Latest Posts

Habemus Barnum

2. September, 2014Blog PostNo comments

Pope red noseI love Pope Francis. I pray and I fast for him often, and I’m grateful to Our Lord for the great gift that the exalted office that he occupies.

I’m also ashamed of Pope Francis, embarrassed by his puerile antics, and sickened by his unwillingness to “sentire cum ecclesia,” to think and feel with the Church.

On the afternoon of 13 March 2013, like countless millions of other Catholics the world over, I was on my knees in hopeful prayer watching television in anticipation of meeting the man chosen to be the 266th Holy Roman Pontiff; the pope who would take up the Benedictine restoration with renewed vigor.

Tears came to my eyes as the doors to the balcony at St. Peters opened at long last and  the Cardinal Protodeacon, Jean-Louis Tauran, emerged to announce, “habemus papam!

As he continued, “Eminentissium ac Reverendissium Dominum, Dominum Georgium Marium Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem Bergoglio Qui sibi nomen imposuit Franciscum,” a friend turned to me and asked, “Who is it?”

I had to admit that I really didn’t know anything about the former Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio as we watched him walk out onto the balcony looking as if he hadn’t given enough time to properly vest for the momentous occasion.

“Dear brothers and sisters,” the new pope said. “Good evening.”

From there, it quickly became clear that the Holy Catholic Church was in for a rough ride.

“You know the work of the conclave is to give a bishop to Rome,” he said with a laugh, “It seems as if my brother cardinals went to find him from the end of the earth.”

Really, I thought? That’s why the entire world is watching?

Those words were at once disturbing and ominous, but also eerily familiar and for good reason; they had all but been plagiarized from his Polish predecessor, who upon his own introduction to the world said:

“And now the eminent cardinals have called a new bishop of Rome. They have called him from a far country…”

Though it would take some months to become clear to me, this was the first sign that Francis very deliberately intended to take up the mantle, not of Benedict XVI, but of John Paul II.

In October, I wrote:

A limited review of Redemptor Hominis is sufficient to demonstrate that the pontificate of Pope Francis is not so much a break from Benedict as it is a return, a rather aggressive return, to the task of implementing the conciliar aggiornamento in all of its necrotizing glory, in particular as conceived in the vision of Pope John Paul II.
 
In the process, the image that emerges is one of kindred spirits; two men unshakably committed to the idea that the Council was the dawn of a new beginning; each one so heavily influenced by a personalist theology that the mission of converting the nations to Christ and His Holy Catholic Church comfortably gives way to a desire to simply accompany their fellow men upon whatever path they may have chosen, content to assume that the Spirit is active in leading humankind along many and diverse ways, which for those who but follow their conscience, ultimately converge in God, a concept closely allied with the Teilhardian theory of evolution toward the “Omega Point.”

Even so, in the case of the former thespian and consummate performer John Paul II, the “Bishop of Rome” crack from the balcony of St. Peter’s was intended as a set-up for what followed.

“I don’t know if I can make myself clear in your… in our Italian language. If I make a mistake, you will correct me,” he said in an attempt to ingratiate himself to the Roman faithful, well aware that he was the first non-Italian pope in more than 400 years.

For Francis, by contrast, the “bishop of Rome” comment was far more than just the segue to a punchline; rather, it was the opening act for the humility-on-display spectacle that continues right up to this day.

In any event, mere moments after reducing the “work of the conclave” to a practical service rendered to the Diocese of Rome, Francis bowed his head and asked for the crowd’s prayers, like an alcoholic father asking his children to help him overcome his addiction.

At this, the pit my stomach had turned into full blown nausea as it seemed all but obvious that dawning right before my very eyes was a pontificate that would prove to be far more a chastisement than a blessing.

Oh, how I wish I could say that I was wrong, but alas I was not…

And so here I sit ashamed, embarrassed and sickened by the awareness that a day will come, if God willing the Church should happen to emerge from the present darkness, when future generations will look back on the present pontificate and ask, “Who was this clown?”

Game, set, Satan

29. August, 2014Blog Post39 comments

Game set satanOn the SSPX website is a review of the book by Monsignor Brunero Gherardini, “Vatican Council II: a Debate That Has Not Taken Place.” The piece is a little dated, but worthy of revisiting. (HT to Jim Paton for sharing it on my Facebook page.)

