18. April, 2014Blog Post24 comments
In spite of the considerable weight that Pope Francis near-daily adds to the Cross that is born by faithful Catholics, we can at least be thankful for his plainspokenness in revealing the nefarious agenda of the ecclesial subversives who seek to remake the Church in their own image and likeness from within.
As I have stated in the past, no longer, apparently, do the revolutionaries feel compelled to move about in the shadows; rather, all indications are that they, and the Bishop of Rome who leads them, believe that the scales have been sufficiently tipped in their favor among the people-in-the-pews (that which they falsely portray as the sensus fidelium) that the time is nigh to complete the operation, begun in earnest in 1958, in the plain light of day.
As such, Pope Francis comfortably and without hesitation serves as both the “defendant” accused by a faithful remnant of mutiny against Christ the King, and “star witness for the prosecution” thanks to his habit of spilling the neo-modernist beans without ever being called to the stand.
In the present case, I wish to thank the Holy Father for putting so clearly on display the logical consequences that arise from treating the doctrine of the Faith, as the modernists do, as if it were a lump of clay to be molded according to the whims of progressive generations; that slippery slope that leads from secret movements inspired by quiet claims of good intentions to a day when the sculptors themselves will broadcast for all to hear, without any hint of shame, their sins against God and man.
This brings me to a homily delivered by Pope Francis on April 4, 2014, in which he said of an unnamed “prophet indeed”:
Of whom does Pope Francis speak?
Well, I suppose one would have to ask him to be entirely certain, and though I intend to offer my own educated guess as to whom he was speaking, the sad truth is, it doesn’t really matter.
Pay very close attention to what the Holy Father is saying!
He is shining a light on the sheer hubris of the revolutionary hierarchs vis-à-vis their willingness to perpetrate calumny against the faithful churchmen of previous generations, all in an attempt to justify whatever novelties happen to delight their senses en route to a church of their own making.
Now, let’s take a closer look at the shameful descent that is coming into focus under Pope Francis.
Prior to Vatican II, censured theologians often publicly accepted the constraints placed upon their work by ecclesial authorities while continuing to develop their particular lines of thought behind the scenes; e.g., in theological institutes and journals, some with subversive intent, others in humility.
Moving ahead to time of Vatican II, certain theologians among those previously censured, like John Courtney Murray, were invited to serve as periti, or theological experts, to advise the Council Fathers.
In the case of Murray, he managed to succeed in having his novelties concerning religious liberty and Church-State relations enshrined in the conciliar text, and he did so by asserting, as do the majority of his defenders even today, that the position of those who had censured him relied upon an earlier teaching (articulated most clearly by Pope Leo XIII) that, although not incorrect in itself, was situated within an “historical problematic” such that changing circumstances had rendered acceptable that which was once deemed inconceivable.
Let’s fast-forward now to the man of whom Pope Francis spoke in his homily.
I suspect that he was speaking of the Founder of the “Rosminians,” or the Institute of Charity, Fr. Antonio Rosmini, a cleric whose writings were posthumously condemned by decree of the Holy Office, and confirmed by Pope Leo XIII, in 1887.
After years of pressure asserted on the Holy See by the Rosminians in order to promote the canonization cause of their Founder, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger overturned the condemnation in 2001, saying in part:
This action removed the obstacle from Rosmini’s cause, opening the way for him to be beatified six years later by the same former Cardinal Prefect of the CDF, Pope Benedict XVI.
If time permits, I will have more to say next week on the Rosmini situation relative to the scheduled canonizations of April 27th, but for now one notes already the progressively more negative view of the faithful Roman Pontiff Leo XIII being put forth by the post-conciliar regime.
As it relates to John Courtney Murray, Pope Leo XIII wasn’t necessarily incorrect; rather, he was simply addressing a particular situation that no long exists. Now, don’t get me wrong, this proposition is patently false, but such is the argument of Murray’s defenders.
In the case of Rosmini, we see Cardinal Ratzinger claiming that a regrettable mistake had been made in attributing to the condemned writings a meaning that isn’t really there.
