Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Post Synodal Pontification's Part I

Following the Synod
Admittedly, I am a bit of a Catholic nerd. I never miss an opportunity to read, watch, and listen, to news regarding the hierarchy of the Church. I am bound to the great treasure that is, the divine revelation of Jesus Christ as safeguarded and traditionally taught by the successors to the Apostles. As a cradle Catholic, who had no respect for the Church, primarily because my only experience of the priesthood was grounded in the homoheresy. I am painfully aware that the hierarchy of the Church has been infiltrated by priests and prelates who simply do not believe the things that Christ has revealed for our salvation. In spite of my awareness of the imperfection of men, I returned to the Church, She is the barque of Peter after all, not to mention, the Pillar and bulwark of all truth. However, knowing that and giving assent to it has been made increasingly difficult by the modern day Bishop Iscariot's. The evidence of this interior schism can be seen plainly in the implementation of liturgical reform. Even if a person had no earthly idea of the goings on behind the curtain at the Second Vatican Council a reasonable person with the ability to read, and an open heart could not go a day without calling into question the origin of the Norvus Ordo. Much can be deduced from the obvious disparity between it and the Traditional Latin Mass. In the Norvus Ordo, we see perhaps for the first time the divorce between theology and pastoral activity or dogma and praxis. For example, from Sacrosanctum Concilium paragraph 23:

" That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing."

This one paragraph could be the source of an entire article. But, in summary it explains why we ought to follow closely the work of the hierarchy and question anything that is not of sound doctrine. It clearly says that "sound tradition" ought to be retained and that the investigation into changes should be "theological, historical, and pastoral." It says clearly that there must be no "innovations" unless the good of the Church requires them and the million dollar line "new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from the forms already existing." 

I borrow here from Cardinal Burke, one does not have to be a "rocket scientist" to see that the form that the Norvus Ordo ought to have grown from was the Traditional Latin Mass. If we know anything about organic growth, we know that it does not mean "complete overhaul" or aggiornimento without resourcement. No rational person, can say that the Norvus ordo, with the removal of communion on the tongue while kneeling, latin as the primary language, the sacred chant of the propers, and the introduction of ad populo (facing the people), could be considered an "organic growth" from the already existing rite. That already existing rite being the Traditional Latin Mass. The two should look so closely related that to the untrained eye a difference is hard to detect. And yet, the Norvus Ordo, looks frighteningly akin to a lutheran service on Sunday. Hardly, "organic gowth." Pope Benedict XVI referred to the Norvus Ordo as a "fabrication" on more than one occasion, here is just one:

“[W]e have a liturgy which has degenerated so that it has become a show which, with momentary success for the group of liturgical fabricators, strives to render religion interesting in the wake of the frivolities of fashion and seductive moral maxims. Consequently, the trend is the increasingly marked retreat of those who do not look to the liturgy for a spiritual show-master but for the encounter with the living God in whose presence all the ‘doing’ becomes insignificant since only this encounter is able to guarantee us access to the true richness of being.” (Cardinal Ratzinger’s preface to the French translation of Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Monsignor Klaus Gamber, 1992).

Why do I follow the Synod? Why Should you follow the Synod? Because Christ is calling you, he is dispensing his actual grace to you in an effort to inspire you to get yourself into a state of grace and begin making your mark on this world by living a in a profound state of holiness. In order for that to happen we have to be honest about the Church and have the courage to confront the Bishop Judas Iscariot's or our time. There are priests, bishops, and Cardinals that have left the narrow path in favor of dancing with wolves. We can no longer simply trust everything that every ordained man says. We must now know the truth or where we can find the truth, so that, we can discern whether or not a particular priest or prelate is actually conveying that truth accurately. We can no longer simply say "I prefer to let God run the Church." He left it in the hands of men and if they will not do God's will, who will? Blind obedience and an absence of honesty in the media led to the failed and dishonest reform of the marriage supper of the lamb. Do we want to live through the failed reform of the marriage between a man and a woman?

Pray the Rosary Daily! Be Holy, Not Worldly!
Pray for Me! I pray for you daily!

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Chesterton on Faith and Science


Great article by Chesterton on faith and science.
Science and Religion by G.K. Chesterton
IN these days we are accused of attacking science because we want it to be scientific. Surely there is not any undue disrespect to our doctor in saying that he is our doctor, not our priest, or our wife, or ourself. It is not the business of the doctor to say that we must go to a watering-place; it is his affair to say that certain results of health will follow if we do go to a watering-place. After that, obviously, it is for us to judge. Physical science is like simple addition: it is either infallible or it is false. To mix science up with philosophy is only to produce a philosophy that has lost all its ideal value and a science that has lost all its practical value. I want my private physician to tell me whether this or that food will kill me. It is for my private philosopher to tell me whether I ought to be killed. I apologise for stating all these truisms. But the truth is, that I have just been reading a thick pamphlet written by a mass of highly intelligent men who seem never to have heard of any of these truisms in their lives.

