You can imagine I was giddy this morning when i opened up youtube and saw a new video on Belloc's life posted below. I thought it timely to introduce readers to one half of the Chester-Belloc duo that fought so couragously against foes like HG Wells and GB Shaw. To this end I want to share a few of his writings and also the fantastic video I hope you will watch!
On the Occasion of the Conversion of GK Chesterston to the Church:
The Faith, the Catholic Curch is discovered, is recognized, triumphantly enters reality like a landfall at sea which first was thought a cloud. The near it is seen, the more it is real, the less imaginary: the more direct and external its voice, the more indubitable its representative character, its 'persona', its voice. The metaphor is not that men fall in love with it: the metaphor is that they discover home... It is the very mould of the mind, the matrix to which corresponds in every outline the outcast and unprotected contour of the soul. It is Verlaine's 'Oh! Rome -oh!Mere!' And that not only to theose who had it in childhood and have returned, but much more - and what a proof! - to those who come upon it from the hills of life and say to themselves, 'Here is the town.' - quote from Old Thunder: A Life of Hilaire Belloc, by Joseph Pearce
Before his death he spoke of his last companion 'Wine' in a wonderful poem, which you can read in its entirty here.
When from the waste of such long labour done I too must leave the grape-ennobling sun And like the vineyard worker take my way Down the long shadows of declining day, Bend on the sombre plain my clouded sight And leave the mountain to the advancing night, Come to the term of all that was mine own With nothingness before me, and alone; Then to what hope of answer shall I turn? Comrade-Commander whom I dared not earn, What said You then to trembling friends and few? "A moment, and I drink it with you new: But in my Father's Kingdom." So, my Friend, Let not Your cup desert me in the end. But when the hour of mine adventure's near Just and benignant, let my youth appear Bearing a Chalice, open, golden, wide, With benediction graven on its side. So touch my dying lip: so bridge that deep: So pledge my waking from the gift of sleep, And, sacramental, raise me the Divine: Strong brother in God and last companion, Wine.
I see this picture every March for Life and often times people repost it with good intentions. However, whenever I come across this I am frustrated by the presumption inherent:
h/t Creative Minority Report
So whats my deal?
Assuming that those people pictured actually know or care about the church. To many of those involved this is but a Catholic Pep-rally, but it tells me nothing about the people's actual view of the Church. When church militant went to the March and did some admittedly non scientific polling they found that those in attendance didn't necessarily come to the March because it was consistent with their faith.
Sure the visual looks good and they are marching for life and that is a noble venture but:
And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
What does it profit them to parade and save temporal life if their own souls are forfeit because they deny the truths of the faith? Their is a massive catechatical disaster on our hands. We must speak about the Intrinsic Evil of contraception and the dangers of the NFP for all attitude and teach the Thrice defined dogma "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" without fear!
Until we do this, yes the "Church" is irrelevent to the youth because it is a a nice voice in the wilderness, but their are other voices so why consider it special?
This is an open letter to the Talk show host and founder of the new's source, "The Blaze"
Dear Mr. Beck,
I have been listening to your radio program and watching your TV show on and off for about five years now and have gladly supported your Blaze company over the last few years. I want to make it clear that I enjoy your work and want to continue supporting your company.
However, again and again you engage in black legends that have been shown to be exaggerations fabricated by protestants and other non Christians for their personal ends. Some of these include:
Inquisition: Again and again you reference the Spanish Inquisition and the treatment of the Jews as being a great injustice done against a noble and innocent people by the big, bad Romanist Church. Now granted you use a vague term so as to no directly offend Catholic sensibilities, I guess I should be grateful. However, again and again you want to attack modern problems by bringing up black legends, which is completely inconsistent with your character of being a lover of history and engaged in pursuing the truth. Why is it that you never mention why the Jews were exiled in mass in its context, and instead engage in black legend mass killing conspiracies? Why not acknolwdge the much miligned Pope Alexander VI (the Borgia Pope) was activly inviting the Jew's to take up residence in Rome when hearing about the exile? So was it really the Church's fault that bad things happened (on a small scale nowhere near the size the legends the protestants brought about)?
