I know, your probably getting tired of me posting Fr. Ripperger stuff... but I dont have that much time to do posts right now so this will have to do, plus its timely.
Take a listen to the following recording from Fr. Ripperger on the matter of Islam being a peaceful religion and them worshiping the same God as us. Go to the 58 min 50 second mark
do1
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
Thursday, August 25, 2016
***Must Read*** First Of Its Kind Research on the Guadalupe Tilma and the end of Islam: Walid Shoebat
Just to wet the taste buds I will past a short excerpt below (and will put the full link that is a must read, though long), but its like chipping a piece of ice from the iceberg that compromises his thorough study on the matter. Please share far and wide and pray for the Muslims that they be converted!
"If a scholar in the Arabic carefully examined how Guada is pronounced in Spanish and how Lupe is pronounced in Arabic it gives an entirely new meaning. Firstly, the “G” is silent (Wadda) and the “p” is always pronounced as “b” (Lubba) since there is no “p” in Arabic. So if you ask any Arab, “say Waddalupe,” he will say “Waddalubba” or “Wadi Al-Lubb”. Try it. If we stick with the pronunciation Wadd it also means “love” and Lubb means “heart”. This packs much for Arab linguists since Arabic is an ancient rich language and these words put together packs a whole theological meaning that opposes Islam completely.
Besides the emphases in Arabic that Wadd means “love” it also means “desired” while “Lubb” is “gem” “heart” or to be more specific “core”. For example, the ‘lubb‘ of the atom is its nucleus. The ‘lubb” of the earth is its core. The ‘lubb‘ of the fruit is its core seeds. The “lubb” is literally “heart” and Lubba is “Her heart” or “Her core”.
Lubba also means “her neck,” but not just any part of a woman’s neck, Arabic is very meticulous. In Arabic it is precisely where a woman places the necklace on her neck. So if a Muslim would specifically look at the lubba in the image, he will find a brooch with a black cross which recalls the agony of the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross for the salvation of all mankind. Black here is significant of death and is the attire of sorrow which women dress for forty days. Lubb in Arabic is also wasitat al-qilada (see #4), which signifies “the jewel,” “the purest and best from all,” and a symbol of sanctity. Wasitat also means the intermediary as the cross here is the bridge between man and God. This “heart” symbolism is clear from the Arabic. But this is not only in the Arabic naming. The experts on Guadalupe would agree that besides what we discovered here that in the image the: “Sacred Heart as we depict it with flames above it. Only in Guadalupe and Fatima apparitions have this sign on the hand appeared which shows they are related.” On a side note, Fatima (Muhammad’s daughter) is another subject matter for another research, for it says that St. Mary is the true Fatima and not Muhammad’s daughter whom the Shiite adore as Christians would adore St. Mary.
So what happens when we combine the two words wadda and lubba?
There is more to the Arabic than we explained here. While the root wadd and lubb are significant, wadda and lubba are even more significant since the ‘a’ in the end pertains to a woman (her). Wadda-Lubba in Arabic becomes a packed message. It could mean “love is the desire of her heart”.
Yet if we use wadd in its most common usage it literally pertains to a male deity which means “the god of love”. But what we have here is wadda which strictly means her god of love. Wadd is also regarding someone most precious to a woman, a husband or an only son or firstborn. Adding lubba, the construct becomes rich: Her God of love is in Her core (heart) and is her only son. The use of lubb (core) is no accident. It is no wonder why in Italian the word core is literally heart and in Spanish corazon is also heart: the core. In other words, the message becomes clear that the desired one, this God of love Who is desired, Who is most precious to her, her jewel, this male Son Deity, is in her inner core or what she contains in her inner being Who constitutes love who is also God Himself. Therefore She is pregnant with God.
In essence Wadda-Lubba (Guadalupe) has a response to Islam. This “Wadd” (love) is Christ Who was in the Womb of Mary and is why Christians say “blessed is the fruit of your womb (lubb), Jesus.” In her womb (lubb) always resides the seed and it is this “fruit of Her womb” that is this blessed one.
Adding the image to the name, the construct is remarkably parallel with Christian theology. She is Queen and is the loving Mother and Christ is her Heart and is Her love and He (Jesus) is the very essence of love and He is Her desire as The Father’s only Son, conceived as man in the womb of the Virgin Mary. There are no better Semitic words to use than these two Wadda and Lubba to construct such a message. Anyone objecting that two words (there are actually 4 words adding the “a” at the end) construct such meaning need to only examine Arabic dictionaries and see that what we gave here can be found in the Arabic rich Al-Balagha (eloquence of Arabic). In Arabic, just the word lion has 346 names. It is no wonder as to why the Arabic language is used in concordances of the Bible, where the Semitic languages, including Arabic, add richness to the meaning.
The premise I set here is not without merit. What scholar of Islam and Arabic can deny that from Arabia’s pre-Islamic times and even in Islamic theology, Wadd was proclaimed as a title of God. We have in Islam Allah as “Al-Waddud” (the loving). Wadd is “love” and is also “God” and wadud/waddud is loving and Al-wadud is the loving God which anyone can look up in the 99 names (see #47) on how Muslims define God.
Allah in pre-Islamic Arabia was named “Wadd-the moon god which stood at the head of the Minaean Pantheon: Allat, Uzza and Manat were the three daughters of Allah for this Wadd” (Hitti, 2002, pp. 97-98). Allah was called Wadd in Mecca itself.
It is not that the name Wadd is evil, Wadd (unlike Allah) is not simply a name but a meaning while Allah is a name. What is evil was the corruption of it by attributing the God of Love (Wadd) to an idol. Scripture for example has no problem with the title “morning star” but God objects that Lucifer attributed such a title to himself, for Christ has a similar title. The devil is depicted as a lion (that devours) and so is Christ depicted as a lion, but He is “the lion of the tribe of Judah” Who devours God’s enemies just as the serpent of Moses devoured pharaoh’s serpents. Therefore, a serpent is not always a bad thing, for Moses instructed the Israelites to look upon the bronze serpent.
What the other message from our Lady’s image is the rejection of the moon-god. She proclaims that the God of love (Wadd) is not Allah, but is in the core (lubb) of St. Mary. In other words, the construct says that it was God (Wadd) Who was in Mary’s core (lubb). This message refutes the Quran’s claim:
“they disbelieved when they said: ‘Christ, the son of Mary, is indeed God'”–Quran 5:72
The message from our Lady is “no,” God The Son, her “Wadd” (love) the Creator of heaven and earth is in Her “lubb” (core, womb) and is also Her Heart (the Heart of Mary). This signifies Jesus Christ’s physical heart as the representation of His divine love for humanity."
The whole study can be found HERE, and is well worth your time
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
Parallel of Putin and Franco
Now I know many people think Gen. Franco of Spain was not a good guy, but for purposes here I just wanted to note an interesting development and the similarity.
Both Putin and Franco are seen by many as tyrants, but it looks like Putin is following the same path as Franco in looking to restore the Romanov monarchy in Russia. As to what role it would have that cannot be said yet, but it is a worthwhile development that would have lasting and perhaps good consequences.
It is also interesting in terms of how it might be related to the Fatima prophecy as well as the prophecies of Vladimair Solovyov on the Russian reunion with Peter in the future. (Note: Solovyov was Russian Orthodox so its a bit odd he would think such was to come)
The whole article is worth reading and you can look at it HERE
Both Putin and Franco are seen by many as tyrants, but it looks like Putin is following the same path as Franco in looking to restore the Romanov monarchy in Russia. As to what role it would have that cannot be said yet, but it is a worthwhile development that would have lasting and perhaps good consequences.
It is also interesting in terms of how it might be related to the Fatima prophecy as well as the prophecies of Vladimair Solovyov on the Russian reunion with Peter in the future. (Note: Solovyov was Russian Orthodox so its a bit odd he would think such was to come)
"Absent from Western reports of ‘re-Stalinization’ is the evidence for a much wider shift in Russians’ views on their country’s history. Particularly striking has been the rehabilitation of the pre-revolutionary regime. The same survey that showed an increase in favorable perceptions of Stalin also revealed that since 1999 the number of Russians believing the reign of Nicholas II (1894-1917), Russia’s last tsar, ‘brought more good than bad’ had risen from 18% to 30%. Also, the number believing the 1917 Revolution to have been a good thing fell from 27% in 1999 to 19% in 2016, while those believing it to have been for the worse rose from 38% to 48%...