This book is a sequel to “The Ecumenical Council Vatican II: a Debate To Be Opened,” and as far as I can tell is currently available only in Italian. If and when it is translated, I’d like to get my hands on it.

The review, in any case, contains some very interesting extracts from the book (in English); among them, one in particular jumped out at me.

Msgr. Gherardini says of the Council Fathers and their anti-Thomistic approach to creating the conciliar text:

“One did not realize, nor did not want to believe, that rejecting St. Thomas Aquinas and his method would entail a doctrinal collapse.”

On the whole, grasping at the motives of the Council Fathers can be difficult if not impossible, and to the extent that it distracts from evaluating the text relative to objective truths, it can perhaps be of limited value.

That said, having read Professor Roberto DeMattei’s book, “Vatican Council II: An Unwritten Story,” with its copious footnotes, many of which reference the diary entries of key players at the Council, it is fairly obvious that some among them did indeed realize that their method was opening the way for doctrinal collapse; what’s more, it appears that some of them deeply desired exactly that.

It is perhaps debatable that some of those who did were ignorant to the point of sincerely believing that they were ultimately accomplishing some good, but that’s not the point I wish to discuss.

Rather, I raise this matter because it seems that there are any number of Catholics who naively imagine that the work of Vatican II was carried out by a collection of churchmen singularly determined to safeguard the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine.  That simply wasn’t the case; rather, certain of the Council Fathers, and the periti who advised them, clearly wished to subvert the doctrine of the faith on key points.

Can the same be said of other ecumenical councils?

Certainly; ecumenical councils are often contentious affairs. Among the players therein are men who presumably act, either by ignorance or sheer mischief, as pawns of the Evil One who stands ready at every turn to undermine the mission of the Church. It would be naive to believe otherwise. So, when it comes to ecumenical councils, generally speaking, while the results can be glorious; as it concerns the “way the sausage is made,” not so much.

What can be said of Vatican Council II alone, however, is that the conditions were such that the subversives were afforded an opportunity to see their poisonous prose mixed into the final product; the conciliar documents, wherein nourishing truths are juxtaposed side-by-side with the leaven of Lucifer.

This a bitter pill to swallow indeed; far too bitter for many to even consider.

What such persons fail to realize, however, is that Vatican II, unlike the previous twenty ecumenical councils, was missing the very ingredients that are necessary for assuring that the documents of any ecumenical council are pure; namely, the intent to define and bind, and therefore the protection of the Holy Ghost.

With the charism of infallibility thus precluded, the only stopgaps in place that could possibly prevent the seeds of a doctrinal collapse from being planted in the conciliar text were the popes who reigned during the Council; Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI.

Both of these men having failed to so serve the Church, the duty of safeguarding the doctrine of the faith then fell to the popes who would interpret and implement the text going forward; each of whom likewise dropped the ball.

Being the most cunning of all creatures, however, the Evil One was obviously unwilling to rest satisfied with the illusion of doctrinal dependability that came with papal approbation; so he promptly set in motion what he knows damn well will entice modern day men of weakened intellect to believe is every bit as good as conciliar infallibility, practically speaking; namely, the canonization of the pusillanimous Ponitiffs in question.

The worst of the lot, Paul VI, who leveraged the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy as a springboard for launching the greatest liturgical disaster the Church has ever witnessed, is set for beatification in October.

Game, set, Satan.

Pregame Analysis: Soccer Match for Peace

27. August, 2014Blog Post42 comments

The “Interreligious Soccer Match for Peace is set to take place on September 1st at 8:45 p.m. local time in Rome’s Olympic Stadium.

According to Catholic News Agency, the match will draw together past soccer players who represent different cultures and religions, including Buddhists, Christians – Catholic and Protestant – Jews, Hindus, Muslims and Shintos.

I won’t be watching, but one can just imagine how this match will go…

The Catholics, who started their pregame novena on August 24th, will have the perfect game plan, but the Protestants will reject it.
 
• The Hindus will pass to one another using their favorite play, connect-the-dots (otherwise known as the give-and-go).
 
• The Shintos, in spite of spirited play, will come up a little short.
 
• The Buddhists will be the assists leaders since they’re just so damned selfless
 
• The Jews will sell the tickets, the food, the souvenirs, and the television rights, but only after negotiating player contracts. (Oh, and they’ll also provide the team physician.)