In other words, Pope Leo XIII, he who once offered true teachings that were somehow time bound as it relates to religious liberty, had thus been downgraded by Cardinal Ratzinger to being just plain stupid.
You see, according the future Benedict the Abdicator, the poor Holy Father Leo XIII simply lacked the theological insight necessary to understand what Rosmini was actually saying!
If you’re disgusted already, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
Now we come to Pope Francis, the Generalissimo of the revolution who sees no need whatsoever to pull any punches as it concerns his animosity for tradition and those who defend it.
According to his view, Leo XIII, who articulated the doctrine of the Faith so clearly, is not simply guilty of being stupid; rather, he is guilty of “persecuting” a “prophet” and future saint! The Church, therefore, must “repent” on his behalf!
It is not enough for Francis to assume good will on his predecessor’s part; no! For him, it is plain enough that his predecessor “had power” and “wanted to silence” the poor condemned prophet; not because the Pontiff felt duty bound to defend the doctrine of the Faith, but because he “did not like what he was saying.”
So, in the course of just fifty years according to the view of the neo-modernist Captains of Newchurch, the legacy of Pope Leo XIII has deteriorated considerably from that of a teacher in a previous age, to an idiot, to a persecutor of saints.
I can well imagine the neo-con army of wannabe Swiss Guards crying foul since Francis didn’t bother to name the “prophet” of whom he spoke, much less Pope Leo XIII, but in truth it matters little if in fact he was not speaking of Rosmini, in which case I would challenge them to suggest an alternative.
In any event, looking at this pathetic situation through Catholic eyes, one cannot fail to shudder at the awareness of just how far we have fallen when the Roman Pontiff does not hesitate to commit the sin of calumny against the faithful men who defended the Faith so well in previous generations, even in the context of a homily.
God help him, and God help us.
17. April, 2014Blog Post14 comments
On this Holy Thursday, I offer this examination of the “Maundy” in honor of, and in thanksgiving for, the great gift of the priesthood, and the Most Holy Eucharist thereby made present.
16. April, 2014Blog Post37 comments
The Tradwriter responds to a recent video from Catholic News Service glorifying the Second Vatican Council’s treatment of Religious Liberty in the only way such a thing can be done; namely, by grossly misrepresenting Catholic tradition.
For further reference:
Louie Verrecchio presentation at Catholic Family News Conference:
15. April, 2014Blog Post21 comments
Even after studying and writing and speaking about the conciliar text for more than a decade, I still manage to find in them previously unrecognized subtleties that serve to undermine the Faith in remarkably profound ways; in the present case, in the Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae.
One of the distinguishing features of this document that I’ve noted in the past is the degree to which the Council’s focus has shifted away from man’s spiritual end toward what appears to be an overriding concern for matters merely temporal. Needless to say, the former is the Church’s primary concern, and her view of matters temporal is always cast in that light.
Keeping man’s spiritual ends in plain sight is necessary for defining the “common good.” The only good that is truly common to all is the destiny for which all were created; to live with God forever in eternity. Temporal affairs must be regulated in such way as to further, or at the very least not impede, man’s journey to that ultimate end and fulfillment.
In Dignitatis Humanae, the Council employs the phrase “common good” while subtly divorcing it from concern for man’s spiritual end.
To urge concern for the “common good,” while also directing the State to remove “religious reasons” from consideration in its regulation of public affairs, is an egregious contradiction that is utterly incompatible with authentic Catholic thought as expressed so very clearly by the pre-conciliar popes. It is tantamount to redefining the common good.
This redefinition of the common good forms one of the building blocks upon which the Council constructed its unsustainable case for a so-called “right to religious freedom” regardless of one’s relationship to truth.
And we wonder why atheists, humanists and assorted other enemies of the Church so often invoke it this way…
15. April, 2014Blog Post2 comments
I want to take a moment to express my gratitude on a number of fronts:
First, thanks to all who registered and for taking the time to contribute with comments. That includes those who don’t have the same view that I, and most other regular commenters here, have.
That brings me to this: I really appreciate the civility on all sides as that makes this space so much more than just a place to do battle. I want this to be a place where Catholics can learn the Faith. Thanks for making that happen.
