Latest Posts

Pre-Synodal Reconnaissance

16. September, 2014Blog Post158 comments

VATICAN-POPE-MASS-WEDDINGAs most readers know by now, Pope Francis witnessed the marriage of some twenty couples in St. Peter’s Basilica on Sunday, September 14th.

As Cardinal Dolan might say, Good for them! Bravo! (No, wait… these were heterosexual couples. Never mind.)

In any case, like so many other things involving His Humbleness, there’s more to the story.

According to a statement issued by the Diocese of Rome in the days leading up to the event, among those getting married that day were couples “who are already cohabitating; who already have children…”

(NOTE: These people didn’t just happen to fall into a bit of good fortune. In fact, they didn’t even apply for the privilege of having the pope witness their marriages; they were handpicked.)

Needless to say, with the air of anticipation surrounding the upcoming Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on Marriage and Family running as high as it is, many in the media and elsewhere are attempting to read the tea leaves to figure out what this might mean:

- Liberals are applauding what they see as an unmistakable sign of big changes to come wherein the Church will take a less “rigid” approach to marriage.

- Traditionalists (aka Catholics) tend to see much the same thing as the liberals, albeit with an appropriate sense of alarm.

- Conservatives, ever the consistent ones, are once again working overtime to make the case that absolutely nothing out of the ordinary is underway whatsoever.

The dirty little secret that few seem to recognize, however, is that all concerned, including the couples, are once again being exploited as useful idiots by the neo-modernists who are currently running the show in Rome.

You see, the papal marriage ceremony on Sunday was simply the latest in a series of initiatives that are part of a Pre-Synodal Reconnaissance Mission wherein the Captains of Newchurch, through various means, attempt to assess the collective temperature of the Body of Christ in order to determine just how much more of their humanist virus it can withstand before full scale rejection sets in.

- Phase One involved the worldwide Survey on Marriage and Family.

- Phase Two was the infamous telephone call wherein Pope Francis allegedly told an Argentinian adulteress to feel free to take Holy Communion.

- Phase Three was Cardinal Kasper’s presentation to the Consistory of Cardinals and the pope’s fawning appraisal of the same.

- Phase Four took place on Sunday.

The Survey gauged the mindset of the people in a rather direct way; the results apparently signaling that the time was opportune to go public with Cardinal Kasper’s rantings, as well as the pope’s subsequent approval of his “profound and serene theology.”

The telephone call and the marriage ceremony were a bit more devious, with the utter silence on the part of the Holy See concerning certain crucial details being a deliberate (and rather transparent) attempt to stoke the worldwide reaction necessary to help the current regime calculate its final strategy for the Synod.

While some are quick to point to what they perceive as Pope Francis’ ineptitude given the degree to which he has allowed confusion to reign in such situations, it would seem to me that they have grossly underestimated the man.

Francis knows what he’s doing. The former Jorge Bergoglio didn’t navigate a decades’ long episcopal career that landed him in the College of Cardinals, and then the Chair of St. Peter, for lack of cunning. (Seriously, does anyone really believe that he got where is today by virtue of his commitment to the Holy Catholic Faith?)

Pope Francis is well aware that the flock is bewildered. I suspect that he sees the perplexity of the faithful as an acceptable (and ultimately temporary) form of collateral damage, for their own good, as he humbly goes about liberating them from the stifling demands of those “self-absorbed Promethean Neo-Pelagians who favor soundness of doctrine and discipline; while remaining intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past” (cf Evangelii Gaudium – 94)

Look, any Roman Pontiff who is serious about upholding the demands of his exalted office would never allow the faithful to wallow in the kind of uncertainty that permeates the present pontificate. Never. In the present case, we’re not talking about questions that are difficult to answer:

Did the pope really tell that lady in Argentina to take Communion?

Did the cohabitating brides and grooms take the kinds of steps one should expect (a period of separation and continence, Confession) prior to the marriage?