Unthinkable 25 years before, in 2013 an obelisk originally erected in 1914 outside the Kremlin walls was cleansed of its Soviet-era transformation into a monument to the workers’ struggle, and rededicated to its original commemoration of the Romanov tercentenary (1613-1913), Imperial Russia’s last great national celebration...
Putin, he says, 'isn't interested in being remembered as some kind of Communist Party general secretary. He thinks of himself as a Russian De Gaulle or a Franco', head of a self-consciously 'transitional regime' aimed at restoring a semi-traditional political and social order...
That may even include the monarchy...
'The return of the Romanovs would be part of his historical role, a way of knitting the country's history together again, of declaring that at last the revolution is over.'...
He claims he was once present when Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the firebrand nationalist that heads Russia's Liberal National Democratic Party, compared Putin to Franco in Putin's presence. The Russian president didn't object.
Of Putin's three 'favorite' philosophers (Vladimir Solovyov, Nikolai Berdyaev and Ivan Ilyin) it's Ilyin who is thought to have exercised the greatest influence over Putin's understanding of Russia's political and spiritual history..."
The whole article is worth reading and you can look at it HERE
Friday, August 19, 2016
Update: Fr. Chad Ripperger on the status of the SSPX and Traditionalist Issues
A while back I had made a post in regards to what Fr. Ripperger thought of the SSPX. It was quite dated, and having come across a video recorded in 2015 I figured I would make it available here.
Also he addresses his concerns that many in the traditionalist movement are often prey to become modernists themselves. Fast forward to the 1 hour 26 minute and 30 second mark to hear the topic
Also he addresses his concerns that many in the traditionalist movement are often prey to become modernists themselves. Fast forward to the 1 hour 26 minute and 30 second mark to hear the topic
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
New Fr. Ripperger videos on Magisterial Authority, the binding power of tradition, the liturgy, etc...
So before Steve throws them up on Sensus Fidelium, here are some new video's from Father Ripperger. I have also put together a list, along with the first video, that shows the topics and the time it appears at. Do enjoy, and say three Hail Mary's for Father and his Order which you can find in the "Learn the Faith" tab above
As I get more time I will crate similar lists for the other videos
As I get more time I will crate similar lists for the other videos
Monday, August 15, 2016
Second Update: Fr. Ripperger; Update from Feser: Msgr Swetland finds no place at the Inn for Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch
In the files of novelty for the masses a new file was just created, booked and filed away. Monsignor Swetland of EWTN fame and the head of Donnelly college, was recently in a debate with Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch (himself a Melkite - Eastern Catholic).
The whole article can be had HERE
"Msgr. Swetland contends that statements of recent Popes to the effect that Islam is a religion of peace fall into the category of teachings to which Catholics must give “religious assent,” as per the quotation below from the Second Vatican Council document Lumen Gentium.
If Msgr. Swetland is correct, then I am, as he puts it, “a dissenter from the papal magisterium.” So also, then, would be millions of other Catholics, including Catholics from the Middle East who have borne the brunt of Muslim persecution of Christians and know what Islam teaches, such as the gentleman from Lebanon who phoned in to the Mariani Show during my discussion with Msgr. Swetland. If Msgr. Swetland is correct, then Catholics must affirm that Islam is a religion of peace as part and parcel of being Catholic, and the Catholic Church will be requiring that its faithful affirm the truth of what is an obvious and egregious falsehood, as I demonstrated here and in many other places.
If Msgr. Swetland is correct, and it is Church teaching that all Catholics must accept that Islam is a religion of peace, then the Catholic hierarchy will have demonstrated that it does not have the authority or reliability in discerning and transmitting the truth that it claims to have; Papal claims to speak in the name of Christ will be eviscerated; and the Catholic Church as a whole exposed as a fraud...
It is very important for all believers that the authentic teaching of the Church be clear so that we may know the truth and attempt to live it to the full. I submit that there is a serious difference between the repeated magisterial teachings of the Church and the teaching of Robert Spencer in this area. For the sake of all, this situation needs to be clarified. "
Quite the interesting time for Msgr Swetland to be touting the Religion of Peace Dogma in the name of the Church. It was just last week that Abp Pozzo noted once again (cause Ratzinger had said this before) that the documents related to inter religious and ecumenical relations are not dogmatic, but pastoral letters which could never be bound on the Church as a whole because they are novel and do not relate to a matter of faith or morals. One Peter Five did a sum of this the other day which you can find HERE.
I seem to remember that every time traditional Catholic teachings that dealt with matters in relation to Jews or Muslims we are told constantly that we must approach it in the light of Nostra Aetate, as if a one size fits all definition fits reality.
Perhaps Msgr Swetland can spend a sabbatical in Iraq and Syria with his brother priests to experience non heretical Orthodox Islam? Just saying... but conservative Catholicism and EWTN approved?!
---------------------------------
An excellent follow up from the Thomist Edward Feser HERE
-----------------------------------
Fr. Chad Ripperger also addressed this question and the question about whether Allah is the same God we as Christians worship in the following talk at the 58 min 50 second mark about. His response is different than Edward Feser who is also a Thomist on the latter issue:
The whole article can be had HERE
"Msgr. Swetland contends that statements of recent Popes to the effect that Islam is a religion of peace fall into the category of teachings to which Catholics must give “religious assent,” as per the quotation below from the Second Vatican Council document Lumen Gentium.
If Msgr. Swetland is correct, then I am, as he puts it, “a dissenter from the papal magisterium.” So also, then, would be millions of other Catholics, including Catholics from the Middle East who have borne the brunt of Muslim persecution of Christians and know what Islam teaches, such as the gentleman from Lebanon who phoned in to the Mariani Show during my discussion with Msgr. Swetland. If Msgr. Swetland is correct, then Catholics must affirm that Islam is a religion of peace as part and parcel of being Catholic, and the Catholic Church will be requiring that its faithful affirm the truth of what is an obvious and egregious falsehood, as I demonstrated here and in many other places.
If Msgr. Swetland is correct, and it is Church teaching that all Catholics must accept that Islam is a religion of peace, then the Catholic hierarchy will have demonstrated that it does not have the authority or reliability in discerning and transmitting the truth that it claims to have; Papal claims to speak in the name of Christ will be eviscerated; and the Catholic Church as a whole exposed as a fraud...
It is very important for all believers that the authentic teaching of the Church be clear so that we may know the truth and attempt to live it to the full. I submit that there is a serious difference between the repeated magisterial teachings of the Church and the teaching of Robert Spencer in this area. For the sake of all, this situation needs to be clarified. "
Quite the interesting time for Msgr Swetland to be touting the Religion of Peace Dogma in the name of the Church. It was just last week that Abp Pozzo noted once again (cause Ratzinger had said this before) that the documents related to inter religious and ecumenical relations are not dogmatic, but pastoral letters which could never be bound on the Church as a whole because they are novel and do not relate to a matter of faith or morals. One Peter Five did a sum of this the other day which you can find HERE.
I seem to remember that every time traditional Catholic teachings that dealt with matters in relation to Jews or Muslims we are told constantly that we must approach it in the light of Nostra Aetate, as if a one size fits all definition fits reality.
Perhaps Msgr Swetland can spend a sabbatical in Iraq and Syria with his brother priests to experience non heretical Orthodox Islam? Just saying... but conservative Catholicism and EWTN approved?!