Knights Templars: Again another issue of context. We dont claim the Pontiff is impeccable for Christ did not grant such abilities even to the original Pontiff himself St. Peter. The knights were accused of grievous things by the state, they were tortured and confessed under that context. They later recanted the confession seeking Gods forgiveness for such weakness. Power corrupts, and here was an opportunity for the crown to show authoritie over heros that might pose a threat to power.
Flat Earther Accusations: Yesterday you made a statement that the Spanish, and other dark-age or mid-evil people believed the Earth was flat, and that they believed this to be so because they were coerced into the matter by the state and the Church. The only problem is that they did not believe the Earth was flat at this time. You mentioned the story about the Egyptians knowing this, so did the Greeks and Romans. This knowledge was safeguarded and expanded upon by the Church and her lay people. You claimed in 1492 they believed you would fall off the face of the Earth if you ventured too far. This is a false accusation. They knew the Earth was curved becasue as ships would venture farther and farther from shore it would seem to sink, proving a curvature (or drinking too much). There was no agenda in people thinking that the curvature may end, they didnt have a picture from outerspace to know where the Earth starts and where it ends. Even the Welsh monks that ventured and might have found America way before the Vikings knew that the Earth was a large mass.
My Point is dont use black legends to justify your anger with the Church. You, Mr. Beck, are called to come back home. We await your return to Christ's one true fold and pray for your return daily!
This is the tone of fairy tales, and it is certainly not lawlessness or even liberty, though men under a mean modern tyranny may think it liberty by comparison. People out of Portland Gaol might think Fleet Street free; but closer study will prove that both fairies and journalists are the slaves of duty. Fairy godmothers seem at least as strict as other godmothers. Cinderella received a coach out of Wonderland and a coachman out of nowhere, but she received a command—which might have come out of Brixton—that she should be back by twelve. Also, she had a glass slipper; and it cannot be a coincidence that glass is so common a substance in folk-lore. This princess lives in a glass castle, that princess on a glass hill; this one sees all things in a mirror; they may all live in glass houses if they will not throw stones. For this thin glitter of glass everywhere is the expression of the fact that the happiness is bright but brittle, like the substance most easily smashed by a housemaid or a cat. And this fairy-tale sentiment also sank into me and became my sentiment towards the whole world. I felt and feel that life itself is as bright as the diamond, but as brittle as the window-pane; and when the heavens were compared to the terrible crystal I can remember a shudder. I was afraid that God would drop the cosmos with a crash.
Remember, however, that to be breakable is not the same as to be perishable.Strike a glass, and it will not endure an instant; simply do not strike it, and it will endure a thousand years. Such, it seemed, was the joy of man, either in elfland or on earth; the happiness depended on NOT DOING SOMETHING which you could at any moment do and which, very often, it was not obvious why you should not do. Now, the point here is that to ME this did not seem unjust. If the miller's third son said to the fairy, "Explain why I must not stand on my head in the fairy palace," the other might fairly reply, "Well, if it comes to that, explain the fairy palace." If Cinderella says, "How is it that I must leave the ball at twelve?" her godmother might answer, "How is it that you are going there till twelve?" If I leave a man in my will ten talking elephants and a hundred winged horses, he cannot complain if the conditions partake of the slight eccentricity of the gift. He must not look a winged horse in the mouth. And it seemed to me that existence was itself so very eccentric a legacy that I could not complain of not understanding the limitations of the vision when I did not understand the vision they limited. The frame was no stranger than the picture. The veto might well be as wild as the vision; it might be as startling as the sun, as elusive as the waters, as fantastic and terrible as the towering trees.
For this reason (we may call it the fairy godmother philosophy) I never could join the young men of my time in feeling what they called the general sentiment of REVOLT.