There is but one reason that answers to these simple questions haven’t been forthcoming from Rome; we live under a pontificate that is determined to “make a mess,” and it’s succeeding wildly.

Let’s not be naïve; Pope Francis and the men who elected him have long since had an outcome in mind for the Synod; one that I suspect lies somewhere between the status quo and the Kasperian solution.

(I have already gone on record as predicting that it will involve affording national bishops’ conferences unprecedented autonomy in regulating Holy Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried, among other things, such that they will be free to implement a “discipline” modeled after the schismatic Orthodox approach.)

One might see in all of this the Hegelian Dialectic in action: Kasper has provided the thesis, the outrage that followed serves as the antithesis; now all that remains is for the Synod to deliver the synthesis.

The only lingering question, at least insofar as the masterminds in Rome are concerned, is just how aggressively to pursue their agenda once the Synod finally commences, and all of the handwringing over the events of last Sunday is just what they had hoped we might provide to help them arrive at an answer.

What a weekend!

15. September, 2014Blog Post7 comments

Catholic Identity Conference 2013
Wow, what a weekend! I’m just getting back into the swing of things after the Catholic Identity Conference. (Image above is from last year’s event.) As those of you who were there can attest, it was spectacular – from the liturgies, to the interaction with likeminded individuals, and even the food – I personally enjoyed every minute.

As for my fellow speakers, I cannot say enough about the quality of the presentations. As I mentioned in my own talk, the lineup – the present writer being the least of them – included some of the strongest voices speaking out in the Church today in defense of Catholic tradition.

On this note, if you didn’t make it to the conference (or even if you did) Audio CD’s of each of the talks can be ordered online; they’re very inexpensive and I can tell you that not a one of them will disappoint.

The name of my talk was The Mission of the Church vis–à–vis the Kingship of Christ as Illuminated by Pius XI in Quas Primas. (As such, I won the award for lengthiest title.)

My presentation (roughly 55 minutes in length) concerned the above topic as viewed through the lens of Matthew 28:16-20. Following is a two minute excerpt:

Redefining Jesus

10. September, 2014Blog Post46 comments

Resurrection Pius XI vs FrancisIf nothing else, Pope Francis is consistent.

How so?

Well, in any number of ways, but today I have in mind his near-singular focus on the things of this world, his remarkable disdain for the Church’s teaching office, and his habitual pitting of doctrine against authentic Christianity.

In his Wednesday Audience held earlier today, His Holiness managed to package all three in one.

He begins:

“In our previous catechesis, we reflected on the Church as a Mother who nurtures us in the faith, guides us on the way of salvation, and protects us from evil. Today, I wish to reflect on the Church as a Mother who teaches us the works of mercy.”

From here, Pope Francis effectively goes on to redefine “teaching” as little more than setting a good example as opposed to providing instruction.

“And so the Church acts like Jesus. She does not give lectures on love, on mercy. She does not spread a philosophy, a path of wisdom throughout the world. Of course, Christianity is all this, but as a consequence, in reflection. The Mother Church, like Jesus, teaches by example, and uses words to illuminate the meaning of her gestures.”

The doublespeak in this paragraph is much more than just a momentary detour into rhetorical sloppiness; rather, it’s the ethos of Pope Francis through and through.

A quick spin through Evangelii Gaudium alone is enough to discover just how much this pope wishes to make of doctrine the enemy of true Christianity.

Pastoral ministry in a missionary style is not obsessed with the disjointed transmission of a multitude of doctrines to be insistently imposed … A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism … In some people we see an ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church’s prestige … [sound catechesis] will not reduce preaching to a few doctrines which are at times more philosophical than evangelical …   (cf Evangelii Gaudium)

Returning to the excerpt from today’s audience, of course the Church uses words to explain the meaning of her deeds, but notice the Holy Father’s outright contempt for a Church that imagines herself to be so grand as to “lecture” the ignorant, and to “spread a philosophy and a path of wisdom,” as if she is… oh, I don’t know… the bulwark of truth or something.