---------------------------------
An excellent follow up from the Thomist Edward Feser HERE
-----------------------------------
Fr. Chad Ripperger also addressed this question and the question about whether Allah is the same God we as Christians worship in the following talk at the 58 min 50 second mark about. His response is different than Edward Feser who is also a Thomist on the latter issue:
Thursday, August 11, 2016
Breaking Luther and Myths Glenn Beck told you: Luther made it possible to have a personal relationship with Christ
The idea that the corrupt Catholic Church of the renaissance was not, and could not ever be conducive to providing for and maintaining a personal relationship with Christ pure pandering to the emotionally obsessed. You will see it all the time with people asking “Have you accepted Christ into your heart as your personal Lord and savior?” At the heart of it, Protestantism is the religion of emotional experiences devoid of any objective means to place any trust in the doctrines it proposes. What does it even mean to say one has accepted Jesus into their heart as their personal Lord and Savior? It is true that we will all be judged separately, but it is not true that we will be saved based solely on a personal relationship with Christ. Our Lord tells us that He and His Church are one. He does not look at his Bride in multiplicities. He has one body by which we as people enter into through Baptism. This Baptism is not had apart from His Bride. Baptism is not just a indivual act. We cannot baptize ourselves. St. Paul puts it this way
20 But now there are many members indeed, yet one body. 21 And the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help; nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you. 22 Yea, much more those that seem to be the more feeble members of the body, are more necessary. 23 And such as we think to be the less honourable members of the body, about these we put more abundant honour; and those that are our uncomely parts, have more abundant comeliness. 24 But our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, giving to that which wanted the more abundant honour,25 That there might be no schism in the body; but the members might be mutually careful one for another. 26 And if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it; or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it.
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member. We as individuals are brought into the Church and sanctified through Her. This is done with the help of the sacraments and in unison with the prayers and intercessions we make in Christ on behalf of one another.
Martin Luther and Glenn Beck both have something in common, they are addicted to the notion of rugged individualism. That understanding God will save us apart from others and that all he wants us to do is say we believe and that is all we need is a passing of the buck.
If we fail to do the spiritual works of mercy when they are justly presented to us we fail to observe the order that has been presented us in this world by God who has put His Order (will) into His creation to observe. If we willfully choose not to observe this ordering we create disorder, in other words sin. And we do this of our own free will. Luther, like Calvin, ultimately denied free will. By saying the individual is more important than being part of the One Body, Christ’s Church – the Catholic Church – Beck and Luther fail to observe the virtue of Humility, falling to pride. I did it my way is the song of those in Hell, not those that are humble in observing the virtue of obedience. Great, know Christ personally, but realize that Christ does not leave us to our own means to know who he is and how he wishes to bring us into a family relationship with him. Left to our own rugged individualist desires we will most assuredly seek after means that will placate the senses like warm feelings and agreeable ideas to the way we currently live our lives. So like the Ethiopian Eunuch, we are not just called to say we have faith and be content in our personal interpretations. God has placed in his Church authorities over us as Paul relates later in the same verse. To know this authority we are not left with warm feelings like the Mormons and Lutherans ultimately have to appeal to when declaring their doctrines to be true. Through the laying on of hands we have an objective means that can be traced to the Apostles themselves who appointed and gave their authority to others to continue on until the end of time teaching the faith and confecting the sacraments.
We are saved through the Church who is one with Her Bridegroom. And no one comes to the Father but through the Son. As the Apostolic Fathers and all others that were taught by the Apostles themselves taught the Bishops are the successors to the Apostles and in them is Christs authority to loose and bind. Christ said to them “He who hears you hears me, and he who despises you despises me”, I will be with you until the end of time”, the spirit of Truth which he granted to the Apostles “will lead you to all truths”. This is not a subjective matter but a reality that can be known objectively. That Luther struggled with the understanding that the sacraments are not dependent on his own ability to deserve or merit their graces clearly shows his distaste for anything objective. Everything was determined by feelings. He felt it right not to obey a Pope if he did not personally give his consent to him… like a Pharisee to Christ. Because Luther was nothing more than a Pharisee in his own day, unable to see the gift given regardless of the person, and to submit in humble gratitude for the gift.
Gratitude, Humility and obedience – these are gifts a Catholic possesses because he realizes he is not his own.
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
Sunday, August 7, 2016
Answering James Martin S.J on the matter of the Canaanite women
So, not that it is anything new but, Fr. Martin has gifted us with another one of his interpretations of a passage of scripture.
The passage?
So what did Fr. Martin have to say?
Look this is what modernists do, when they are exposed to the light they scurry trying to find any means of justifying their erronious teachings. Father Martin knows he can get away with this so he continuously leads people astray with his thinking that flows from a bad formation in his youth and on up.
Since I see no point in reinventing the wheel, here is an excellent article on this specific issue:
Click HERE for the article
... but, but he is a Jesuit, he is way smart and cant be wrong... Ha
The passage?
The Faith of a Canaanite Woman
21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”
23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
So what did Fr. Martin have to say?
Gospel: Jesus is challenged by the Canaanite woman to see that his ministry extends to all. He changes his mind, learning from a wise woman.— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) August 3, 2016
For all who were surprised by my tweet on the Canaanite woman, you need to brush up on your exegesis. Jesus is fully human and fully divine.— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) August 3, 2016
Thus, he would have had both a human consciousness and a divine consciousness. The way that those two came together remains a mystery.— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) August 3, 2016
In some passages, Jesus seems to have omniscience (e.g., he predicts his Resurrection). In others, he says he does not know all (Mt. 24:36)— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) August 3, 2016
In today's passage, it seems that he is challenged to see that his ministry extends to everyone. And so he seems to learn from this woman.— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) August 3, 2016
He does this after sharply calling her (or her family, or her people) "dogs" (κυνάρια) Which exegetes say was as harsh then as today.— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) August 3, 2016
So he seems to soften, realize that his ministry is broader, and then heals her daughter. To me, a beautiful interplay of human and divine.— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) August 3, 2016
That is my exegesis on the mystery of his full humanity and divinity, respectful of both, in a strange and mysterious story that I love.— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) August 3, 2016
So please spare me your charges of heresy and your trolling tweets about this passage I love. It demeans you, our faith, and the Gospel.— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) August 3, 2016
Look this is what modernists do, when they are exposed to the light they scurry trying to find any means of justifying their erronious teachings. Father Martin knows he can get away with this so he continuously leads people astray with his thinking that flows from a bad formation in his youth and on up.
Since I see no point in reinventing the wheel, here is an excellent article on this specific issue:
Click HERE for the article
... but, but he is a Jesuit, he is way smart and cant be wrong... Ha
+JMJ+
St Alphonsus Marie Liguori: True & False Zeal
Sorry I have been a little busy lately so my posts have been infrequent. But seeing as it is the feast day of Holy Alphonsus Liguori I had to share because he is such a huge influence:
Father Shannon Collins: Does the Church still teach that?
It took a while to find but I finally came across some old but fantastic catechetical talks from 2004 in the EWTN archives.
I hope you find it informative and may God bless you!
I hope you find it informative and may God bless you!
+JMJ+
The Sadness of Christ: Sleeping Bishops in the Garden of Gethsemane - St. Thomas More
The following article appeared in the June edition of the Remnant:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sadness of Christ: Sleeping Bishops in the Garden of Gethsemane
By St. Thomas More (1478-1535) -
Introduced and Edited for The Remnant by Connie Bagnoli Thomas More rose from humble origins to achieve the highest political and judicial office of England, second only to that of the King. He was recognized throughout early sixteenth-century Europe as one of the great lawyers, Christian
humanists, and classical scholars of his day. During his years of studying and teaching, More continued an intense life of prayer. At age 26, he was elected to Parliament; at 27 he married Jane Colt and fathered four children in the next five years. Jane died when More was 33, leaving him with four young children.
Despite his deep sorrow, he remarried again within one month for the sake of his children. He married the best woman he knew, Alice Middleton.
After fifteen years of prosperous civil life, More was called to serve the King at court, a position he did not want and would not seek out. Yet as a loyal citizen, More considered it the “duty of every good man” to contribute to the service of his country.