I should have resisted, let us hope, any rules that were evil, and with these and their definition I shall deal in another chapter. But I did not feel disposed to resist any rule merely because it was mysterious. Estates are sometimes held by foolish forms, the breaking of a stick or the payment of a peppercorn: I was willing to hold the huge estate of earth and heaven by any such feudal fantasy. It could not well be wilder than the fact that I was allowed to hold it at all. At this stage I give only one ethical instance to show my meaning. I could never mix in the common murmur of that rising generation against monogamy, because no restriction on sex seemed so odd and unexpected as sex itself. To be allowed, like Endymion, to make love to the moon and then to complain that Jupiter kept his own moons in a harem seemed to me (bred on fairy tales like Endymion's) a vulgar anti-climax. Keeping to one woman is a small price for so much as seeing one woman. To complain that I could only be married once was like complaining that I had only been born once. It was incommensurate with the terrible excitement of which one was talking. It showed, not an exaggerated sensibility to sex, but a curious insensibility to it. A man is a fool who complains that he cannot enter Eden by five gates at once. Polygamy is a lack of the realization of sex; it is like a man plucking five pears in mere absence of mind. The aesthetes touched the last insane limits of language in their eulogy on lovely things. The thistledown made them weep; a burnished beetle brought them to their knees. Yet their emotion never impressed me for an instant, for this reason, that it never occurred to them to pay for their pleasure in any sort of symbolic sacrifice. Men (I felt) might fast forty days for the sake of hearing a blackbird sing. Men might go through fire to find a cowslip. Yet these lovers of beauty could not even keep sober for the blackbird. They would not go through common Christian marriage by way of recompense to the cowslip. Surely one might pay for extraordinary joy in ordinary morals. Oscar Wilde said that sunsets were not valued because we could not pay for sunsets. But Oscar Wilde was wrong; we can pay for sunsets. We can pay for them by not being Oscar Wilde.
You can read the whole story above. But the synopsis is that the ICKSP has been looking to move their growing semanary to a new location since thier current buildings are incapable of holding the growing semenarian population. The institute then came across a possibility to buy an old pontifical semenary but have been met with disdain and distrust by what seems to be the whole European beauracy that perceieves anything that has pre-council aspects as being a danger to them.
Therefore the institute was disallowed an opporutinity to purchase the land and semanary and instead more mindless babel about interreligous dialogue gets promoted at the expense of the formation of priests that will save souls....
Why the hate?
I also wanted to make a few more articles i came across lately on the relations between the SSPX and Rome more available and you can find them below. They are all fantastic!
Its been a while since I wrote on Mr. William Buckley, but after Beck had some of the folks from the Ayn Rand center on his show to make him feel good about the positions he takes I thought it timely to look at libertarianism from the perspective of the founder of the once good National Review.
William F. Buckley, Jr.: Beware of Ayn Rand
I was an avid reader of the National Review for about 15 years in the 80s and 90s. For those of you not familar with this magazine, it was THE flagship conservative magazine for decades after its founding by William F. Buckley in 1955. In the editorial staff and content of National Review, Buckley did his best to hold together a very fractious conservative movement, made up of anti-Communist hawks, conservative Catholics, evangelical Protestants, libertarians, and free-market business types.
But there were certain 'conservatives' who Buckley did not try to hold within his coalition. To the contrary, he saw certain groups on the Right as so radical and extreme in their ideological leanings as to be dangerous to true conservatism. Two of those groups were the John Birch Society and the devotees centered about Ayn Rand.
Reading through a biography of William F. Buckley that I picked up recently at the wonderful St. Francis Episcopal Church booksale, I found the following description of his encounter with the Randians. (This is particularly helpful, given the influence of Ayn Rand among today's conservative movement and Republican Party.)
[Whittaker] Chambers wrote irregularly for National Review, starting but not finishing many articles. His columns on foreign policy were mediocre. He was not so much interested in reiterating the threat of communism as in examining what he believed to be the spiritual crisis of the West. His most impressive articles were a critique of Ayn Rand's didactic novel Atlas Shrugged and a defense of Alger Hiss' right to travel. In both cases, he was trying to challenge the assumptions of his readers and fellow editors about the nature of conservatism.
Rand, a Russian émigré, had used her novels to proselytize for a philosophy of economic individualism that she called "objectivism," and she had assembled a devoted intellectual following. On purely economic issues, she differed little fromNational Review, but unlike National Review's editors, who tried to balance their economic individualism with a traditional conservatism, she made her economic views the basis of a psychology and politics that extolled selfishness and damned religion. Her movement's emblem was a gold brooch with a dollar sign, rather than a cross, dangling from it. (The first time she had met Buckley, she had not edeared herself to him by remarking, "You are too intelligent to believe in God!")
Chambers, like the other National Review editors, had come to the Right as a counterrevolutionary idealist. Like Schlamm and Burhnham he had no particular fondness for the rich. He saw economic freedom and capitalist individualism not as a path to wealth, but as the antithesis of Communist totalitarianism. Individualism was not good in itself, but only as a means to civic and religious virtue. Chambers condemned objectivism as a cousin of Marxism. "Randian man, like Marxian man, is made the center of a Godless world," Chambers wrote.