More disturbing still is the pope’s perhaps nastiest habit of all; namely, redefining Jesus Christ Himself.

Every literate Christian who has ever cracked the cover of a Bible knows very well that Our Blessed Lord gave numerous lectures on love and mercy. His public ministry was very much dedicated to spreading a philosophy and illuminating the path of wisdom such that all generations throughout the world may know the way of eternal salvation.

One cannot help but ask, who exactly is the Jesus of Pope Francis?

As I’ve observed in the past, it’s the itinerant Jesus, the servant and doer of good deeds who is destined to be beaten and bloodied by the powers of the world, but it’s most certainly not Christ the King who reigns triumphant.

In today’s audience, we really didn’t learn anything new; we simply received more evidence still of the deep disconnect that exists between the Jesus of the current pope’s mind and the Jesus of the Gospels.

In any event, with the irony apparently lost on the Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis continued his own rather lengthy lecture on mercy by focusing squarely on the “corporal works.”

We will have to wait until next week to find out if he plans to continue his “catechesis” (such as it is) by expounding upon the “spiritual works,” but given that they include such unsavory activities as “instructing the ignorant; counseling the doubtful, and admonishing sinners,” each of which comes dangerously close to that most dreaded activity of all, proselytism, I tend to doubt it.

The virtue of withholding obedience

9. September, 2014Blog Post28 comments

Fear himOver the past few days, I’ve received some feedback to the Msgr. Pope post from people I respect suggesting that his veritable retraction should be lauded as an act of obedience to superiors, rather than viewed as evidence of a lack of fortitude.

There are a number of flaws in such arguments; foremost among them is the implication that every course of action taken by those with legitimate authority is necessarily a legitimate expression of said authority, as if any and all demands therein are therefore binding upon their subordinates.

This isn’t true even with regard to the pope!

At certain times, it can most certainly be laudable to obey a superior even when one suspects that he is ill-informed or even perhaps in error. Even so, one is never obliged to equivocate in such way as to lend credibility to those who tacitly support a moral evil, thereby leading souls to perdition.

In the present case, Msgr. Pope’s post was deleted. The blog doesn’t belong to him, therefore, over this particular action, he had no choice.

He did, however, have any number of choices relative to his response going forward, and unfortunately he took what looks an awful lot like the course of least resistance; by choice, not by obedience properly understood.

Is there any among us who sincerely believe that Msgr. Pope was somehow obliged to proactively suggest, as he did, that an awareness of the “many prudential decisions involved” in deciding how “Catholics can effectively engage a culture” might somehow mitigate the offensiveness of Cardinal Timothy Dolan’s complicity in the St. Patrick’s Day Homoganza?

Furthermore, is there any among us so naïve as to believe for even a moment that Msgr. Pope actually believes that garbage?

Surely he could have simply remained silent regarding the disappearance of his excellent post, at additional cost to be sure, but let’s be clear, he was not obligated in any real sense of the word to make excuses for actions that are plainly inexcusable.

Rest assured, certain misguided Catholic commentators are already using Msgr. Pope’s retraction statement as justification for labeling Dolan’s detractors “Pharisees.”

In other words, what began as an admirable defense of the truth for the good of souls has been turned into a tool that the Devil will not fail to use in order to tempt the weak to compromise with evil.

Even without knowing the details, it is obvious to all what happened: Monsignor Pope was pressured in some form or fashion by the tag team of Dolan and Weurl, even if perhaps via equally faithless surrogates, to write that mea culpa post in violation of his conscience.

In violation of his well-formed Catholic conscience. Did you get that?

Can one even imagine the gall it takes for these magnificent hypocrites in cardinalatial finery to so force Monsignor Pope’s hand; even as they go about whining like a couple of menstruating eleven years olds over Barack Obama’s hubris for daring to press upon the collective Catholic conscience via the HHS mandate?