• And last but not least, the Muslims will be shooting at every possible opportunity.
Muslim Soccer

A Red Card for Francis

27. August, 2014Blog Post25 comments

Interreligious Match for PeaceWho among us isn’t deeply concerned about the prevalence of evil and discord in the world today; in particular as it relates to Muslim violence being perpetrated against those who profess a faith in Jesus Christ?

Well, fear not Christian soldier; come 8:45 pm Rome time on September 1st, the nations of the world, thanks to His Holiness Pope Francis, will be set squarely upon the pathway to peace!

No, not hand-in-hand with the Madonna on a journey toward the Prince of Peace, but accompanied by the likes of Diego Maradona along the sweaty confines of the “Pitch for Peace.”

Like a fella once said, ain’t that a kick in the head?

Surely, by now you’ve already marked your calendars for the upcoming Interreligious Soccer Match for Peace, but just in case details are still lacking, Catholic News Agency (which it pains me to say is quickly becoming the go-to source for those with their heads in the sand, if not elsewhere, for information on the pontificate of Pope Francis) has an article on the upcoming match that, ironically, is piercingly on the money.

Vatican City, Aug 25, 2014 / 08:03 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A priest and close friend of Pope Francis says the pontiff’s idea for an upcoming inter-religious soccer match for peace shows his keen interest in promoting the topic on all levels of society.
 
“The hope is that after this football match, this sports event, there will be an impact that raises awareness for peace,” Father Guillermo Karcher told CNA Aug. 25, explaining to other journalists that “the Pope’s concern for peace is very great.”
 
“He sees in this event, this punctual message of the match for peace, a very positive element that gives a contribution, because it’s necessary to try to build peace from all sides; from the political and diplomatic point of view,” he said.
 
According to the report, the match will include “different cultures and religions, including Buddhists, Christians – Catholic and Protestant – Jews, Hindus, Muslims and Shintos.”

And what, pray tell is so wrong with hosting an interfaith play day?

Well, in and of itself, nothing really. The problem, oddly enough, lies in its lofty goal (no pun intended).

“The Holy Father continued to support [the match], and now comes this very beautiful nuance, which is to invite everyone to believe in peace,” Fr. Karcher said.

And therein lies the problem, not just with this event, but with this entire miserable pontificate.

Pope Francis will invite Muslim clerics to plant trees at the Vatican, he’ll send personal letters to the United Nations, and he’ll host interreligious soccer matches, all with the intent of inviting people to “believe in peace,” but the one thing he refuses to do is to invite everyone – Muslim, Jew, and atheist alike – to believe in Christ Jesus, who just so happens to be the only way to authentic peace.

The truth, far too bitter for many to swallow, is simply this:

Pope Francis is a humanist, through and through. His words and his deeds betray a steadfast belief, not so much in the “IHS” that is found in the symbol of the Jesuit order to which he belonged, Iesus Hominum Salvator – Jesus the Savior of men; but rather in man, in keeping with whatever religion he may happen to embrace, as the savior of men.

This being the case, is it any wonder the world is inundated with violence and teetering on the brink of economic, political and humanitarian disaster?

Benedict the Abdicator sighting

26. August, 2014Blog Post64 comments

Benedict departsFrom Catholic News Agency:

Vatican City, Aug 26, 2014 / 12:31 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Participants in the annual Ratzinger “schulerkreis” study group were overjoyed at seeing the retired pontiff in good health, noting that they were deeply moved by his homily on the triumph of God’s love …
 
“What struck us all is that despite being older each year,” Benedict XVI “looks much better, fresher. He’s very clear in his mind,” he noted, observing how the former pontiff stood for nearly an hour and a half during the mass even though a chair was provided for him.
 
“He was in good form. There was a good spirit about him.”
 
Echoing Fr. Twomey’s sentiments is Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Culture Mons. Barthélemy Adoukonou, who also participated in the study circle.
 
“It was extraordinary. As always, it amazed us that in spite of age, and without a prepared text, the Pope (emeritus) gave a homily at a great level, with an extraordinary clarity of mind for his age.”

Recall, however, Pope Benedict’s statement of intent to abdicate made on 10 Feb 2013:

I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.