Once in the King’s service, More commanded Henry VIII’s friendship and trust, serving primarily as his personal secretary, but with some administrative and diplomatic responsibilities. He rose steadily over the next ten years, finally became Chancellor in 1529, at the age of fifty-one. More was Chancellor for only thirty-one months. He resigned on May 16, 1532, the day after Henry VIII manipulated the Parliament to take away the traditional freedom of the Church, a freedom that had been written into English law since the Magna Carta. At issue was the survival of the Church as well as the nature of law and the scope of the state’s legitimate authority.
Imprisoned in the Tower of London for fifteen months before his execution, Thomas More was heavily pressured by family and friends to sign the oath accepting Henry VIII as the Supreme Head of the Church of England. More steadfastly refused but never expressed animosity towards those who complied.
During this time, he wrote a number of devotional and exegetical works, including “The Sadness, the Weariness, the Fear and the Prayer of Christ Before He was taken Prisoner”, an in-depth study and meditation on Our Lord’s agony in the Garden of Gethsemane.
What Thomas More writes applies pointedly to the individuals of his own age who were responsible for the virtual destruction of the Church in England. He writes of the Apostles falling asleep at their post and Judas’ betrayal of Christ as “a mirror image of what has happened through the ages.” More’s message is not limited to the issues of his own time.
Intentionally universal, it is applicable to every age and every individual. More sees the “sleeping Apostles” as a “mysterious image of future times”—it is a lesson for all time.
That St. Thomas More was “the King’s good servant, but God’s servant first” was readily seen in his life of prayer and penance. From the time he was a young man, More started each day with private prayer, spiritual reading, and Mass, regardless of his many duties. He lived demanding mortifications in his characteristically discreet and merry manner. He generously cared for the poor and needy and involved his own children in this same work. He had special devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, to frequent meditation on the Passion, and to the rosary.
Thomas More was executed on July 6, 1535, and canonized as a martyr by Pope Pius XI on May 19, 1935. He has become a symbol of professional integrity, famous for balanced judgment, ever-present humor, and undaunted courage that led him to be known, even in his own lifetime, as “The Man for All Seasons.” He is the Patron Saint of Statesman, Politicians, Lawyers and Civil Servants. St. Thomas More’s feast day is June 22nd.
venerated His heavenly Father in a bodily posture which no earthly prince has dared to command. Our Savior Christ saw that nothing is more profitable than prayer, but He also was aware that this means of salvation would very often be fruitless because of the negligence of men and the malice of demons--so much so that it would very frequently be perverted into an instrument of destruction.
And He went to His disciples and found them sleeping. (Mt 26:40; Mk 14:37, Lk 22:45) Notice here how much greater one love is than another. Notice how Christ’s love for His own was much greater than the love they gave in return, even those who loved Him most. For even the sadness, fear, dread and weariness which so grievously assailed Him as His most cruel torment was drawing near could not keep Him from going to see them. But they, on the other hand, however much they loved Him even at the very time when such an enormous danger was threatening their loving Master, could still give in to sleep.
And He said to Peter, “Simon, are you sleeping? Could you not stay awake one hour with me? Stay awake and pray that you may not enter into temptation. For the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” (Mt 26-40-41, Mk 14-37-38) This short speech of Christ is remarkably forceful: the words are mild, but their point is sharp and piercing. For by addressing him as Simon and reproaching him under that name for his sleepiness, Christ tacitly lets it be known that the name Peter, which Christ had previously given him because of his firmness, would hardly be altogether appropriate now, because of this infirmity and sleep.
Moreover, not only was the failure to use the name Peter a barbed omission, but the actual use of the name Simon also carries a sting. For in Hebrew, the language in which Christ was speaking to him, “Simon” means “listening” and “obedient”. But in fact, he was neither listening nor obedient, since he went to sleep against Christ’s express wishes.
Our Savior’s gentle words to Peter seem to carry certain other barbed implications, which if He were chiding him more severely would be: “Simon, no longer Cephas (Peter), are you sleeping? How do you deserve to be called Peter, which is Rock? I singled you out because of your firmness, but now you show yourself to be so infirm that you could not hold out even for one hour against the inroads of sleep. I always made much of you, Simon, and yet you are sleeping? I paid you many high honors, and yet, you are sleeping? I am being pursued to the death, and you are sleeping? What can I expect from the others, when in such great and pressing danger, not only to Me but also to all of you, that I find you sleeping?
Then, lest this seem to be a matter which concerned Peter only, He turned and spoke to the others: “Stay awake and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed in willing, but the flesh is weak.”
And again He went away for the second time, and said the same prayer over again in these words: “My Father, if this cup cannot pass away without my drinking it, let your will be done.”
And He came again and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. And they did not know what answer to make to Him. And leaving them, He went away again and, kneeling down, said the same prayer in these words: “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me. Yet not my will, but yours be done.” (Mk 14-39-40, Mt 26:42-44)
When Christ came back from that prayer to see His apostles and found them sleeping and so startled by His arrival that they did not know what to say, He left them, so that it might seem He had come only for the purpose of finding out whether they were awake, whereas He could not have lacked this knowledge (insofar as He was God), even before He came. The answer is: Nothing Our Lord did was done in vain. It is true that His coming into their presence did not rouse them to complete vigilance but only to such a startled, half-awake drowsiness that they hardly raised their eyes to look at Him; or else (what is worse yet) if His reproaches did wake them up completely, still they slipped back into sleep the moment He want away. He Himself both demonstrated His anxious concern for His disciples and also by His example gave to the future pastors of His church a solemn injunction not to allow themselves the slightest wavering, out of sadness or weariness or fear, their diligent care of their flock, but rather to conduct themselves so as to prove in actual fact that they are not so much concerned for themselves as for the welfare of their flock.
And when He had arisen from prayer and come to His disciples, He found them sleeping for sadness, and He said to them, “Why are you sleeping? Sleep on now and take your rest. That is enough. Get up and pray that you may not enter into temptation. Behold, the hour is coming when the Son of Man will be betrayed into the hands of sinners. Get up, let us go. Behold, the one who will betray me is near at hand” (Mt 26:45-46, Mk14:41-42)
When Christ comes back to His apostles for the third time, there they are, buried in sleep, though He commanded them to bear up with Him and to stay awake and pray because of the impending danger; but Judas the traitor at the same time was so wide awake and intent on betraying the Lord that the very idea of sleep never entered his mind. Does not this contrast between the traitor and the apostles present to us a clear and sharp mirror image, a sad and terrible view of what has happened through the ages from those times even to our own? Why do not bishops contemplate in this scene their own somnolence? Since they have succeeded in the place of the apostles, would that they would reproduce their virtues just as eagerly as they embrace their authority and as faithfully as they display their sloth and sleepiness! For very many are sleepy and apathetic in sowing virtues among the people and maintaining the truth, while the enemies of Christ, in order to sow vices and uproot the faith are wide awake—so much wiser are the sons of darkness in their generation than the sons of light.
But although this comparison of the sleeping apostles applies very well to those bishops who sleep while virtue and faith are placed in jeopardy, still it does not apply to all such prelates at all points. For some of them—alas, far more than I wish—do not drift into sleep through sadness and grief as the apostles did. Rather, they are numbed and buried in destructive desires; that is, drunk with new wine of the devil, flesh and the world. They sleep like pigs sprawling in the mire. Certainly, the apostles feeling sadness because of the danger to their Master was praiseworthy, but for them to be so overcome by sadness as to yield completely to sleep, that was certainly wrong. To grieve because the world is perishing or to weep because of the crimes of others bespeaks a reverent outlook.
Sadness of this sort produces repentance that surely tends toward salvation. If a bishop is so overcome by heavy-hearted sleep that he neglects to do what the duty of his office requires for the salvation of his flock—like a cowardly ship’s captain who is so disheartened by the furious din of a storm that he deserts the helm, hides away in some cranny, and abandons the ship to the waves—if a bishop does this, I would certainly not juxtapose and compare his sadness with the sadness that leads, as St. Paul says, to hell; indeed, I would consider it far worse, since such sadness in religious matters seems to spring from a mind which despairs God of help. Far worse, consists of those not depressed by sadness at the danger of others but rather by a fear of injury to themselves, a fear which is so much the worse as its cause is the more contemptible, that is when it is not a question of life or death, but of money.