These men are what they are; quasi-protestants posing as princes. This much has been evident to people of authentic faith for years on end. Sure, we should pray for their conversion, of course, but let’s be real; barring a bolt of lightning to the backside, it’s not very likely.

In the end, disobedience to their demands would not have been sinful; in fact, it wouldn’t have been disobedience at all, but rather obedience to a Higher Authority.

Cardinal George pops out

8. September, 2014Blog Post20 comments

Pope Francis Meets With The Full College of CardinalsA number of friends have been applauding a recent article by Cardinal Francis George entitled, “A tale of two churches;” echoing the review given by Fr. Z who said, “His Eminence knocks this one over the fence.”

With all due respect, this article looks a whole lot more like a pop up to me.

Like so many other American “conservatives” in the Church today, Cardinal George is good at bemoaning symptoms, but remarkably inept at identifying the underlying disease.

His Eminence writes:

About 1,800 years into her often stormy history, this church found herself as a very small group in a new country in Eastern North America that promised to respect all religions because the State would not be confessional; it would not try to play the role of a religion … The social history was often contentious, but the State basically kept its promise to protect all religions and not become a rival to them, a fake church. Until recent years.

Here, Cardinal George is holding up an X-ray of the American experiment; playing both doctor and historian,  and even with the benefit of hindsight, knowing full well that the patient is on the doorstep of death, still he does not seem to recognize the fatal affliction there present.

Those who view such things by the light of tradition, however, know very well that the State that promises to “protect all religions,” including those that oppose the reign of Christ the King, is already, even at its very inception, an avowed rival (read, enemy) of the Holy Catholic Church.

In the present case, the only unknown that ever truly existed according to the mind of the Church, properly understood, concerned the precise manner and time of her open persecution.

All of this said, Cardinal George isn’t totally blind.

There was always a quasi-religious element in the public creed of the country. It lived off the myth of human progress, which had little place for dependence on divine providence. It tended to exploit the religiosity of the ordinary people by using religious language to co-opt them into the purposes of the ruling class. Forms of anti-Catholicism were part of its social DNA.

At this, one might reasonably ask: Why is a prelate who seems to sense in his gut the irreconcilability of the American ideal and the mission of a Church that is “the kingdom of Christ on earth, destined to be spread among all men and all nations” (Pius XI – Quas Primas), still cannot bring himself to do any more than to lay blame for the present state of affairs at the feet of “some members of the American establishment?”

The answer is simple; Cardinal George suffers, as do all so-called “conservative” Catholics, from conciliar myopia. Let me explain…

The U.S. Constitutional approach to religious freedom wherein the State is obliged to treat the true religion as merely an equal to the many false religions of the world, the same proposition having been firmly condemned by Holy Church in no uncertain terms throughout the centuries, was adopted by the Second Vatican Council as enshrined in the document Dignitatis Humanae.

And what have we to show for it today?

Not only do we have an American State that plainly operates as a “fake church” all its own, we also happen to have a Roman Pontiff who, as the Generalissimo of the conciliar revolution, is pleased to take the lead in behaving as if all religions are mere equals!

As such, ours is a Church overpopulated with undernourished Catholics, both lay and ordained, who can’t quite seem to get their hands around the fact that the Second Vatican Council effectively abandoned the mission of the Church in exchange for a form of religious diplomacy that has only served to hasten her persecution.

So you see, unless and until Cardinal George is willing to rebuke both the disastrous propositions set forth on religious liberty at Vatican Council II, as well as the words and deeds of Pope Francis who embodies them in all their humanistic glory, even to the point of encouraging those who oppose the mission of the Holy Catholic Church to persist in their false religions, he will ever be relegated to just another easy out.

In other words, don’t look for any home runs from Cardinal George, or anyone else who steadfastly marches under the “conservative” Catholic banner, any time soon.

God Bless Monsignor Pope!

6. September, 2014Blog Post76 comments

Dolan pointingIn light of recent events, I’m certainly not the first to say: May God bless Monsignor Charles Pope!