Those who detest the harmless writer of this column are generally reduced (in their final ecstasy of anger) to calling him "brilliant;" which has long ago in our journalism become a mere expression of contempt. But I am afraid that even this disdainful phrase does me too much honour. I am more and more convinced that I suffer, not from a shiny or showy impertinence, but from a simplicity that verges upon imbecility. I think more and more that I must be very dull, and that everybody else in the modern world must be very clever. I have just been reading this important compilation, sent to me in the name of a number of men for whom I have a high respect, and called "New Theology and Applied Religion." And it is literally true that I have read through whole columns of the things without knowing what the people were talking about. Either they must be talking about some black and bestial religion in which they were brought up, and of which I never even heard, or else they must be talking about some blazing and blinding vision of God which they have found, which I have never found, and which by its very splendour confuses their logic and confounds their speech. But the best instance I can quote of the thing is in connection with this matter of the business of physical science on the earth, of which I have just spoken. The following words are written over the signature of a man whose intelligence I respect, and I cannot make head or tail of them—

"When modern science declared that the cosmic process knew nothing of a historical event corresponding to a Fall, but told, on the contrary, the story of an incessant rise in the scale of being, it was quite plain that the Pauline scheme—I mean the argumentative processes of Paul's scheme of salvation—had lost its very foundation; for was not that foundation the total depravity of the human race inherited from their first parents?.... But now there was no Fall; there was no total depravity, or imminent danger of endless doom; and, the basis gone, the superstructure followed."

It is written with earnestness and in excellent English; it must mean something. But what can it mean? How could physical science prove that man is not depraved? You do not cut a man open to find his sins. You do not boil him until he gives forth the unmistakable green fumes of depravity. How could physical science find any traces of a moral fall? What traces did the writer expect to find? Did he expect to find a fossil Eve with a fossil apple inside her? Did he suppose that the ages would have spared for him a complete skeleton of Adam attached to a slightly faded fig-leaf? The whole paragraph which I have quoted is simply a series of inconsequent sentences, all quite untrue in themselves and all quite irrelevant to each other. Science never said that there could have been no Fall. There might have been ten Falls, one on top of the other, and the thing would have been quite consistent with everything that we know from physical science. Humanity might have grown morally worse for millions of centuries, and the thing would in no way have contradicted the principle of Evolution. Men of science (not being raving lunatics) never said that there had been "an incessant rise in the scale of being;" for an incessant rise would mean a rise without any relapse or failure; and physical evolution is full of relapse and failure. There were certainly some physical Falls; there may have been any number of moral Falls. So that, as I have said, I am honestly bewildered as to the meaning of such passages as this, in which the advanced person writes that because geologists know nothing about the Fall, therefore any doctrine of depravity is untrue. Because science has not found something which obviously it could not find, therefore something entirely different—the psychological sense of evil—is untrue. You might sum up this writer's argument abruptly, but accurately, in some way like this—"We have not dug up the bones of the Archangel Gabriel, who presumably had none, therefore little boys, left to themselves, will not be selfish." To me it is all wild and whirling; as if a man said—"The plumber can find nothing wrong with our piano; so I suppose that my wife does love me."

I am not going to enter here into the real doctrine of original sin, or into that probably false version of it which the New Theology writer calls the doctrine of depravity. But whatever else the worst doctrine of depravity may have been, it was a product of spiritual conviction; it had nothing to do with remote physical origins. Men thought mankind wicked because they felt wicked themselves. If a man feels wicked, I cannot see why he should suddenly feel good because somebody tells him that his ancestors once had tails. Man's primary purity and innocence may have dropped off with his tail, for all anybody knows. The only thing we all know about that primary purity and innocence is that we have not got it. Nothing can be, in the strictest sense of the word, more comic than to set so shadowy a thing as the conjectures made by the vaguer anthropologists about primitive man against so solid a thing as the human sense of sin. By its nature the evidence of Eden is something that one cannot find. By its nature the evidence of sin is something that one cannot help finding.