Last but not least, I want to say thanks to those of you who kindly sent a donation. A number of you expressed in private notes a recognition of how costly it is to have web design work done. True enough, but my hope is that all of us will realize great spiritual dividends in return. I’m especially hopeful that the Forum will grow into a good place for that to happen. (Please make use of it, and invite others to join in!)
On the matter of expenses, I’m investigating the possibility of placing suitable ads on the site to help sustain this effort. There will be some trial and error involved if and when I go that route. We’ll see how it goes. I just want to give you a heads up.
Thanks again to all!
12. April, 2014Blog Post91 comments
It is telling commentary on the deplorable state of the Church to witness so-called “conservative” Catholics gushing with admiration for Fr. Ray Kelly’s performance. One fairly well known commentator (who in charity I won’t name) even suggested that our liturgies need more of this sappy sentimentalism!
I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that the vast majority of Catholic have lost almost entirely, or never really had, a sense of the sacred.
So… just in case there are any such persons reading this blog, I’ll give a quick snapshot of what makes Father’s “gift” to the happy couple so regrettable.
Whether or not this took place before or after the Mass had ended isn’t the point; as though all bets are off unless we’re technically speaking of the liturgy proper. That some even feel compelled to split those hairs is a sign of their poor condition.
The Rites of Holy Mass and Holy Matrimony are, of course, sacred, but so too is the space in which they take place; the same that we occupy before and after the actual rite. In any event, one thing should be clear to all, the sanctuary isn’t Fr. Kelly’s or anyone’s personal stage. The altar isn’t his music stand. The assembly isn’t his audience.
It would be sacrilegious to have any kind of a performance in a Church before the Blessed Sacrament. Most people seem to know that even if just intuitively.
Now, even considering in charity that Fr. Kelly means well and is simply a product of a deplorable formation, consider the impact of his showmanship.
We live in an age wherein marriage is viewed as a purely human construct; a contract between two individuals who are motivated, be it by what one might reasonably call love all the way to what is more properly considered mutual lust, to validate their relationship in the eyes of others. “Marriage” as popularly conceived is all about us, in other words, so much so that the abominable concept of “gay marriage” is considered by many, including self-identified Catholics, as possible and even laudable.
Fr. Kelly’s little moment in the spotlight only managed to solidify that erroneous view. He turned the sacred mystery of sacramental union among spouses in Christ in the Rite of Holy Matrimony by grace into an earthbound stage act fueled by fleeting emotions.
The people in that wretched video are victims. They don’t know any better. Neither does Fr. Kelly in all likelihood. He is obviously a product of newchurch wherein practically every aspect of our faith has taken on a decidedly humanist slant at the hands of those who chose to make the comfort level of protestants a “pastoral priority.”
BTW – The Fr. Ray Kelly Concert Tour has been wowing audiences for years and was made possible in a large part thanks to the virtue, heroically exercised, of His Holiness Pope Paul VI who gifted to the world the Novus Ordo Missae. Remember that as his cause takes off like a rocket (or is that a scud missal) immediately following the proposed mockery canonizations on April 27th. (May God in His mercy forbid them!)
11. April, 2014Blog Post21 comments
A traditional (sorta) reaction to YouTube sensation Fr. Ray Kelly, Ireland’s singing priest…
10. April, 2014Blog Post18 comments
10. April, 2014Blog PostNo comments
I’m really pleased to announce the Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II Forum! (Also accessible via the menu above.)
It’s not fancy, and I’m sure we’ll end up tweaking and improving it as it grows, but I’m excited about this.
Some time ago it occurred to me that the comment section on the blog was serving as a meeting place for traditional minded Catholics to discuss all manner of important things. Clearly there is a need and my hope is that the Forum meets it well.
Once you register on the site, your username and password will work for both the comment section on the blog and the Forum.
Please, jump right in and enjoy exploring, discussing and defending Catholic tradition.
Instaurare omnia in Christo!
9. April, 2014Blog Post11 comments
A recent article by Cindy Wooden of Catholic News Service on the upcoming canonizations (May God in His mercy forbid them!) aptly describes what the Masons and other assorted enemies of the Church would have considered an unattainable Utopian ideal just sixty short years ago.