Unlike many others, however, I do not mean to beg God’s blessing on him as a reward for his authentically Catholic (and subsequently deleted) blog post of September 4, 2014, indirectly calling attention to Cardinal Timothy Dolan’s willingness to deny Christ in order to satiate his bloated appetite for the earthly rewards that flow forth from “happy-clappy, lighthearted engagement of our culture” in all of its Godless, murderous, homo-deviant glory; rather, I wish to pray the Lord to bless Msgr. Pope with that which is apparently lacking in him at present; namely, the intrepid heart of martyr.

[For those who haven’t yet read the blog post to which I refer, or perhaps may wish to reread it, it is available in its fullness here.]

My intent herein is not to disparage Msgr. Pope; rather, it is simply to point out just how well the situation at hand answers the questions Catholics so often ask in our day:

Where is the voice of those churchmen who cannot but recognize the great apostasy being perpetrated from among their own ranks? Are there any prelates left who still think and feel with the Church?

Starting with the latter, the answer is that those men most certainly do still exist, and Msgr. Charles Pope is one of them. As for the former, their voices, like that of the monsignor, are being pressed into silence.

Let me be clear, however; the faithful voices of which I speak are not so much being silenced by the likes of the cardinal buffoon of New York, or his spineless counterpart to the south who would sooner curry favor with gay activists by chastising a faithful priest than to uphold the demands of Canon 915; rather, these voices are being suppressed from within thanks to a regrettable lack of fortitude.

The Baltimore Catechism defines the cardinal virtue of fortitude as that which “disposes us to do what is good in spite of any difficulty.”

It is, in other words, the virtue that allows one to persevere in defending and upholding the truth for its own sake in the face of any persecution, even death.

As for Msgr. Pope, there can be no doubt whatsoever that he was forced to remove the blog post in question, or perhaps more accurately, was made to express regret for having written it after it was unceremoniously removed at the behest of a superior.

His follow-up post addressing the now deleted hay maker of Sept. 4th pretty much tells the story.

I apologize if the language I used caused offense … I remain concerned … my intent is not to directly criticize any bishop or diocese.

This ain’t rocket science, folks.

Whenever two or more homo-militants are gathered to cry persecution, the media is present in their midst to breathlessly broadcast their every last grievance.

And yet, as far as I can tell, the deviants who pressed for the “right” to put their perversion on display in New York’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade are still too busy celebrating Cardinal Dolan’s apostasy to take notice of a solitary blog post on the Archdiocese of Washington website.

Hint: That means that the offended parties to whom Msgr. Pope offered apology are most likely a couple of men draped in red, even if perhaps under which are a pair of pink boxers.

In truth, however, there is but one offended party in this mess that truly matters, and that is Our Lord Jesus Christ; the same who will one day ask Msgr. Pope and others like him why they chose to bow down to the demands of faithless men rather than to accept the great blessing of being persecuted for His name’s sake.

Look, I don’t claim to know the heart of Msgr. Pope with absolute certainty; nor do I have intimate knowledge of the virtual waterboarding he most certainly endured at the hands of his superiors in the hours after he hit “publish” on September 4th.

I have, however, read enough of his lucid commentary over the years to confidently state that only a damned fool imagines that the Catholic sense that moved him to write that initial blog post in the first place, and the prudence that caused him to tactfully refrain from calling out the Big Apple’s plump little protestant prince by name, have somehow withered to the point of causing him second thoughts.

As such, it is reasonable to suspect that the fear of some loss – perhaps his blogging privileges on the Archdiocese website, his pastorship, or his freedom to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass – whatever it may be, the potential loss of something likely motivated him to retreat.

While I don’t know what that something may have been, I do know that it wasn’t worth it.

As the Dolans and the Weurls (and while we’re at it, let’s be perfectly frank, the Bergoglios) of the Church go about abusing their exalted offices and thus the souls in their care – the same for whom Our Blessed Lord died – the flock at large is literally starving for clerics who are willing to serve up the truth unadulterated.