Rand and her followers were stung by Chambers' attack. Rand's young disciple, economist Alan Greenspan, who later became President Gerlad Ford's chief economist [and the Fed chair under Bush, Clinton, and Bush], wrote Buckley, "This man is beneath contempt and I would not honor his 'review' of Ayn Rand's magnificent masterpiece by even commenting on it." Rand herself complained aloud, "What would you expect from an ex-Communist writing in Buckley's Catholic magazine?" She never talked to Buckley again and refused to enter any room in which he was present.
But Buckley was not moved by their protests. For Buckley, Chambers' essay revealed a way to reconcile conservatism with the Catholic critique of laissez-faire capitalism. Chambers had not demonstrated that individualism was wrong, but only that it was wrong if taken as an end in itself. He applauded Chambers' attempt to "read Miss Rand right out of the conservative movement." "Her exclusion from the conservative movement," he wrote later, "was, I am sure, in part the result of her desiccated philosophy's conclusive incompatibility with the conservative's emphasis on transcendence, intellectual and moral."
My thoughts exactly. Wish you were still around, Mr. Buckley.
Another fun thing to think about was how he Euligized her upon her passing:
“Ayn Rand is dead. So, incidentally, is the philosophy she sought to launch dead; it was in fact stillborn.”
“Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.” - Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York [h/t The Blaze]
And where exactly is his Bishop?
Michael Davies used to relate a story that he heard that the first thing that happens when a priest is made a Bishop now is that they have their spine removed....
so I was looking for a new trailer for the upcoming Marvel film "Guardians of the galaxy and this song was playing in one of the fan trailers and it just made me laugh...
So the German's tried to stop Cardinal elect Muller from retaining his CDF position and reception of the Cardinal office. How bad does it have to be in Germany that Muller who is criticized by many trads is looked at by the hierarchy in Germany as the new Ottaviani (ie: a remnant of pre concilliar thought)
Trapping and Exposing Lies and Falsehoods January 8, 2014 By Mark Shea23 CommentsFresh from denouncing the errors and gutless cowardice of such menaces as Fr. Father Robert Barron and such dangerous men as Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, Al Kresta and similar wolves in sheep’s clothing serving the Church of Nice, Church Militant TV now leads its flock of highly discerning disciples in the unerring direction of TRVTH by promoting the rock solid science of geocentrism. What could possibly be smarter and more deeply Catholic than helping raise the stock of people who have endorsed the unimpeachable fact that the Moon Landings were a hoax, that Roosevelt was a Jew, that Jews probably killed JFK, that “The infection of Judaism and Zionism has become the number one enemy for us”, that Jews are “slave masters”, that “it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that six million Jews were killed in Nazi internment camps.”, that we should “stop blaming it on the nation who excised [the Jews] and start looking at what the Jewish people do to get themselves excised.” and that the Holocaust was that sad period in history when “the Jews turned on the Germans because they got a better deal from someone else.” Clearly, I think all Real Catholics[TM] will do well to realize that this track record of sound Catholic teaching is so good that an apostolate whose entire mission is to “trap and expose” “lies and falsehoods” covers itself in glory by promoting such people and their work on geocentrism. If there is anything that no well-formed Catholic can deny, it is that the entire universe spins around a non-rotational earth every 24 hours and that Science is a gigantic conspiracy to deny that doctrine of the Faith. Fans of Church Militant TV should wisely continue to say that any criticism of this latest decision to promote such people and their work is entirely due to the fact that CMTV alone–in the entire Church–is unafraid to tell it like it is and the Church of Nice is frightened and trying to shut up the boldest Truthtellers of our time. Anybody suggesting that this is an epic demonstration of the corrosive effects that indulgence of pride and anger have on common sense only does so because they are jealous of the undeniable truth and beauty of everything CMTV does, due to the fact that they are members of the Church of Nice who hate God, babies, and adorable puppies. And they are also probably Jews.