Does anyone other than the willfully deluded and painfully ignorant still honestly believe that Benedict XVI wasn’t forced from office by a substantial threat either real or imagined?

He told the world that he was stepping aside in order to make room for a man better suited to answer important “questions of deep relevance for the life of faith,”  and who would more vigorously “govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel.”

What happened next?

The conclave elevated in surprisingly short order a man who:

  • creates more questions than answers in the minds of those seeking the truth on a near daily basis
  • is so ill-inclined to govern as one with real authority beyond enforcing his own personal preferences on the Office of Peter (that is, when he isn’t steamrolling those who love tradition; AKA Catholics) that he has trouble referring to himself as “pope”
  • and whose idea of preaching the Gospel is to encourage heathens and heretics to stay right where they are

 
All indications are that those who orchestrated what looks more and more like a hostile takeover of the papacy couldn’t even muster the patience to put on a good show at the conclave in order to hide the appearance of having preselected Jorge Bergoglio well before the doors were even locked.

No… Pope Benedict didn’t depart for reasons of physical and mental health, and there’s not a Catholic this side of brain dead who is still buying that lie.

Is there?

Catholic Answers corrects Pope Francis!

26. August, 2014Blog Post16 comments

Francis AngelusAs most readers know, I’ve had a few ‘dust-ups” with the Founder of Catholic Answers, Karl Keating, over the last year or so; in particular as it relates to his unease at my willingness to shine the light of truth on the words and deeds of the pope.

Today, however, in the face of a yet another assault on the doctrine of the Church at the hands of the Bishop of Rome, we are poised to lock arms in defense of the Faith that comes to us from the Apostles.

Giving rise to our new found solidarity is the Angelus Address of 24 August 2014 wherein the Holy Father expounded upon the Gospel reading for that day’s Novus Ordo Missae, Matthew 16:13-20.

According to Pope Francis:

…Simon, in the name of the Twelve, professes his faith in Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God”; and Jesus calls Simon “blessed” for his faith, recognizing in it a special gift of the Father. He says to [Simon], “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.”
 
Let us pause for a moment on this point, on the fact that Jesus bestows on Simon this new name, “Peter,” that in Jesus’ language [Aramaic] was “Kepha,” a word meaning “rock.” In the Bible, this name, this term, “rock,” referred to God. Jesus attributes this name to Simon not for his own personal qualities or his human merits, but on account of his genuine and firm faith, which comes from on high.
 
Jesus feels a great joy in His heart, because He recognizes in Simon the hand of the Father, the action of the Holy Spirit. He recognizes that God the Father has given Simon a “dependable” faith, upon which He, Jesus, can build His Church, that is, His community, that is, all of us. All of us.
 
Jesus intend to give live [sic] to “His” Church, a people founded not on offspring, but on faith, that is to say, on a relationship with Himself, a relationship of love and trust. Our relationship with Jesus builds the Church. And so to begin His Church Jesus needs to find in His disciples a solid faith, “dependable” faith. This is what He must confirm at this point in the journey, and this is why He asks the question.
 
The Lord has in mind the image of building, the image of the community as an edifice. And so, when He hears Simon’s frank profession of faith, He calls him “rock,” and makes clear His intention of building His Church on this faith.
 
Brothers and sisters, what happened in a unique way in Saint Peter, also takes place in every Christian who develops a sincere faith in Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God.

To most readers, the problem is obvious enough.

When Our Blessed Lord said “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,” the “rock” to which He referred is none other than the person of Peter. That, my friends, is the faith of the Church, and the very basis for her understanding of the papacy.

The opinion offered by Pope Francis, that the rock upon which Jesus intends to build His church is simply a “sincere and dependable faith” such as “also takes place in every Christian,” is not especially original; the Protestants have been making that failed argument for centuries as part of their denial of the Petrine Office.

In fact, the heretics have been so inclined to argue in such manner for so long that Catholic Answers saw fit to dispel with this error some ten years ago in an article bearing the imprimatur of +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego.

Take a look:

Who is the rock?
 
Now take a closer look at the key verse: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term “rock.” To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: “You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church.” The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—namely the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ. [Emphasis added]

Returning to Pope Francis…

Being inclined as he is to engage in the modernist pastime of clothing novelties in quasi-Catholic language, the Holy Father went on to say:

For his part, Peter is the rock, as the visible foundation of the unity of the Church; but every baptized person is called to offer to Jesus his or her own faith, poor but sincere, so that He can continue to build His Church, today, in every part of the world.