The last thing we need is one more miserable spoonful of sugar coated, lukewarm pabulum like, “I remain concerned… my intent is not to directly criticize any bishop or diocese.”

Well, if you’re truly concerned; that is, more concerned about the Truth than what may be lost by proclaiming Him – and I am here speaking to every single member of the sacred hierarchy who has somehow managed to avoid the diabolical disorientation that infects so many among their confreres –  then why the hell not directly criticize the wolves who prowl about the sheepfold in clerical disguise?

As it is, this is a question that many men of the Church will one day have to answer before Christ, and I thnk all concerned realize that the excuse de jour, whatever that may be, isn’t very likely to cut it.

So, let us pray for the conversion of those prelates, like the aforementioned bishops, whose very words and deeds are as poison to the Body of Christ, indeed, but let us pray all the more for those clerics who, like Msgr. Pope, see their grave offenses for exactly what they are and as yet lack the fortitude to withstand the persecution that necessarily follows from confronting them head-on.

Thoughts on upcoming SSPX meeting in Rome

5. September, 2014Blog Post53 comments

bishop-fellayWhile we must pray for a truly Catholic spirit to reign in the upcoming meeting between Bishop Fellay and Cardinal Muller, one in which Our Lord Jesus Christ is placed at the forefront of every initiative and desire, it would seem to me to be naive to expect any such thing.

There’s no reason whatsoever to believe that the condition for the Society’s canonical regularity expressed by Pope Benedict XVI (namely, affirmation that the entirety of Vatican Council II is an integral part of the tradition of the Church) is going to change any time soon.

In fact, given the current pontificate’s posture with respect to the Council, this meeting is more likely to result in the introduction of conditions that are even more ridiculous still, if one can even imagine such a thing.

Just look at what has happened to the FFI; a faithful and thriving religious order shackled for the high crime of a suspected “crypto-Lefebvrean tendency.”

In this environment, can any good will be anticipated from these very same men as it concerns those who proudly, and without apology, display a full blown Lefebvrean tendency? Please.

So, what do I think is afoot?

I suspect that this meeting, if not immediately, will lead to an ultimatum that the Society cannot, and should not, accept. The result of which will be little more than additional bluster from Roman hierarchs wherein the Society will be verbally ostracized all the more for adhering to the truths of our Holy Catholic faith as taught and lived and practiced prior to an ecumenical council that every pope during and since has repeatedly claimed changed nothing of the content of said faith.

Sound nuts? That’s because it is.

To which I say, big deal.

Don’t get me wrong, I would like nothing more than to see the SSPX regularized, but the plain fact is that the current regime in Rome does not sentire cum ecclesia; i.e., it does not possess the conviction of faith necessary to set the conditions for making that happen.

And so the question is, what more can the Holy See, under the direction of men of weak and wavering faith, do to the Society?

The answer as far as I can tell is nothing other than belittle them for their faithfulness, which will only serve to add to the ledger of offenses they have been leveling against Christ the King for lo these past five decades, the same for which they will one day have to answer.

God help them and God help us.

Official Confirmation: SSPX meeting in Rome

5. September, 2014Blog PostOne comment

From DICI comes the following press release:

Having been invited by Rome, Bishop Bernard Fellay will meet with Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, during the second half of September 2014. This interview was presented to the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X as an informal meeting to review the relations between the SSPX and Rome, which were discontinued at the departure of Cardinal William Levada, Cardinal Müller’s predecessor, and the resignation of Benedict XVI. This will in fact be the first meeting between Cardinal Müller and Bishop Fellay.

On September 3, 2014, on his website the Vatican Insider, the Italian journalist Andrea Tornielli announces this meeting and noted that the new District Superior of France, Father Christian Bouchacourt had the opportunity when he was superior of the District of south America, to meet Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, then Archbishop of Buenos Aires. Since then they have had contact on purely administrative matters concerning the District of South America.

The Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X will go to Rome, following the example of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who always accepted invitations of the Roman authorities. What will be said at this meeting is obviously unknown, yet Bishop Fellay will not have forgotten what Cardinal Müller said about the SSPX, as reported in the Corriere della Sera on December 22, 2013 : « The canonical excommunication of the bishops for their illegal ordinations was revoked, but a de facto sacramental excommunication remains for their schism; they put themselves out of communion with the Church. After that we are not closing the door and never will, but we are inviting them to be reconciled. But they too must change their attitude, accept the conditions of the Catholic Church, and the Supreme Pontiff as the definitive criterion for membership. »

And surely the Superior General will have in mind the declaration made with the Society’s other two bishops on June 27, 2013, on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of their episcopal consecration : « It was love of the Church which guided Archbishop Lefebvre and which guides his sons. It is the same desire to “pass on the Catholic priesthood in all its doctrinal purity and its missionary charity” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey) which animates the Society of Saint Pius X at the service of the Church, when it asks with insistence for the Roman authorities to regain the treasure of doctrinal, moral and liturgical Tradition. »

Francis to head up United Nations of Religion?

4. September, 2014Blog Post20 comments

Plim PopeThis from JTA, which bills itself as “The Global Jewish News Source.” (HT to Chris Ferrara)

Pope, Peres discuss ‘U.N. of religions’ at Vatican meeting

ROME (JTA) – Former Israeli President Shimon Peres met with Pope Francis at the Vatican and proposed a “U.N. of religions” to fight terrorism.
The Vatican said the pope and Peres held a “long” and “very cordial” discussion on Thursday.
During the 45-minute meeting, Peres described his idea to the pontiff about his organization of religions modeled after the United Nations. The motivation, Peres told the Catholic weekly Famiglia Cristiana, is that religion is the prime trigger for world conflicts today.
“The U.N. has had its time,” Peres said, according to Famiglia Cristiana. “What we need is an organization of United Religions, the U.N. of religions. It would be the best way to combat these terrorists who kill in the name of their faith because most people are not like them, they practice their religions without killing anyone, without even thinking about it.”
The Vatican news service said the pope “listened attentively and with interest” to Peres’ proposal.
Also Thursday, the pope met for 30 minutes with Jordanian Prince El Hassan Bin Talal and also discussed interfaith cooperation. The prince is the founder of the Royal Institute for Interfaith Studies in Amman.
Francis last met with Peres June 8, when he hosted the then-Israeli president, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople at an unprecedented prayer meeting in the Vatican garden.

I’d say that Mr. Peres has chosen wisely. Pope Francis is not only the figurehead of the Church-of-Man wherein every religion is treated as a pathway to peace (not to mention Almighty God); he is its greatest anthropologian.
I can imagine Pope Francis doing this, but I can also imagine that he may decide that his schedule is too dense, you know… with soccer games to plan and trees to plant and all… that he might just appoint Cardinal Kasper in his stead.
Queue up Frankie Blue Eyes: And now, the end is near…

Catholic Conferences: Choose this day…

4. September, 2014Blog Post9 comments

CTH 2012 CropIt has come to my attention that some Cotton Candy Catholic bloggers (that I’ve chosen not to link so as not to tempt a dozen or so of you to visit their websites thereby effectively doubling their traffic) have taken to drawing comparisons between the Catholic Identity Conference (at which I will be speaking this year) and the Call to Holiness Conference (at which I spoke in 2012) as they are taking place on the same weekend (September 12-14, 2014).

One of the criticisms being launched at the Catholic Identity Conference is the supposed absence of any priest speakers, when in fact, Fr. Gregory Pendergraft of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter will not only be speaking, but also celebrating the Mass of All Ages at the conference.

In any case, if one wishes to draw comparisons between the two events, that’s fine. Having spoken at the Call to Holiness Conference in October of 2012 (on the topic of Vatican II), I may perhaps have a unique perspective to offer.