Our Lord commands: “Do not be afraid of those who destroy the body and after that can do nothing further. But I will show you the one you should fear: fear him, who, when he has destroyed the body, has the power to send the soul also to hell. This I tell you, is the one you must fear.” If every good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep, certainly one who saves his own life to the detriment of his sheep is not filling the role of the good shepherd. Even worse, if driven by fear, he denies Christ openly in words and forsakes Him publicly. Such prelates do not sleep like Peter, but deny his waking. But under the kindly glance of Christ, many of them through His grace will eventually wipe out that failure and save themselves by weeping, if only they respond to His glance and friendly call to repentance with bitterness of heart and a new way of life and leave behind the shackles of evil which bound them to their sins. But if anyone is so set in evil that he does not merely neglect to profess the truth and preaches false doctrine, whether for sordid gain or out of a corrupt ambition, such a person does not sleep like Peter, but rather stays awake with wicked Judas and, like Judas, persecutes Christ. This man’s condition is far more dangerous than that of the others, as shown by the sad and horrible end Judas came to.
Christ did not merely order the apostles to pray but shows them the need for it and teaches what they should pray for. Pray that you may not enter into temptation.
Prayer is the only safeguard against temptation which permits the besieging troops of the devil to enter the castle of the soul. From the example of bad priests, the contamination of vice spreads easily among the people. During these times of severe crisis in Our Lord’s Church, it is necessary for the people to stay awake, get up, and pray all the more earnestly for themselves--and not only for themselves but also for the Successor of St. Peter, the Princes of the Church, and all clergy. Let us imagine that Christ is addressing us: “WHYARE YOU SLEEPING? SLEEP ON NOW AND TAKE YOUR REST. THAT IS ENOUGH! GET UPAND PRAY! THE ONE WHO WILL BETRAY ME IS AT HAND.”
St. Thomas More, Faithful Servant of God, Pray for Us!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sadness of Christ: Sleeping Bishops in the Garden of Gethsemane
By St. Thomas More (1478-1535) -
Introduced and Edited for The Remnant by Connie Bagnoli Thomas More rose from humble origins to achieve the highest political and judicial office of England, second only to that of the King. He was recognized throughout early sixteenth-century Europe as one of the great lawyers, Christian
 |
| A young Thomas More |
Despite his deep sorrow, he remarried again within one month for the sake of his children. He married the best woman he knew, Alice Middleton.
After fifteen years of prosperous civil life, More was called to serve the King at court, a position he did not want and would not seek out. Yet as a loyal citizen, More considered it the “duty of every good man” to contribute to the service of his country.
Once in the King’s service, More commanded Henry VIII’s friendship and trust, serving primarily as his personal secretary, but with some administrative and diplomatic responsibilities. He rose steadily over the next ten years, finally became Chancellor in 1529, at the age of fifty-one. More was Chancellor for only thirty-one months. He resigned on May 16, 1532, the day after Henry VIII manipulated the Parliament to take away the traditional freedom of the Church, a freedom that had been written into English law since the Magna Carta. At issue was the survival of the Church as well as the nature of law and the scope of the state’s legitimate authority.
Imprisoned in the Tower of London for fifteen months before his execution, Thomas More was heavily pressured by family and friends to sign the oath accepting Henry VIII as the Supreme Head of the Church of England. More steadfastly refused but never expressed animosity towards those who complied.
During this time, he wrote a number of devotional and exegetical works, including “The Sadness, the Weariness, the Fear and the Prayer of Christ Before He was taken Prisoner”, an in-depth study and meditation on Our Lord’s agony in the Garden of Gethsemane.
What Thomas More writes applies pointedly to the individuals of his own age who were responsible for the virtual destruction of the Church in England. He writes of the Apostles falling asleep at their post and Judas’ betrayal of Christ as “a mirror image of what has happened through the ages.” More’s message is not limited to the issues of his own time.
Intentionally universal, it is applicable to every age and every individual. More sees the “sleeping Apostles” as a “mysterious image of future times”—it is a lesson for all time.
That St. Thomas More was “the King’s good servant, but God’s servant first” was readily seen in his life of prayer and penance. From the time he was a young man, More started each day with private prayer, spiritual reading, and Mass, regardless of his many duties. He lived demanding mortifications in his characteristically discreet and merry manner. He generously cared for the poor and needy and involved his own children in this same work. He had special devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, to frequent meditation on the Passion, and to the rosary.
Thomas More was executed on July 6, 1535, and canonized as a martyr by Pope Pius XI on May 19, 1935. He has become a symbol of professional integrity, famous for balanced judgment, ever-present humor, and undaunted courage that led him to be known, even in his own lifetime, as “The Man for All Seasons.” He is the Patron Saint of Statesman, Politicians, Lawyers and Civil Servants. St. Thomas More’s feast day is June 22nd.
venerated His heavenly Father in a bodily posture which no earthly prince has dared to command. Our Savior Christ saw that nothing is more profitable than prayer, but He also was aware that this means of salvation would very often be fruitless because of the negligence of men and the malice of demons--so much so that it would very frequently be perverted into an instrument of destruction.
And He went to His disciples and found them sleeping. (Mt 26:40; Mk 14:37, Lk 22:45) Notice here how much greater one love is than another. Notice how Christ’s love for His own was much greater than the love they gave in return, even those who loved Him most. For even the sadness, fear, dread and weariness which so grievously assailed Him as His most cruel torment was drawing near could not keep Him from going to see them. But they, on the other hand, however much they loved Him even at the very time when such an enormous danger was threatening their loving Master, could still give in to sleep.
And He said to Peter, “Simon, are you sleeping? Could you not stay awake one hour with me? Stay awake and pray that you may not enter into temptation. For the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” (Mt 26-40-41, Mk 14-37-38) This short speech of Christ is remarkably forceful: the words are mild, but their point is sharp and piercing. For by addressing him as Simon and reproaching him under that name for his sleepiness, Christ tacitly lets it be known that the name Peter, which Christ had previously given him because of his firmness, would hardly be altogether appropriate now, because of this infirmity and sleep.
Moreover, not only was the failure to use the name Peter a barbed omission, but the actual use of the name Simon also carries a sting. For in Hebrew, the language in which Christ was speaking to him, “Simon” means “listening” and “obedient”. But in fact, he was neither listening nor obedient, since he went to sleep against Christ’s express wishes.
Our Savior’s gentle words to Peter seem to carry certain other barbed implications, which if He were chiding him more severely would be: “Simon, no longer Cephas (Peter), are you sleeping? How do you deserve to be called Peter, which is Rock? I singled you out because of your firmness, but now you show yourself to be so infirm that you could not hold out even for one hour against the inroads of sleep. I always made much of you, Simon, and yet you are sleeping? I paid you many high honors, and yet, you are sleeping? I am being pursued to the death, and you are sleeping? What can I expect from the others, when in such great and pressing danger, not only to Me but also to all of you, that I find you sleeping?
Then, lest this seem to be a matter which concerned Peter only, He turned and spoke to the others: “Stay awake and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed in willing, but the flesh is weak.”
And again He went away for the second time, and said the same prayer over again in these words: “My Father, if this cup cannot pass away without my drinking it, let your will be done.”
And He came again and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. And they did not know what answer to make to Him. And leaving them, He went away again and, kneeling down, said the same prayer in these words: “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me. Yet not my will, but yours be done.” (Mk 14-39-40, Mt 26:42-44)
When Christ came back from that prayer to see His apostles and found them sleeping and so startled by His arrival that they did not know what to say, He left them, so that it might seem He had come only for the purpose of finding out whether they were awake, whereas He could not have lacked this knowledge (insofar as He was God), even before He came. The answer is: Nothing Our Lord did was done in vain. It is true that His coming into their presence did not rouse them to complete vigilance but only to such a startled, half-awake drowsiness that they hardly raised their eyes to look at Him; or else (what is worse yet) if His reproaches did wake them up completely, still they slipped back into sleep the moment He want away. He Himself both demonstrated His anxious concern for His disciples and also by His example gave to the future pastors of His church a solemn injunction not to allow themselves the slightest wavering, out of sadness or weariness or fear, their diligent care of their flock, but rather to conduct themselves so as to prove in actual fact that they are not so much concerned for themselves as for the welfare of their flock.