Keep it classy Mark, and thanks for not engaging in any ad hominems...
oh and just for kicks Mr. Kevin O'Brian of play fame wanted to add a couple things:
Of course we will have commenters claiming that there is a distinction between Galileo, Copernicus and Brahe that morons like us can't appreciate, that the geocentrists are not as crazy as the evil "professional Catholic" Mark Shea makes them sound, that in fact it's quite reasonable to consider that the Jews are behind the problems of our society and that those who close their eyes to the latest lights of the conservative mind - new insights such as the demonstrably false claims of ancient science and the 4,000 year old thing called antisemitism - that those who close their eyes to these wonderful insights are the real bigots.
But the fact is that Voris has been fueling the fires of schism, fanning the flames of the irrational, and feeding the furnace of wrath for years now. His engine keeps chugging along, but the track leads nowhere.
Stay classy Kevin
With minds trapped in this polar "vortex" (bad puns work at times you know) who needs enemies? I never understood why they just cant exist side by side... pride on both ends with ad hominems' to boot?
+Seat of Wisdom, Pray for Us!+
+Patron of clowns, Saint Genesius of Rome, Pray for Us!+
The documentary/movie "The Principle" will be released this year and Michael Voris of CMTV had the directors including one Mr./Dr. Robert Sungenis on his program to discuss the film and what they hoped for the project.
To be honest I thought the interview was boring, yet I am looking forward to the movie.
But the real story is how after the airing of the Mic'd Up the other night some in the Catholic blogosphere took it upon themselves to publicly proclaim the director (one Mr. Sungenis) the worst thing since unsliced bread.
You can go to Keatings facebook but I wont provide a link because the way everyone including the normalists (Keating, Shea and Armstrong) act is irrational and purely misguided causing scandal which they pretend to care about avoiding which you can see in my posts about Shea and Armstrong before.
I think its fair to say that Dr. Sungenis takes some odd positions on cosmology, the Jews [whether what he says is odd or bad or just not something people don't want to talk about in pious company is another thing] and the post concilliar pontiffs. However the way that the normalists try to bash the documentary is pure iconaclism. They have a box wrapped up nicely in their minds on such topics and are unwilling to part with them, nor will they hear the other side on the topics. The same probably applies to Mr. Sungenis. Why the normalists must destroy the movie by bringing up Bob's views on the holocaust is beyond me. Credibility in the science realm can have many layers.
We know the universe is not heliocentric by its nature (proving Galileo wrong to begin with), the question becomes is it Geocentric or relative per the therm of relativity. What good does it do to end the conversation by saying Bob thinks the number of Jew's killed during the haulocaust is less then six million? What difference did it make the Williamson thought we didnt go to the moon or whether again six million Jews were killed during the holocaust in regards the regularization of the SSPX? When did talk of such things become anathama and against the faith casting one outside the faith? We wont be codemned for having odd thoughts on the holocaust, its just a mere fancy some use to cause division where the division is not needed from either side.
None.
Whether the universe holds the Earth in a special place or in an indifferent place is important (perhaps not essential)
The Principle is putting forth info that no one outside the top level cosmologists know about because like the normalists most scientists have placed the study of cosmology in a neat box and put it on the shelf with a dont touch at any cost label.
Will the movie talk about theories that might put forth the possibility of Geocentrism, sure but that is not the purpose of the movie so much as looking specifically at the coprenican principle and seeing if its still relevent and holds true with the info we now have
Let the chips fall where they may normalists and trads alike. PLEASE!
SO you know what im talking about here is the trailer... im going to watch it because it doesnt scare me to hear that Copernicus was wrong with his Theories and I dont subcribe to the Fr. Spitzer S.J. worldview where you can flip flop on issues at leisure (oh boy i just did the same thing the nominalists did)
I saw this in BadgerCatholics twitter feed and thought it was interesting because I had said something about it a month ago on a message board and was rebuked for even entertaining the possibility that the removal of the exorcism as it had been done in the old rite was foolish and that it should be re-instituted into the whole sacramental rite.