As most readers here know, my approach to writing and speaking has changed over the last couple of years.

Back in 2012, as I prepared for Call to Holiness, I struggled to determine how best to impart my awareness that the conciliar text is deeply flawed with the subtlety necessary in order to avoid unduly scandalizing those in attendance. Admittedly, the talk I ended up giving is not the one I would give today; for a number of reasons, but more on that in a moment…

That said, I didn’t pretend that all is well in Cotton Candy Catholicland either. Here are few brief excerpts from that talk:

Can we say that the mandate given to the Council [“The greatest concern of the Council is this, that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously” - Pope John XXIII] has been effectively accomplished?
If we’re honest, we must admit that the answer is no, it has not been accomplished nearly well enough …
I don’t want to sugarcoat the matter either, and so I have to forewarn you that finding continuity with Tradition in the conciliar text isn’t always easy …
The truth is, the Council Fathers also occasionally wrote in ways that are less than precise, and therefore not very clear… At times we might even say that some of the text suffers from a degree of ambiguity… And it should come as no surprise that these are areas in which confusion tends to reign…

I even gave an example taken from Presbyterorum Ordinis, the Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests of Vatican II, as an instance of discontinuity as compared to the teaching articulated by the Council of Trent.

Among those in attendance for this talk was His Excellency Alexander Sample who very kindly offered a letter recommending me as a speaker, particularly on the topic of Vatican II.

I have since chosen to remove his letter from my website, not at his request, but simply out of respect for the now Archbishop of Portland. Surely he has bigger fish to fry than responding to the complaints such a letter would invite from those nattering entrepreneurs-catholique who are far more concerned with self-preservation (not to mention lining their pockets) than defending the Faith.

The truth is, based on the far more straightforward approach that I currently take in my writing and speaking, I wouldn’t expect the Archbishop to endorse me today anyway.

So, what exactly changed?

To some extent, me; more specifically, my knowledge of the man-centered nature of Vatican Council II and all of the terrible offenses that are leveled against Christ in its name as a result.

Perhaps more importantly, however, is the change that took place in Rome just four or so months after I spoke as Pope Benedict XVI departed to make room for Pope Francis, with the latter having since unleashed an all-out assault on our Holy Catholic faith, in both word and deed, that has left much of the world utterly baffled (some unawares) as to what the Church truly believes and professes.

In short, the Faith is currently under attack, and aggressively so, even from the very top, in a most remarkable way in our day; the examples of which are far too numerous to number.

As such, the risk of possibly scandalizing others by defending the Faith with vigor pales in comparison to the indisputable fact that countless souls are being directly encouraged to persist outside of the solitary Ark of Salvation, by the Holy Roman Pontiff himself, and thus being exposed to eternal death.

These are the kinds of conditions that cannot but force the true soldier of Christ to abandon all subtlety; to rise up in defense of the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King and the Church that He established with boldness; knowing full well that doing so is to invite persecution in a degree inversely proportional to the great popularity that is enjoyed by Pope Francis and his likewise worldly cheerleaders.

So, yes, when it comes to Catholic conferences on the weekend of September 13, 2014, the faithful do indeed have a choice:

Those who wish to imagine that all is relatively well with the Holy Catholic Church in our day; who behave as if ours is the faith that comes to us from the currently reigning pope whomever he may be, and who are disinclined to meet offenses against Our Lord Jesus Christ head-on especially when leveled by men in the sacred hierarchy… such persons would likely find the Call to Holiness Conference a very comforting experience.

Those on the other hand who recognize that the Holy Catholic Church is in the midst of a terrible crisis; who understand that ours is the immutable faith that comes to us from the Apostles, and who are determined to meet every and all offenses against Our Lord Jesus Christ head-on especially when leveled by those men in the sacred hierarchy who would so abuse their exalted office… such persons are invited to outfit themselves for battle as members of the Church Militant at the Catholic Identity Conference. I hope to see you there.