Don’t let the “visible foundation of the unity of the Church” rhetoric fool you. Pope Francis has made it rather clear that his vision of that oh-so-elusive “unity” that he labors to find along with the heretics has nothing to do with submission to the authority of the pope.

In any event, at the conclusion to his address, the pope goaded the faithful into joining him in crying out, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” three times.

At this, he turned and waved goodbye, presumably to what he thought were a bunch of “rocks” assembled in the square below.

In the aftermath a question remains: WWCAD? What will Catholic Answers do?

Ten years ago, Catholic Answers saw fit to offer a spirited defense of the papacy in the face of a nameless, faceless, generic attack carried out on the part of those who might argue that Jesus “will build His Church” upon the “rock” of “faith” as opposed to the person of Peter and his successors.

They did so with very good reason as such misrepresentations as this might threaten to cause questions on the part of those who are sincerely seeking the truth. In other words, under the steady leadership of Mr. Keating, they simply lived up to their name by offering “Catholic Answers” to potential questions.

To which I say, Bravo!

In the present case, however, we’re not just talking about a nameless, faceless, generic attack that just might cause confusion as to the doctrine of the faith; rather, we are dealing with the very same assault leveled in the form of a personal, and erroneous, opinion offered by a man dressed in papal grab, speaking from a balcony at St. Peter’s, thereby giving innocent observers every appearance of speaking on behalf of the Holy Catholic Church.

In other words, one can be entirely certain that countless millions of sincere people have been led to confusion and now have questions as to the faith of the Church, and very specifically as it relates to what Pope Francis said.

This being the case, surely Mr. Keating will direct his organization to offer very specific “Catholic Answers” to their very specific questions. No?

Giving credit where credit is due

25. August, 2014Blog Post34 comments

Invoc

During his recent visit to Korea, Pope Francis took the opportunity to make certain that the Church in Asia understands just how much he despises, to be perfectly blunt, the mission of the Holy Catholic Church as given to her by Christ.

Speaking to the Korean Bishops, the Holy Father said:

“And so, with my identity and my empathy, my openness, I walk with the other. I don’t try to make him come over to me, I don’t proselytize.”

Wow! That’s seven, count them, seven I’s and my’s in just two sentences!

Truly I say to you, not even in Washington D.C. have I seen such humility! (On which note, if you’ve not yet read Chris Ferrara’s treatment of papal humility on display in Korea at the Remnant, do yourself a favor and be sure to do so soon.)

If anything is clear in the all-too-often inchoate public commentary of Pope Francis it is his personal aversion to seeking converts to the one true faith.

Now, please note that I deliberately chose not to speak of the public “teaching” of Pope Francis since that might invite confusion as to whether his thoughts on the matter represent an act of the sacred magisterium. On this point, let us be perfectly clear, they most certainly do not.

Rather, his frequent admonitions against what he has chosen to label “proselytism” are truly nothing more than the private (and let’s be honest, decidedly un-Catholic) opinions of the man who, as bitter misfortune would have it, is the currently reigning pope.

For those who are as yet still confused (either by ignorance or by choice), perhaps it will help to provide some clarity as to what the former Jorge Bergoglio means by “proselytism.”

In his “Top 10 Secrets to Happiness,” (also the entirely personal opinion of the man who just so happens to be known as Pope Francis) we find the following:

Don’t proselytize; respect others’ beliefs. We can inspire others through witness so that one grows together in communicating. But the worst thing of all is religious proselytism, which paralyzes: ‘I am talking with you in order to persuade you,’ No. Each person dialogues, starting with his and her own identity. The church grows by attraction, not proselytizing.  

So, what is this condemnable “proselytism” that Pope Francis so often decries?

It is truly nothing more insidious than seeking to persuade non-Catholics to enter the solitary Ark of Salvation; i.e., the mission of the Church.

Our Blessed Lord issued His commission to the Apostles saying, “Go, make disciples of all nations … teach them everything whatsoever that I commanded.”

One does well to note that “teaching” and “making disciples” (otherwise known as “pupils”) are essentially one and the same thing; i.e., Christ the King was so determined to make it clear that His is to be a teaching Church that He repeated Himself!