Some statements I disagree with; others I do not understand. If a man says, "I think the human race would be better if it abstained totally from fermented liquor," I quite understand what he means, and how his view could be defended. If a man says, "I wish to abolish beer because I am a temperance man," his remark conveys no meaning to my mind. It is like saying, "I wish to abolish roads because I am a moderate walker." If a man says, "I am not a Trinitarian," I understand. But if he says (as a lady once said to me), "I believe in the Holy Ghost in a spiritual sense," I go away dazed. In what other sense could one believe in the Holy Ghost? And I am sorry to say that this pamphlet of progressive religious views is full of baffling observations of that kind. What can people mean when they say that science has disturbed their view of sin? What sort of view of sin can they have had before science disturbed it? Did they think that it was something to eat? When people say that science has shaken their faith in immortality, what do they mean? Did they think that immortality was a gas?

Of course the real truth is that science has introduced no new principle into the matter at all. A man can be a Christian to the end of the world, for the simple reason that a man could have been an Atheist from the beginning of it. The materialism of things is on the face of things; it does not require any science to find it out. A man who has lived and loved falls down dead and the worms eat him. That is Materialism if you like. That is Atheism if you like. If mankind has believed in spite of that, it can believe in spite of anything. But why our human lot is made any more hopeless because we know the names of all the worms who eat him, or the names of all the parts of him that they eat, is to a thoughtful mind somewhat difficult to discover. My chief objection to these semi-scientific revolutionists is that they are not at all revolutionary. They are the party of platitude. They do not shake religion: rather religion seems to shake them. They can only answer the great paradox by repeating the truism.

~G.K. Chesterton: All Things Considered.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Bishop Morlino: Dualism, Relativism, and Marriage

Bishop Morlino on Marriage

Please pray for Bishop Morlino! He is an excellent and holy Bishop who has no fear of fighting the good fight. He is direct and unapologetic! I am so grateful for his spiritual fatherhood as you should be as well. Keep him in your Rosary!

Pray the Rosary Daily! Be Holy, Not Worldly!

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Cardinal Burke: Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi!

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi!

fantastic interview with Cardinal Burke. It should be noted that he has made his move to Malta public. Please pray for him and for the Church. As Bishop Athanasius has said, we are in the "4th great crisis of the Church."

Pray the Rosary Daily! Be holy, Not Worldy!

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Cardinal Dolan: A Conversion of Heart?



Pray for him! This could be a big moment for him!

Pray the Rosary Daily! Be Holy, Not Worldly!

Friday, October 17, 2014

Cardinal Burke: The Truths Have Not Changed!


Truths Have Not Changed!

Pray for this man! He is a holy warrior!

Pray the Rosary Daily! Be Holy, Not Worldly!

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Cardinal: Sold Out for Satan

Cardinals: Sold Out



Great article at the Catholic thing. I would like to pontificate a bit. If you will allow me....


Sold Out For Satan
First and foremost, there has always been a human element in the Church. That element governs and guides the Church to the extent that its primary focus is holiness and union with God. Union with God meaning, giving assent to Christ as God and those things that have been revealed for our salvation. Assent meaning accepting and believing those things that have been revealed as true and rejecting those things that do not correspond to that truth. Why do I say sold out for Satan? For quite some time there has been an element in the Church that is lukewarm at best and at worst has rejected the divinity of Christ and effectively reduced Church dogma to one or another type of gnosis. It's true for you, but, not for me. We now have at the highest levels of the Church a resurgence  of the Arian heresy and as a result, the suggestion that, revealed objective truths can be either manipulated at will or changed.

Two objectionable revelations from the synod's document one that a "homosexual inclination" can bear great fruit for the Church (one word HOMOHERESY) and the other the you can be "married" multiple times, be granted no declaration of nullity, and yet still remain in a state of grace and receive the Eucharist. Me dost think St. Paul would protest and I know St. Thomas does. This is a rejection of nature which as St. Thomas Aquinas says of the natural law:

“THE natural law dates from the creation of the rational creature. It does not vary according to time, but remains unchangeable.”

~St. Thomas Aquinas: S.T., I-II, Q. 94, A. 5.


We now have at elevated levels of the Church men who have made themselves stupid so as to advance a false doctrine of progressivism, as St. Paul would say: 

"Because that which is known of God is manifest to them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are mad. His eternal power also and divinity; so that they are inexcusable." Romans 1: 19-20

This is a fundamental point that Cardinal Burke has made repeatedly (of course, without using the word stupid). There are Cardinals in the Church that reject God's natural revelation. Think about that, let it sink in. They express a desire to tinker with and to accept those things that are contrary to reason alone. Is it possible that they believe that Christ is God? Anything is possible, but, let's pull are rational pants on. We do not have to take the trolly to the land of make believe every time a prelate in the Church publicly waxes heretical. There are now Cardinal's who reject the natural law and propose that "homosexual inclinations can bear great fruit for the Church, great what? When did this become a gift of the Holy Spirit? Or is this the 13th fruit of the Holy Spirit? Clearly it is neither, and clearly my proposal is nonsense, yet, this is the message that is being sent by these men. Is it likely that any of them would accept the revelation of Christ, if they do not accept that which the Father has made manifest for their belief in creation? It would seem clear to me that a Cardinal proposing such asinine fatuity for your belief, ought to be anathema. A Cardinal that would suggest that which is not in conformity with the sensus fidei, may not believe the truth about the human person at all and certainly, it seems may not submit to the divinity of Christ and His Church. If it is unclear, I am no fan of trolley's nor the land of make believe. 