And when He had arisen from prayer and come to His disciples, He found them sleeping for sadness, and He said to them, “Why are you sleeping? Sleep on now and take your rest. That is enough. Get up and pray that you may not enter into temptation. Behold, the hour is coming when the Son of Man will be betrayed into the hands of sinners. Get up, let us go. Behold, the one who will betray me is near at hand” (Mt 26:45-46, Mk14:41-42)
When Christ comes back to His apostles for the third time, there they are, buried in sleep, though He commanded them to bear up with Him and to stay awake and pray because of the impending danger; but Judas the traitor at the same time was so wide awake and intent on betraying the Lord that the very idea of sleep never entered his mind. Does not this contrast between the traitor and the apostles present to us a clear and sharp mirror image, a sad and terrible view of what has happened through the ages from those times even to our own? Why do not bishops contemplate in this scene their own somnolence? Since they have succeeded in the place of the apostles, would that they would reproduce their virtues just as eagerly as they embrace their authority and as faithfully as they display their sloth and sleepiness! For very many are sleepy and apathetic in sowing virtues among the people and maintaining the truth, while the enemies of Christ, in order to sow vices and uproot the faith are wide awake—so much wiser are the sons of darkness in their generation than the sons of light.
But although this comparison of the sleeping apostles applies very well to those bishops who sleep while virtue and faith are placed in jeopardy, still it does not apply to all such prelates at all points. For some of them—alas, far more than I wish—do not drift into sleep through sadness and grief as the apostles did. Rather, they are numbed and buried in destructive desires; that is, drunk with new wine of the devil, flesh and the world. They sleep like pigs sprawling in the mire. Certainly, the apostles feeling sadness because of the danger to their Master was praiseworthy, but for them to be so overcome by sadness as to yield completely to sleep, that was certainly wrong. To grieve because the world is perishing or to weep because of the crimes of others bespeaks a reverent outlook.
Sadness of this sort produces repentance that surely tends toward salvation. If a bishop is so overcome by heavy-hearted sleep that he neglects to do what the duty of his office requires for the salvation of his flock—like a cowardly ship’s captain who is so disheartened by the furious din of a storm that he deserts the helm, hides away in some cranny, and abandons the ship to the waves—if a bishop does this, I would certainly not juxtapose and compare his sadness with the sadness that leads, as St. Paul says, to hell; indeed, I would consider it far worse, since such sadness in religious matters seems to spring from a mind which despairs God of help. Far worse, consists of those not depressed by sadness at the danger of others but rather by a fear of injury to themselves, a fear which is so much the worse as its cause is the more contemptible, that is when it is not a question of life or death, but of money.
Our Lord commands: “Do not be afraid of those who destroy the body and after that can do nothing further. But I will show you the one you should fear: fear him, who, when he has destroyed the body, has the power to send the soul also to hell. This I tell you, is the one you must fear.” If every good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep, certainly one who saves his own life to the detriment of his sheep is not filling the role of the good shepherd. Even worse, if driven by fear, he denies Christ openly in words and forsakes Him publicly. Such prelates do not sleep like Peter, but deny his waking. But under the kindly glance of Christ, many of them through His grace will eventually wipe out that failure and save themselves by weeping, if only they respond to His glance and friendly call to repentance with bitterness of heart and a new way of life and leave behind the shackles of evil which bound them to their sins. But if anyone is so set in evil that he does not merely neglect to profess the truth and preaches false doctrine, whether for sordid gain or out of a corrupt ambition, such a person does not sleep like Peter, but rather stays awake with wicked Judas and, like Judas, persecutes Christ. This man’s condition is far more dangerous than that of the others, as shown by the sad and horrible end Judas came to.
Christ did not merely order the apostles to pray but shows them the need for it and teaches what they should pray for. Pray that you may not enter into temptation.
Prayer is the only safeguard against temptation which permits the besieging troops of the devil to enter the castle of the soul. From the example of bad priests, the contamination of vice spreads easily among the people. During these times of severe crisis in Our Lord’s Church, it is necessary for the people to stay awake, get up, and pray all the more earnestly for themselves--and not only for themselves but also for the Successor of St. Peter, the Princes of the Church, and all clergy. Let us imagine that Christ is addressing us: “WHYARE YOU SLEEPING? SLEEP ON NOW AND TAKE YOUR REST. THAT IS ENOUGH! GET UPAND PRAY! THE ONE WHO WILL BETRAY ME IS AT HAND.”
St. Thomas More, Faithful Servant of God, Pray for Us!
Myths Glenn Beck told you: Islam, like Catholicism in it's day, needs a reformation
The notion that Islam needs a reformation, in the same manner that Christianity (ie: Catholicism) needed one in the 16th century, almost gets it right. The problem is what today appeases the masses as the reformation, was not a reforming of the faith (which would come later under great saints like Philip Neri and Ignatius of Loyola) but a revolution that tore Christendom into pieces of silly string.
The protestant revolution did not lead to holiness, it did not lead to peace, it did not lead to holy souls. Its fruits are there for all to see today. Just some to consider:
1. Confusion: as 30,000 plus man made religions find themselves in open contradiction. All claiming to be filled with the spirit, yet under this notion God is pitted against himself
2. Lies and black legends formed to slander Catholics: In order to strip even the pious men of their authority in the faith, slanders and calumnies were employed to pit peasant against his brother, Lords against the clergy and Kings against kings.
3. Iconoclasm and avarice reigned among the people, especially among the royals.
4. Reason and faith were separated to the point that philosophy no longer sought to understand reality, but to find any manner by which creation could be inverted to play to the desires of any one person.
5. Virtues were replaced with values. Formless as they were, tolerance became a greater pursuit then order which had made Christendom. Soon all things would be given a place at the table, because no one wanted to offend anyone else, since it wouldn’t feel good.
And this is only a start to the fruits of the protestant revolt.
So if a revolution happens in the Islamic world, you are not
going to get the desired result. Why? Because Islam is not one as Catholicism
is. It is much closer to a mix of Orthodoxy and Protestantism. Orthodoxy in that There are at least 5 different
schools of thought, which disagree with each other all the time leaving nothing
ever to get done or affirmed over the whole. Protestantism, in that it is a pillaging community that values a lack of
reason in favor of emotions. Yes that is Protestantism in a nutshell. Ask Luther to write more theology from the
toilet.
The goal is not to see Islam reformed. That is not what our
Lord willed so why do we encourage such?
Let the goofy evangelicals and Mormons that push their universalism fall
in their own ditch on the matter. We as
Catholics can only be for one thing, the absolute abrogation of the Islamic religion.
Not by force, but by use of reason and prayer. Rosaries and Thomistic studies
are going to be key tools in such. That
they may be one. The Church is already
one, she never lost that. She calls the
Orthodox, the protestants, the Mohammadans, Jews, etc into that singular
communion – Outside of which there is no salvation.
Merely calling for Muslims to not be open to following the
example of their revered founder, but instead to practice the values of America…
somehow that is supposed to fix things.
Americanism is not an improvement from Islamism, it is a heresy and
leads to indifferentism (being lukewarm, at least the Mohammadans are cold).
I don’t want an Islamic reformation, I want the reign of
Christ the King and the exposing of all false practices including all
protestant sects and muslim and jewish faith pillars.
In the end her Immaculate Heart will triumph and Russia will
be consecrated.
+JMJ+
KTMT: Thomism and the Death Penalty
Recently the Thomistic Institute held a series of talks on Politics and Capital Punishment and how it is compatible with the faith. Below I have embedded the soundcloud talks for your enjoyment. Included in the talks is Edward Feser - the noted Thomist - covers the topic of the death penalty.