Contrast this with the notion that “the church grows by attraction,” as if heathens, heretics and Jews are just going to magically gravitate to the Catholic Church like moths to a lantern if only we perform enough random acts of kindness.

Taking our queue from Papa Bergoglio’s highly favored “hospital for sinners” image of the Church, his idea of mission is like a medical residency program that promises to instruct medical students simply by the attractive force of an attending physician who refuses to offer correction; even when a life is at stake.

In truth, this analogy fails as the situation in the Church today is far more dangerous.

Not only do we have a pope who refuses to condemn and correct the very errors that threaten to lead souls to eternal death; he even goes so far as to actively encourage their adherents to persevere in darkness!

The reason he does so is at once simple and bone chilling: the man simply does not believe that the Holy Catholic Church is the solitary Ark of Salvation. Worse still is that his words and deeds give no indication whatsoever that he believes that faith in Christ Jesus Our savior is in any way necessary in order to be saved!

This much is becoming ever more clear with every passing day, and if you think that the current Roman Pontiff’s lack of Catholic faith comes without great cost, think again.

Trick-or-Treat

22. August, 2014Blog Post74 comments

communion_in_the_handAs presumably readers are by now well aware, news of another “Black Mass” has been making the rounds for the last several weeks; this one scheduled for September 21st at the Oklahoma City Civic Center where a consecrated host is allegedly going to be desecrated.

On August 19th, the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City filed a lawsuit against the organizers of the event.

“Our contention is that they are in possession of stolen property,” Archbishop Coakley told the National Catholic Register. “We are asking the court to order them to return it immediately to me. We hope this is a way that we can prevent the desecration of the Eucharist from taking place…”

Well, apparently the threat of legal action was enough to force Adam Daniels, the organizer of the satanic event, to reconsider. Yesterday, he returned the host to the archbishop through his attorney.

Adams denies, however, that the host was stolen.

The Oklahoman reports:

He said he acquired the host from a Catholic priest in Turkey who consecrated it and mailed it to him. Daniels said the priest, whom he refused to name, was killed recently by Muslims in Turkey because of his satanic beliefs.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that this disciple of the father of lies is probably telling tales.

I’m also going roll the dice here and say that Archbishop Coakley’s desire to protect the Blessed Sacrament from desecration, while perhaps realized in the present case, is very difficult to reconcile with the way in which Holy Communion is distributed throughout his diocese.

Consider, for example, how Holy Communion is given at Christ the King parish in Oklahoma City (in the video below); a parish that by all indications appears to be a model of “neo-conservative” Catholicism:

While there doesn’t appear to be any theft of the Blessed Sacrament taking place in this video, anyone paying attention cannot help but notice just how easy it would be if one was so inclined. Just look at the number of people who take the Eucharist in their hands and then briskly walk away; neither the priest, nor the “Extraordinary Laywoman” have any clue what is happening next.

There’s no telling how many times Our Blessed Lord in the Most Holy Eucharist has been pocketed, only to be desecrated by some spiritually dead moron like Adam Daniels.

Needless to say, this isn’t a problem in Oklahoma City alone, and Daniels is just one of God only knows how many depraved souls who are involved in satanic activity. Is anyone really so naïve as to think that every time such people plan a “Black Mass” they also necessarily rent a public facility and advertise their wicked intent?

Sure, it is conceivable that a person could take communion on the tongue only to remove it from their mouth shortly thereafter, but let’s not pretend that the risk of profanation in both cases is equal. Even Pope Paul VI – the great destroyer of the sacred liturgy and soon-to-be saint of newchurch – knew better.

Look, it’s all well and good that so many in the Catholic world were moved to pray and fast as the spectacle of the Black Mass in Oklahoma City approached, and I’m pleased to see that the host has reportedly been returned, but until we cease handing out the Most Holy Eucharist like Halloween candy to every Tom, Dick and Harry that sticks out his unconsecrated hand like so many Trick-or-Treaters, please spare me the victory dance.

Devil in the conciliar details

21. August, 2014Blog Post57 comments

Vatican LightningIn case you missed it, last month Fr. Paul McDonald had a Guest Op-Ed at Rorate Caeli, entitled, “The Council Opened the Church to the Prince of this World.” It’s well worth a read.