A short snippit:
Most significant among the changes in the Rite that occurred in 1969,(And what I like to concentrate on here) was the removal of the exorcisms, four in all. And these were not mild exorcisms at all! They were weighty and imperative (i.e. commanding). The devil is really given his walking papers; he is commanded in no uncertain terms that he must depart, recognizing his sentence as having been defeated by Christ who claims this child now for his own.Critics at the time argued that the prayers seem to treat the infant as though he or she was possessed. And for this, and other reasons, the exorcisms were removed from the baptismal rites of the Church. The new right does feature a prayer that is technically referred to as an exorcism. But the prayers is so mild-mannered, really more in the form of a mere blessing, that I doubt the celebrant of baptism really thinks of it as an exorcism, (let alone any demons understand that they are being commanded to leave). Here’s the current prayer that is, in the rite, referred to as the exorcism: Almighty and ever-living God, you sent your only Son in to the world to cast out the power of Satan, spirit of evil, to rescue man from the kingdom of darkness, and bring him into the kingdom of light. We pray for this child: set him free from original sin, make him a temple of your glory, and send your Holy Spirit to dwell with him. We ask this through Christ our Lord.
CCC has another fantastic post on St. Stan's in Milwaukee in regards to old photographs of the Church and rectory from ages past. A couple interesting photos which are in the rectory for people to view if they should so wish to see more. However if you are far from Milwaukee just click the link here for an assortment of photos that are being used for the coming restoration!
The frightful punishment of mere sex emancipation is not anarchy but bureaucracy.” – GK Chesterton Some think we should be grateful that Justice Sotomeyer [sic? i'm too lazy to check] for blocking the contraceptives mandate through injunction. Forgive me for not politely applauding the judicial standstill that merely panders to appease rather than recognizing the grave evil that is at the basis of the mandates idealism.
Oh and since I'm hitting on Chesterton, the Holy Father Pope Francis quoted the Late great soon to be Servant of God on December 5th of 2013 saying the following as recounted on the vaticans website here:
The Pontiff then quoted the English author G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936), when speaking about heresy once said that a heresy is a truth, a word, a truth gone mad. “When Christian words lack Christ, they begin to head down the road of madness”. The prophet Isaiah, he added, clearly describes the nature of this madness. He says: “The Lord is an everlasting rock. For he has brought low the inhabitants of the height, the lofty city” (26:4-5). “The inhabitants of the height. A Christian word without Christ leads to vanity, to self assuredness, to pride, and to power for power’s sake. And the Lord brings these people low”.
Again, why has the genuflection at the words et incarnatus est in the Credo been abolished? Was this not a noble and beautiful expression of adoring reverence while professing the searing mystery of the Incarnation? Whatever the intention of the innovators, they have certainly created the danger, if only psychological, of diminishing the faithful's awareness and awe of the mystery. There is yet another reason for hesitating to make changes in the liturgy that are not strictly necessary. Frivolous or arbitrary changes are apt to erode a special type of reverence: pietas. The Latin word, like the German Pietaet, has no English equivalent, but may be understood as comprising respect for tradition; honoring what has been handed down to us by former generations; fidelity to our ancestors and their works. Note that pietas is a derivative type of reverence, and so should not be confused with primary reverence, which we have described as a response to the very mystery of being, and ultimately a response to God. It follows that if the content of a given tradition does not correspond to the object of the primary reverence, it does not deserve the derivative reverence. Thus if a tradition embodies evil elements, such as the sacrifice of human beings in the cult of the Aztecs, then those elements should not be regarded with pietas. But that is not the Christian case. Those who idolize our epoch, who thrill at what is modern simply because it is modern, who believe that in our day man has finally "come of age," lack pietas. The pride of these "temporal nationalists" is not only irreverent, it is incompatible with real faith. A Catholic should regard his liturgy. with pietas. He should revere, and therefore fear to abandon the prayers and postures and music that have been approved by so many saints throughout the Christian era and delivered to us as a precious heritage. To go no further: the illusion that we can replace the Gregorian chant, with its inspired hymns and rhythms, by equally fine, if not better, music betrays a ridiculous self-assurance and lack of self-knowledge. Let us not forget that throughout Christianity's history. silence and solitude, contemplation and recollection, have been considered necessary to achieve a real confrontation with God. This is not only the counsel of the Christian tradition, which should be respected out of pietas; it is rooted in human nature. Recollection is the necessary basis for true communion in much the same way as contemplation provides the necessary basis for true action in the vineyard of the Lord. A superficial type of communion -the jovial comradeship of a social affair -- draws us out onto the periphery. A truly Christian communion draws us into the spiritual deeps. An amazing article by the Late Dietrich von Hildebrand, Read the rest Here!