Let us focus our attention on the ring leader, Cardinal Kasper. A simple perusal of the Cardinal's own actions and words leaves us with little doubt. The question has to be asked for example, does Cardinal Kasper, know the Churches teaching on marriage and divorce? Does he know the Church's teaching on Homosexuality? He must know something about it in order to argue against it. It is popular to suggest, "well he just doesn't know." This is done very often in an attempt to be "charitable." Charity resides in the truth. Cardinal Kasper manifests by his words and actions that he has a working knowledge of authentic Catholic doctrine. He must know the traditional teaching of the Church. He continues to argue against it. In fact, he has clearly stated that anyone who holds to Cardinal Burke's position is a "rigid fundamentalist" and that the position itself is "not Catholic." Talk about taking the Trolly!  Does anyone think that he does not know Cardinal Burkes position? He has dismissed the African bishops as holding to "taboo" not divine revelation and tradition. In his opinion the African bishops are not to be listened to, much less taken seriously. Clearly he knows the Churches teaching. He rejects it and in the process Jesus Christ, in favor of error and lies. He promotes them from one of the highest seats in the Church and he makes no apology for it!

Cardinal Kasper has chosen willingly to play the role of Arius in this little synodal drama. There is only one slightly bigger problem. He was given a microphone by the Holy Father. None of this had to happen. None of it. At this moment the Holy Father remains silent. Yet, Cardinal Kasper continues to stir dissent. He has sold out for satan some time ago and while there is always hope for his conversion, now is not the moment in time to play paddy-cake with dreams and hopes of some future conversion. He is not at this moment open to a conversion. All of the "non-confrontational" "conflict avoiding" methods must be thrown out the window. This is a legitimate fight for souls that the Church has not seen in some time. And it is public. Now is a legitimate time for the "hammer of heresy" to drop squarely on Cardinal Kasper's head (or his lip, nose, or eye.) We can wait and we can pray and we ought to at least pray. But, we have to act. That action must be swift and decisive. It must be ordered toward shutting Cardinal Kasper up. 

All of this may sound tyrannical in an age of ecumenism. An age where everyone gets to express their opinion and we respect them all. However, if the Church would like to become a force for good in the world again. Now is the time to swiftly and clearly convey that TRUTH is real, that it exists and that we will no longer be satisfied with a half truth here and half truth there, because even some truth is good. The absence of truth in anything means the presence of error. The presence of error as it regards divine revelation, actually, still means the presence of heresy. And the last time I checked obstinate heretics are not destined for divine glory. We have a duty to attempt to save their souls. It is a bit like the man on the bridge who wants to commit suicide. He probably does not want to be pulled to safety, but, his life, his soul are to precious. He must be forced off the bridge, he is doing great harm to himself and he actually knows it. His will needs to be forcibly altered, because his will is in a great state of disorder. The Cardinal has willing jettisoned truth. He no longer views truth as objective, rather a product of progress. He insists that those who are willing to hold to and die for the objective truth, those are the reactionaries that ought to be aggressively removed. Truth is truth, regardless of progress or time. Pray that the Holy Father answers Cardinal Burke's call to respond! If the Holy Father does not really believe that when "dogma ceases to lead to Jesus, it becomes obsolete," and in that, Jesus will "surprise" us, I would hope that he would have the courage of to be a  man to make that clear. Esto Vir, Holy Father. I leave you with a gem...

"The fact that something corresponds to the mentality of our epoch is no more decisive for its truth or value than the fact that it corresponds to the mentality of former times." Dietrich Von Hildebrand ~The Tower of Babel~

Truth is truth it is timeless and holding to it does not make us a fundamentalist, a believer in taboo, or less Catholic. Utter Nonsense!

Be sure to pray for the Synod! Pray for the conversion and courage of Holy Bishops!
Pray for Cardinal Burke! He seems to be leading the Charge.

St. Anthony - Hammer of Heretics - Pray for Us!
Pray the Rosary Daily! Be Holy, Not worldly