Quoting from the document Dominum et Vivificantem of Pope John Paul II, Fr. McDonald calls attention to the Holy Father’s rather casual suggestion that it is necessary to discern in the conciliar text between that which is a gift from the Holy Spirit, and “that [which] may instead come originally from the ‘prince of this world.’”

A sober minded Catholic cannot but be stunned!

Among other excellent observations, Fr. McDonald very astutely points out that JPII seems to imagine that allowing the Enemy to sow his poisonous fruit in the conciliar text was an acceptable risk in the  conciliar work of renewal; as if it is sometimes necessary for a mother to mix garbage with good food in order to foster growth in her children.

Is it not the case that the Church Militant, when she is authentically guided by the Spirit, is led ever more intimately into all truth? If this be so, and we know that it is, does this not mean that in order to remain true to her mission, the Church must continually purge from among her ranks those things that “may come from the Prince of this world,” as it is he who threatens to kill the souls of her members?

How is it ever acceptable to imagine otherwise?

In any event, all of this rather clearly points to the degree to which the mission of the Holy Catholic Church as given by Christ has been supplanted by mere human ideas and earthbound efforts.

One wild ass Biblical prophecy

20. August, 2014Blog Post75 comments

mohammed-with-swordAre current events in the Middle East the stuff of Biblical precedent, and perhaps even Biblical prophecy?

Duh! One may as well ask, Is the pope a fervent defender of Catholic doctrine?

On second thought, never mind, poor analogy. At any rate, consider…

Esau, who despised his birthright, married from among the Ishmaelites as an act of rebellion against his father, Isaac.

The reason for the prohibition against marrying from among the Canaanites is pretty simple; when the sons of God marry the daughters of men, the influence of the latter’s false religion eventually leads men away from the one true God. Scripture attests to this rather clearly.

Now, back to Esau…

The family of Herod descended from among the Edomites; the tribe of Esau, and therefore also from among the Ishmaelites.

Herod Antipas, who married his sister-in-law (Herodias, also of the family of Herod by birth) in violation of God’s law, imprisoned John the Baptist for daring to call him to account for his offense.

It was this same Herod who succumbed to the request of the daughter of Herodias for the head of John the Baptist, the cousin of Our Blessed Lord and the prophet who pointed to the long awaited Messiah saying, “Behold the Lamb of God.”

Fast forward to today…

The world is in turmoil in many ways indeed, but one of the most noteworthy is the terror being wrought by the hands of those descended from the Ishmaelites; the Muslims, who are causing havoc, not just in the Middle East, but all over the globe.

Daily we see news reports from Iraq detailing how those who are faithful to Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, are being beheaded for the very same reason John the Baptist was beheaded; for arousing the demonic anger of those in the line of the Ishmaelites by daring to profess the Truth.

Surely there’s nothing new under the sun; the righteous have ever been slaughtered by the seeds of the serpent from the time of Cain and Abel.

Even so, something more is at play as it relates to the Muslims, the descendants of Ishmael of whom God said:

He shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen. (Gen 16:12)

What else did God have to say of this wild ass of a man who will be a menace to humanity?

And God heard the voice of the boy [Ishmael]: and an angel of God called to Agar from heaven, saying: What art thou doing, Agar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the boy, from the place wherein he is. Arise, take up the boy, and hold him by the hand, for I will make him a great nation. (Gen 21:17-18)

Notice that God does not say, “I will make of him a great religion;” rather, he promises to make of him a great “nation.”

As for the “greatness” of nations insofar as Scripture attests, this does not necessarily mean great in virtue; rather, it may refer to the greatness of its evil deeds.

Thus says the LORD: “Behold, a people is coming from the north country, a great nation is stirring from the farthest parts of the earth. They lay hold on bow and spear, they are cruel and have no mercy, the sound of them is like the roaring sea; they ride upon horses, set in array as a man for battle, against you, O daughter of Zion!” (Jeremiah 6: 22-23)

The “great nation” of which the Lord warns through the prophet Jeremiah is none other than Babylon.

And where is modern day Babylon?

Iraq, where those in the line of that wild ass who was born of a slave woman, having drunk deeply from the demonic influence of the false prophet Muhammad, are at war with the sons of the free woman who profess Christ Jesus.

Nah… nothing of Biblical proportions happening here.