While most readers, traditional and otherwise, may feel compelled to breeze right past this apparent understatement of the century, one must be very careful to note that what Wooden appropriates to “the Catholic Church” is really nothing more than the flawed “understanding” (or more properly, misunderstanding) of sinful men who have departed from the Faith in word and deed.
The Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ that is the Divinely endowed bulwark of truth, can never fail to recognize “other religions” as necessarily false, and their adherents as being in desperate need of conversion to the one true Faith, and therefore to interact with each accordingly.
Individual Catholics, even popes, by contrast, can sometimes falter in such matters, as in the cases of John XXIII and John Paul II; all of which underscores the sheer magnitude of their proposed canonizations (May God in His mercy forbid them!) and the ramifications such would promise for the Church and for the world.
While the gravity of the situation appears to be lost on many Catholics, that certainly doesn’t appear to be the case for those outside the Church.
Case in point, Wooden offered a number of quotes from Rabbi David Rosen, director of interreligious relations for the American Jewish Committee (AJC). Among his observations:
- “In Jewish eyes, there is a total logic to these two being canonized together; in fact, many Jews probably think it’s because of the Jews that they’re being canonized together.”
- John XXIII holds “the copyright” for the modern Catholic Church’s respectful approach to other religions.
- “John XXIII’s recognition that the church had to reassess its whole relationship with the Jewish people, which was the inspiration for ‘Nostra Aetate’ was what led the church to begin to look at its relationship with all other religions.”
- The Catholic Church “came to a more universal approach to dialogue out of its ‘rehabilitation,’ if you like, of its relationship with Judaism and the Jewish people.”
- John XXIII “is the revolutionary,” the rabbi said, and everything later popes did built on his groundbreaking moves.
- “I think it’s quite striking: John XXIII starts the process and John Paul II takes it to new heights.”
Just in case you’re not ready to vomit just yet, consider that Rosen represents a people who, in the AJC’s own words, “often disagree vigorously over the interpretation of tradition,” and who differ over such “fundamental issues” as “who is a Jew, what does it mean to be a Jew, the meaning of a Jewish state, and the future agenda of the Jewish people.”
And yet, if one were to identify the solitary point of doctrinal unity that practically every self-proclaimed Jew readily affirms as endemic to his or her identity, it is the rejection of Jesus Christ, their long-awaited Messiah who said, “He who rejects me rejects Him who sent me.”
If nothing else, Rabbi Rosen’s reaction to the upcoming canonizations (May God in His mercy forbid them!) hammers the point home that John XXIII and John Paul II, more than anything else, represent the neo-modernist’s own rejection of Jesus Christ as evidenced in their utter failure to embrace the mission that He gave to His Church.
In addition to adding glowing praise for John Paul II from a Muslim theologian who teaches at Rome’s Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies (and why such a thing even exists is beyond me), Wooden offers:
Based on the behavior of these popes, they apparently believed that the “seeds” are as good as the tree, and the Divine presence is such in these false religions as to render the call to conversion to the Catholic faith entirely unnecessary; a shameful deviation from the Divine mandate that has been carried on by every pope in between and since right up to Pope Francis.
No wonder those who reject Christ are so delighted with the prospect of the upcoming canonizations (May God in His mercy forbid them!) as such will deceive a great many innocents into believing that this is the “new normal.”
Make no mistake, it is not, and the Lord in His thirst for souls will endure the deception for only so long.
- Audio Sancto
- Catholic Family News
- Church Militant.TV
- Creative Minority Report
- Eponymous Flower Blog
- Fr. Jay Finelli
- Fr. Michael Rodriguez on YouTube
- Fr. Ray Blake's Blog
- Fr. Z
- John Salza Apologetics
- Kitchner Waterloo Traditional Catholic
- Mundabor's Blog
- New Sherwood: Jeff Culbreath
- Rorate Caeli
- Sandro Magister: Chiesa
- Society of St. Pius X
- The Remnant
- Unam Sanctam Catholicam
- Voice of Catholic Tradition Radio