orthodoxy” as being the sine qua non of Church practice, even though it was patently antithetical to accepted Church doctrine for centuries. 
For a Traditional comparison to Cardinal Kasper’s proposal, de Mattei pointed to Pope Pius XII, who defined the morality issue in marriage thus: “ Continence within and outside of marriage is a Christian value; sexual union outside the sacrament of marriage of matrimony is a grave sin.” What Kasper was proposing had eliminated those differences, which had been “what the moralists always taught,” and at the same time the German Cardinal was discarding the dogmatic teachings of the pre-Vatican II Church, a major consequence of the Council. It is hard to believe that the participants in that aggiornamento suspected anything like the Kasper proposal would ever be considered, yet alone discussed. 
In attempting to explain the apparent amnesia that now is an integral part of current Church teaching, the lecturer devoted a lengthy review of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes(Joys and Hopes), which was “supposed to be the ‘first proving ground’ of the Church’s capacity to enter into dialogue with the world,” or as described by one of the participants, “the promised land of the Council.” 
Here de Mattei points an accusatory finger at the Leon-Joseph Suenens, then Cardinal Archbishop of Brussels, who during the Council deliberations was relentless in his effort to “connect the Church’s teaching to the modern world,” and “became an icon of the Second Vatican Council.” 
Historically, the primary purpose of Catholic marriage was “to give children to God,” followed by the requirements of “mutual love and respect,” but in July ‘64, Pope Paul VI approved theschema (outline or preliminary text), drafted under the supervision of Cardinal Suenens which omitted that priority and now placed “giving children to God” and “mutual love and respect” on an equal footing. It also inserted that decisions regarding marriage, which of course included the use of birth control, could be left “up to the conscience” of the couple. The dominant role of the human conscience, rather than the application of ethical rules, was a further demonstration that the Council was now being orchestrated by prelates who had an aversion to universal moral laws: individual conscience, not Church doctrine, was to be sovereign in these matters. 
When Cardinal Suenens, in an impassioned plea to the Council Fathers questioned the Church’s previous marital priority and claimed that it had been, “over-emphasized to the detriment of the marital union,” he drew an interesting analogy: “Let us avoid another Galileo trial.” At that point, enraged by the speaker’s tone Ernesto Cardinal Ruffini pounded his fist on the table and later characterized Suenens’ words as, “horrendous,” and sought them stricken from the debate. 
The Belgian’s rhetoric was so inflammatory that even the pontiff upbraided the cardinal for his “lack of judgment.” Still, efforts to defeat the proposed wording of the document failed, and on December 7, 1965 Gaudium et Spes became one of the landmark documents of the Second Vatican Council. Can anyone today point to any aspect of Catholic family life that is in any way better than it was before Gaudium et Spes? 
In his talk, Roberto de Mattei highlighted the history of some, but not all, of the baleful aspects of the Second Vatican Council and the unraveling of Church doctrine and dogma, but he has only scratched the surface. For example, the Church’s current position on ecumenism flies in the face of centuries, if not millennia, of dogma and doctrine; yet, any attempt to call attention the previous Church holdings on this matter is brushed off as medieval in outlook, if not antediluvian. 
For a more nuanced and comprehensive analysis, de Mattei’s book on Vatican II should be read by those who seek an understanding of what happened at the Council meetings – and why. Still, in ways that are incomprehensible to many of the Faithful, the Vatican’s hierarchy has plunged the Church into an abyss that has had disastrous effects; yet, any effort to connect the dots between the baleful effects of Vatican II and the current disastrous decline of the Church in many areas is considered to be almost sacrilegious. De Mattei’s treatment at Radio Maria bears witness to that condition. 
Toward the end of his talk, de Mattei quoted a French novelist who wrote, “It is necessary to live as one thinks, to avoid winding up thinking as one lives.” To Roberto de Mattei, personal knowledge and understanding are necessary in following the moral and ethical guidelines set up by the Church to avoid a chaotic and uncertain morality. That fight has in large part been lost by the withdrawal of the Catholic Church from the lists of moral combat. 
In the end, however, de Mattei believes that the Second Vatican Council was not only a historical event, but an amorphous “Spirit” that has come down over the 50 years, a “Spirit” that has emphasized practice and deemphasized doctrine, but he is firm in his conviction that Christ will see to it that this “profound crisis within the Church” will not be allowed to have its enemies prevail. Of that end de Mattei is certain. ■ 

+JMJ+

Tolkien Round 3: Doesn't this just say it all?