+JMJ+
+JMJ+
Cardinal Napier is a tad bit confused
So... for all of you out there that get all excited with Cardinal Napier because he's a solid bishop, this was one of a few tweets he sent out that completely miss the mark.
The desire for novelty never ends.
That is like asking, "I'm interested in knowing where and when Vatican II asked that only Men be ordained to Holy Orders".
We are literally at the point where every last thing about the Church must be spelled out in order that the hierarchy that has spent a decade at least in school (supposedly focused on philosophy and theology) are clueless with respect to the highest form of worship in which they are called to engage in. Seriously, especially for priests this is the reason for their being... its not a matter of inclusivism.
Vatican II said zilch about the orientation of the priest because it was obvious that the practice of being oriented to Liturgical East was the practice of the Church from time immemorial, and not something to be tossed to the side.
Second fishing for exceptions to the rule of whether x is completely bad is not a reason to remain with the novel status quo. This is not hard but it does take a willing heart to be a good Shepard to the flock and teach them that the liturgy is not about their physical participation. When the priest orients himself toward the east he makes it clear the focus is not on the people (its not a matter of entertaining folks), he symbolically recognizes that Christ will come again in judgement of all and his priestly office to offer sacrifice to the Father, by the Son, through the Holy Spirit is best realized when distractions are removed from his sight.
Change this one aspect of the NO and change the whole world. The focus will turn from an entertainment value to a sacrificial value. The table will be better understood as an altar, and the priest a persona-Christi.
Yeah, its going to be hard and people are going to be upset the jig is up. Teach the flock, prepare them to be Catholics.
Cardinal Nichols felt it important to direct his priests away from the ancient practice... because its just a matter of preference. Again, as I have said many a time, even if a practice is a matter of discipline it does not merely constitute an issue of preference. Lex Orendi, Lex Credendi. Preference is not a Catholic matter!
@GMCz I'm interested to know where and when Vatican II asked for turning to the east! Secondly whether experience of 50 yrs was all negative— Cardinal Napier (@CardinalNapier) July 10, 2016
The desire for novelty never ends.
That is like asking, "I'm interested in knowing where and when Vatican II asked that only Men be ordained to Holy Orders".
We are literally at the point where every last thing about the Church must be spelled out in order that the hierarchy that has spent a decade at least in school (supposedly focused on philosophy and theology) are clueless with respect to the highest form of worship in which they are called to engage in. Seriously, especially for priests this is the reason for their being... its not a matter of inclusivism.
Vatican II said zilch about the orientation of the priest because it was obvious that the practice of being oriented to Liturgical East was the practice of the Church from time immemorial, and not something to be tossed to the side.
Second fishing for exceptions to the rule of whether x is completely bad is not a reason to remain with the novel status quo. This is not hard but it does take a willing heart to be a good Shepard to the flock and teach them that the liturgy is not about their physical participation. When the priest orients himself toward the east he makes it clear the focus is not on the people (its not a matter of entertaining folks), he symbolically recognizes that Christ will come again in judgement of all and his priestly office to offer sacrifice to the Father, by the Son, through the Holy Spirit is best realized when distractions are removed from his sight.
Change this one aspect of the NO and change the whole world. The focus will turn from an entertainment value to a sacrificial value. The table will be better understood as an altar, and the priest a persona-Christi.
Yeah, its going to be hard and people are going to be upset the jig is up. Teach the flock, prepare them to be Catholics.
Cardinal Nichols felt it important to direct his priests away from the ancient practice... because its just a matter of preference. Again, as I have said many a time, even if a practice is a matter of discipline it does not merely constitute an issue of preference. Lex Orendi, Lex Credendi. Preference is not a Catholic matter!
Should Good Catholics Read John Paul Shimek?
From the Catholic Register... a publication of EWTN
Ines San Martin of Crux reported that Pope Francis “has vowed in a new interview that he won’t be slowed down by resistance from ‘ultra-conservatives’ in the Church who ‘say no to everything,’ insisting, ‘I’m going ahead without looking over my shoulder.’” A sane minde might shutter at this time... just a tad concerning. Almost Quaker-esqe.
Good Catholics everywhere cheered the words of the Holy Father, the Successor of St. Peter. I'm guessing those that choose to foster the virtue of prudence and not wonder with veneration upon everyword the Holy Father brings forth are to be considered "Bad Catholics". Dangerous territory, along the lines of what Blessed John Henry Cardinal Neumann warned of.
You see, they readily understood that a handful of far-right ideologues do not get to determine the course of Christ’s Church. To be fair, those ideologues on the "far-right" who are often maligned as reactionaries(like Dietrich von Hildebrand for instance) or radicals, are not subjective as the writers of this rag have become, but instead employ the gift of the Church's tradition to assess the authority of any statement coming out of the Vatican or even the local chancellery. It doesn’t matter if those ideologues represent semi-schismatic enclaves or write popular blogs. The author is just setting up his own ideology here in regards to "Bad Catholics". Christ the Lord has empowered the Church’s Magisterium in communion with the Successor of St. Peter to lead the People of God. Um... lead the people of God... sort of, more to teach the faith handed to them unadulterated (cause its not theirs to play with) and to tend the flock when error should enter. Not them. Nonetheless, sometimes it can be instructive to read these far-right ideologues. Doing so, reveals some things worth noting about the signs of the times; and, taking stock of those things, helps us to perform better the work of the New Evangelization. Which is an ambiguous play thing that continues to go undefined by the author of this piece. Just what do these blogs reveal? This should be fun!
At first brush, it would seem that there has been a shift in the tectonic plates. At the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Francis, only a small minority of ‘radical traditionalists’(This is not a quantitative issue either way, its a matter of quality) teetering on the edge of schism opposed the man ‘from the ends of the earth.’ So the first issue is why use the term schismatic, its like heretic, way overused by the neo-con crowd and the homoheresey folks. Second, you like the idea of him being from the ends of the earth... so what, pure rhetoric. Middle-of-the-road ‘conservative Catholic’ (be ye hot or cold) types withheld judgment about him, biding their time as he got to know his new flock. Since then, the climate has changed and the sands have shifted. What is this a novel? As a variety of far-right or ultra-conservative Catholic writers make clear, now the ‘in thing’ among their number seems to be to ‘distrust and vilify’ the Pope, not to ‘trust and verify’ him. Thus, far-right Catholic writers get their Catholic ‘street cred’ by maligning the Pope as a chief plotter against the faith. Sadly, its not like the Holy Father makes this off color. Even Fr. Z notes the real issues, albeight with a little more restraint, but that is an issue of prudence. That this is their modus operandi becomes clear after a moment’s inspection of the kind of blogs where they tend to gather on-line. They never seek to read the pontificate of Pope Francis through the lens of charity. Their first instinct is to punch first. While sometimes people are to quick, just as often some are too slow to address the problems. Traddies tend to read things with a limited hope at this time. They do read with charity, especially reading what is said and making an honest assessment of how it will play out in the world today. Charity proceeds from truth afterall.