From the why are the non reactionaries [?] acting like such a bunch of over-reactinaries file:

As New Catholic put it in a Tweet the other day, the Patheos inquisition (a funny reference to Zmrick's smear) is at hand, and when the indifferentists over there (if you want me to state why I call them that just ask) continue to throw a tizzy.

Now step in a new voice at Patheos to shame the Audio Sancto priest:

Apparently there is an audio lecture going the rounds slamming Tolkien. I haven’t listened to the lecture, but I understand it is along the lines of “Nobody ever came to faith and was baptized by reading fantasy novels like Lord of the Rings and there’s no myth or fantasy literature in the Bible so what good is it?” Whether I am over simplifying the lecturer’s point or not doesn’t matter, because he does raise an interesting question: Is J.R.R.Tolkien an evangelist or not?

I guess I should be grateful that he doesn't attack RC as being neo-pelagian rad trad reactionaries but still why is so hard for these people to get the point of the talk?

The main thrust of the talk was not whether Tolkien is or is not an evangelist.  For that matter Dante in his Divine Comedy is guilty of putting a now canonized pope in the eternal fires so there is a problem there.  But the difference is that people recognize the problems in the comedy and dont hide them thinking the work sacrosanct.

First if you he admits to not listening to the talk, but taking his cues from hearsay.

Second from this hearsay he then connects supposed dots that this is an attack on Tolkien.  (A note here there is a logical fallicy here that the homosexuals fall into as well not being able to seperate their person from the things they do)

Third the priest mentioned that he knew of no one that came to the faith through the Lord of the Rings.  He is speaking about how the story does not directly bring people to the faith until others show the good points then they can play off these things, but they then ignore the problematic aspects.

If the book helps people come into the faith great.  But for those that are not familiar with the audio sancto sermons the priest has been focusing on the inability of some to directly call out error even in inconvienent situations.  In the sermon called "Hatred of Heresy"he calls out Fulton Sheen indirectly for promoting heretical bible commentaries.  The point is that we have become so focused since the council on showing the positive aspects of things that we have lost the zeal to point out the troubling aspects.

A person is not his work.  Whether there are people that come to the faith by the works of Tolkien directly or indirectly is not the point of the sermon when you trace the theme over the last few months.

The point is whether or not we are willing to recognize problems then they come up, or whether we will side step the issues out of comfort.

Why is this so complicated?

Why the fear?

I dont get why the one blogger, who is throwing a tizzy over the priests conference about Tolkien's books, can't comprehend that New Catholic disagreed with the priest on the matter but still allowed the talk to be heard because disagreements help to clarify things.  People claim that the book is just a book and the talk about the troubling aspects was wrong because the focus of the book is not about Catholicism, but then they double back and want us to recognize every seemingly Catholic aspect immediately. Why cant we recognize the good and bad aspects?  Pray tell blogger?  Is Tolkiens work sacrosanct?  Is Pierce's, Kreeft's and others works on the matter the only thing that matters to begin with, and anything critical evil?

Why the fear?  Who's the reactionary again?

What does this do?

edited for bad grammar

On the Tolkien Controversy...

So a week or so ago Audio Sancto released a two part critical talk on JRR Tolkien's books like the Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit and the Simarilion.  You can find these conference talks below:

First I wanted to say that I enjoy JRR Tolkien's works and the movies that have come out recently.  So too I have found the works of Peter Kreeft, Michael Coren and Joseph Pierce to be extremely helpful in bringing to light the Cathlicity of his books.  For such things I am extremely grateful and would encourage other's to take such things in consideration before or after viewing the conference.

Now, having said that, I do think that the priest that gave this conference did a genuinely great service to the church in exposing some of the problematic aspects of Tolkien's literature.  I, along with New Catholic at Rorate-Caeli, disagreed with the talk, but I do believe that he made some interesting points that should be taken into account and not brushed aside as Rad Trad reactionary non sense which you might guess the normalist who himself over reacted and trashed the priest... need i really say his name, I think it suffices to say he didn't listen to the talk, but  went mad that anyone would question the efforts to over emphasis the Cathlicity of Tolkien's work.

I also found it interesting, seeing from the reactions to the post and those on Rorate's twitter, that people are defending Tolkien's work as if it were sacrosanct.

Seriously, there are good things to Tolkien's books and they should be applauded, but for crying out loud dont defend what Tolkien didn't attempt to put forth.  There are issues with the books and with Tolkien's attitude towards allegory which go unquestioned until this talk shook up the preconceived notions that all Tolkien is orthodox and therefore unquestionable.

Please listen to the talks, take them into account and make your own decision.  The goal of the talks was not to condemn Tolkien, but to bring balance to the current discourse.

Have a great weekend!

What say You?

+Pray for Francis P.P.+