Thus, they eschew charity and ecclesial union, preferring division and animosity. Garbage, more homoheresey, if your not in my court of doing x, your mean, bad and a concern for catholics everywhere that are with it. That does not bespeak a Catholic ethos. This surfaces a second point: The far-right has radicalized. Gone to the root that is. And the pushers of the homoheresy have grown, and push a false notion of Church based on nothing but feelings apart from truth, which sets us free. A small number of blogs have sent a direct signal to no doubt well-meaning ‘conservative Catholics’ that it is now open season on Francis. That jerk Carl Olsen from CWR is one of those meanies! In effect, these blogs have allowed themselves to become little more than sleeper cells of ‘ultra-conservative Catholic’ ideologues,(This means nothing, but only serves to be divisive, we he claims to abhor) sounding the alarm to arise and take up arms in a bitter civil war where victories are won only by way of resisting the Pope. Well if an issue arises you dont follow error... thats obvious. Scripture tells us that we will know Christians by their fruits. Yet so often the fruit of reading the blogs of far-right and ultra-conservatives Catholics is anger, not peace, sadness, not joy, and ecclesial division, not unity in Christ’s Spirit. Aren’t these the marks of the Evil One? Ambiguity, erronious interpretations and supporting disorder for the sake of getting along... that is in the vein of Satan.Certainly, they’re not the traits of spiritually mature Catholics. Cause a pusher of the homoheresy could inform us such. Thirdly, all this effectively means their program of radicalization is carried out in an extra-ecclesial context. On the frontlines of this new battle for the soul of Catholicism, self-appointed gate-keepers of Catholic orthodoxy fill the ether in concerted attempts to marginalize the voice of the Church’s duly appointed pastors. Well, if the pastors are silent, and the laity are not heretical or il-prudent with their remarks, what is the issue with speaking up and defending the faith which the others are failing to preserve... their duty. Lacking episcopal consecration and any claim to Apostolic succession, they constitute among themselves a sort of ‘parallel magisterium’ that determines for itself the prerogatives of the Pope, the content of authentic Catholic teaching, and the future direction of the Church’s pastoral ministry. This is pure heresy. St. Francis lacked such. Alice von Hildebrand lacks such. This is a real REAL error in the authors understanding of the faith, and must be at least corrected by the editorial staff of the Register
None of that is Catholic. But it might well be deeply Congregationalist. See above
Of course, they carry on their war against the ‘Francis Revolution’(BTW, this guy supports what he calls the Francis revolution as you will see below... ummm that should lead all of good will to demand this fellow we disbarred from such publications). while claiming to launch their missives from the secure tactical ground of established Magisterial teaching. But, ironically, they balk if you point out that they lack the credentials, rank, and profile to command their territory. Luke 19:40 - "I tell you if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out." Cherry-picking the bishops to whom they adhere, and dividing the Church into political parties, they profess a libertarian ecclesiology that selectively adheres to the Church’s authority when it serves their spiritual preferences. Pure garbage, go back to theology 101. If a bishop is in error we dont blindly follow the blind. Plus the libertarian ecclesiolgy snipe is an inability to understand that all Catholics are bound to the faith as taught immemorial, and even if an angel should come and teach something, if it be not of the perennial tradition we are to treat it as manure. Thus, far-right Catholic agitators entirely side-step serious theological questions about the nature of Catholic tradition, (which he denies as he supports a revolution) the definition of heresy (someone who falsely accuses others of schism is unlikely to know this either), the extent of the Church’s canon law (which specifically makes available, even to the laity, the chance to correct those with authority when necessary), the balance between doctrine and pastoral practice, (Doctrine informs and dictates the practice ultimately, not the other way around) the prerogatives of the pope (ambiguous and dangerous to overstate this), the meaningfulness of ecclesial communion, and the need for continental and lay consultation (unless your a meanie and not ok with pushing the homoheresy), opting instead for simplistic political drama. (Dont be like Shimek)
Instead, they deal in innuendos, slander, and calumny. (some might, but look at the content and decide from there. Even Cekeda makes some good points at times cause even a broken clock is right twice) Those are their trademarks, not respect for the hierarchy of the Church and reverence for the truth.(Which you dont care if it be a compromising matter so long as the revolution is uninterrupted) And so, the fourth point: With their radicalization and de-ecclesialization comes their de-rationalization. They eschew the heavy-lifting of theology in preference for the sensationalism of political theater that finds no place for the common dialogue of parrhesia. If you cant win call them pharasees. As if traddies are against thought. The fellow must never have heard of the von Hildebrands, Davies, Rao, Feser, so forth... Against any kind of synodality characterized by mutual listening, (as Chesterton said the purpose of an open mind is to close it on the truth. If we have the truth, the only mutual thing is that we listen to better address the person in error.) the discernment of spirits, or pastoral accompaniment, they opt for something Pope Francis has termed ‘declarationist nominalism’ – a form of political resistance theater to the ‘culture of encounter’ by way of a monologue in the form of one-dimensional pious platitudes. As compared to the pityful rhetoric herein.
When Pope Francis calls for a synodal Church that leaves no one outside the warm embrace of mercy, (unless your mean) they envision a new Siege of Masada. Thanks be to God some people take the faith seriously and are not part of the revolution. They take on the guise of militants (ummm... ecclesiology "Church Militant"), perceiving themselves as the last defenders of Catholicism. (not the last, just having a responsibility to make the perrenial faith known to those that are ignorant of the matter, even if they are mocked and beradded for such. Yet their war cries and battle slogans leave them sounding like un-catechized Catholics in great danger of slipping into Protestant forms of thinking. Garbage, this is rhetoric unbecoming a published piece.
Let us pray for them even as we continue to pray for His Holiness Pope Francis as he pursues the course the Holy Spirit reveals to him.
--------------------------------------------------
Then there is this:
Hmmmm..... #HomoHeresy for the win?
KTMT: Outside of the Church there is no salvation
Again, no reason to reinvent the wheel.
Dr. Fastiggi of Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit gave a fantastic lecture a little over a year ago on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, that is Outside of the Church there is no salvation.
Enjoy!
Dr. Fastiggi of Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit gave a fantastic lecture a little over a year ago on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, that is Outside of the Church there is no salvation.
Enjoy!
On the recent SSPX communique
A lot of mixed reaction on this, but I think its pretty clear to me. The ball is in the Holy Father's court, and as a good Father he is being asked by his children to make it clear that they are being
welcomed back to the Church in a non ambiguous way.
I don't think it unwise to demand that Peter be clear with regards to his office and the responsibilities therein. The desire to be canonically recognized, by all accounts, seems to be real, but the recognization is not for fuzzy reasons. I'm not saying that what the communique says is the best approach at this time, but consider the thought of being Fellay. Doing a quick recognization at this stage is like leading the sheep he has into a buzz saw of confusion.
For a second lets allow the notion that they were really schismatics. If the Church really desired their coming back into the fold, wouldnt it be at least partially on the Church to make it clear what they are being called into? And if there are mixed signals, I can understand the hesitancy.
In the end, this can all be fixed when Peter openly proclaims the Church's teachings and holds his brethern to the standard needed to see the Church flourish again.
So the ball is in the Holy Father's court. Will he be clear and thus prompt the recognization or will ambiguity for the sake of LUB reign and people continue to call the society evil. It's not a good situation as always, but such is the historical impact of every pontiff in his personal decisions.
Furthermore I believe the charlatan and sedevantist Ann Barndhart needs to stop leading others astray.
welcomed back to the Church in a non ambiguous way.
I don't think it unwise to demand that Peter be clear with regards to his office and the responsibilities therein. The desire to be canonically recognized, by all accounts, seems to be real, but the recognization is not for fuzzy reasons. I'm not saying that what the communique says is the best approach at this time, but consider the thought of being Fellay. Doing a quick recognization at this stage is like leading the sheep he has into a buzz saw of confusion.
In the end, this can all be fixed when Peter openly proclaims the Church's teachings and holds his brethern to the standard needed to see the Church flourish again.
So the ball is in the Holy Father's court. Will he be clear and thus prompt the recognization or will ambiguity for the sake of LUB reign and people continue to call the society evil. It's not a good situation as always, but such is the historical impact of every pontiff in his personal decisions.
Furthermore I believe the charlatan and sedevantist Ann Barndhart needs to stop leading others astray.
Myths Glenn Beck told you: An Introduction
The other day I found myself listening to the Glenn Beck program, on Podcast of course cause listening to Mike Church (an actual Catholic) on the Veritas Radio Network is way better. I was prepared to enjoy the show, when (like often happens) Glenn made a point of distorting history to suit his values. In other words he bashed Christendom and the Church.
Now it would be easy to just make that statement and not substantiate it, so I have downloaded the most frustrating segment for your listening before I go on:
This new series will pin-point and correct the errors proposed by Glenn Beck, both heard in the video and more. I hope the series will be of help to you and so any Beck fan's out there, cause we are promised we will know the Truth and it will set us free. So truth has an objective means by which it can be ascertained, that is by is Body the Church.
Before I get into one of the errors, it is good to review Americanism, which is a chief problem (obviously) affecting many American Catholic minds that follow him
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)