Restore the Church

Pope has improved relations between Jews and Catholics, Keeler says

Forgive the bluntness, but according to whom? While Catholics have bent over backwards towards Judaism, how has this relationshp bettered from the other side? When a Catholic attmpets to make a movie faithful to the Gospel about our Lord's glorius conquest over sin in death, he is denounced as an "Anti-Semite." Again, the same problem with Islam arises in Judaism. Judaism as a whole lacks the centrality Catholicism has, so when the Pope "dialogues" he does not dialogue with Judaism as a whole, but certain sects. The acts have done nothing to heal the wounds between Catholicism and Judaism, if anything, they gloss over them.

Cardinal Keeler has been one of the more troubling princes of the Church for Neo-Catholics. When he was one of the primary architects of the "Reflections" document, which stressed we shouldn't evangelize Jews, because of their salvific covenant, even Apolonio Latar, shedding his normal niceness for these prelates, referred to the view in conversatoin with me as a "Damn heresey" and "Keeler should resign for such blashpemy." (I really wish I would've saved the conversation, who would've known what it would mean in the future. I had stated that while the document was bad, the media blew certain areas out of proportion, which they did. Apolonio took that as me defending the document, and called the document a damn heresey. Such shows spiritual immaturity and traditional disobedience mon ami.)

His Eminence praises the Holy Father visiting a Jewish synagogue, being the first since St. Peter. What good did it cause? If anything, during his pilgrimage to Jerusalem, I would argue the current Pontiff insulted those in the past for chastizing them for trying to convert the Jews, although he claimed they were "overzealous."

The Cardinal then goes on to say that Vatican II did away with the notion that the destruction of the temple and the dispersion of the Jews had to do with them rejecting, and crucifying Christ. Sorry, but all Vatican II stated, as he later says, is simply that you cannot hold today's Jews accountable for Christ's death simply because they are Jews, something that is true. If anything, we are just as guilty for Christ's death. The Destruction of the Temple had everything to do with the Jews rejection of Christ, as it was a judgement from God, showing them that their Covenant had indeed passed, and was superseded by the New Covenant.

He talks about how God does not repent of all the graces he gave to our "older brothers." I likewise agree, but he doesn't seem to want to recognize the fact that we are the true spiritual heirs of Abraham, precisely because we accepted Christ, as Paul told us, he is indeed the father of us all. While there remains a mystery as what excactly will happen to Israel in the end, until that time happens, we aren't to forget them, but continue to evangelize them, and bring them home to the Church.

Yet this seems to be something that is forgotten. Or perhaps it's just a clever guise for "Communio ecclesiology" with the jews. Communio Ecclesilogy, the one brush treatment to do explain away any statement that says people no longer have to convert to Catholicism.

Interview with Sr. Lucia

I really don't know what to think about this article. In a little bit of inside info, while completely understanding Traditionalist concerns about Fatima, there was an unhealthy devotion to Fatima I think within some traditionalist circles, who indeed, place this message above all else. Indeed, to disagree with them that it is a dogmatic truth that once the "Consecration has been done everything will heal." Fatima is of course, private revelation. It's worthy of belief only in that it reflects the traditional teaching.

Likewise, I was also disgusted at the way Neo-Catholics gutted the message since they believed it conflicted with the revolution they were selflessely upholding. I take a middle road on the Fr. Gruner case, hoping that if he actually is suspended, there is better evidence than that presented by Vere and McElhinney. In the end, all the debates could go on, but I'm primarily a soldier in this war, and I have the Traditional Faith and Mass, and a healthy trust in St Michael(or as I call him the general of God's forces) that consecration, no consecration, no matter if it's all true and false, this war still rages on, so worry about fighting the war, let them debate it.

Now if this story is true, this is going to be devestating to many Traditionalists. Although, I feel the need to play devils advocate. If the consecration has been done, why has she been forbidden to speak. There is talk about the "budding love" Sr. Lucia has for the current Pontiff, yet interstingly enough, when he visited Fatima, they seemed cordial at best, hardly on great terms. The idea that Russia being converted simply means "you are given free will to choose which religion" I would also find false, since Catholicism is practically banned in Russia.

The author of the interview fails to realize that it is both the Russian Government under Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church that team up to attack the Catholic Church. Alexy sends interpol to steal an image from the Vatican, makes the Vatican agree they won't evangelize Russian Orthodox, meanwhile Putin uses his power to make sure that after 3 months, a Catholic priest's visa will expire unless he marries a Russian woman! I would fully reject the idea that Russians are quite free to choose their religion, and that the "Communistic athiestic" culture in Russia is a thing of the past, as any verifiable report states it isn't.

Then there's all those troubling reports from before where previous Popes did the same thing as John Paul II and it wasn't done. What changed?

On the other hand, there is Sr. Lucia. The testimony, as much as some traditionalists don't like it, will have to be accepted until they can prove it was false. The person who had the audience with her is a man of quite impeccable credentials, so one had better be able to prove the man was a liar. Then you have a convent with her that likewise agrees it was done. One on hand, you have a Vatican that has to be truly stupid to not have Sr. Lucia speak the truth on the matter if they agree, A Pope who obviously doesn't take much stock in Fatima since he never said he officially did it, when in Sr. Lucia's mind, it turns out he did.

On the other hand, you have a worldwide conspiracy involving one of the most astute Catholic doctors who defends the crucifixition, a group of Carmelite nuns, an 96 year old nun who was the primary seer, almost the entire Vatican, and Neo-Catholic periodicals in bed together to make this thing go away by lying. Either way, these are both tough pills to swallow.

Meanwhile, I think the educated Catholic responds that in the end, the consecration is a means to and end, not the end itself. Leave that to the hands of heaven. If it hasn't been done, God will have it done eventually. Meanwhile, follow the Fatima apparation, make sacrifices, adore the precious body and blood of Christ, pray a third of the Rosary every day, and still believe that Russia, along with the rest of the world, is mandated to truly convert. The grace is there for us if we wish to fight this battle. Anyone willing to join the fight?

Cardinals liberal line on sexuality opens up divisions

Many times Traditionalists decry, alongside Neo-Catholics, just how liberal many prelates are in the Church. yet we take it one step further, realizing these people did not hide their hetrodox views when they were given their authority. The Vatican knew full and well these men were liberals. Cardinal Kasper, before denying ecumenism of return of dissidents to the Catholic Church(under the thiny veiled guise of "Communio ecclesiology, which is not indifferentism btw Neo-Catholics!), denied apostolic succession and said we should life the ban on the Anglicans(even though they now condone women priests, abortion, and even homosexual unions!), was well known to question such things as the actual authenticity of the ressurection and Biblical innerrancy. He furthermore was one of the German bishops who was making it very easy for women to get abortions, despite the Pope's orders.(note very well, the German bishops weren't asked, they were commanded to stop the process). Now one can surely argue the man has changed, and perhaps he has. Yet when one sees what he believed before, and what he advocates now (also including torpedoing John Paul II's views on intercommunion in Ecclesia de Eucharistica, and torpedoing Dominus Iesus with his debate against Ratzinger, attempting to make the document as liberal as possible) it is clear that this man probably wasn't the best choice for cardinal, especially if you don't want to give the perception you're liberal to the core.

Now of course, perhaps that's an honest mistake. Yet now we arrive at one of the newly appointed cardinals out of the batch of 31. I note at least a sixth of the group was too old to vote for the papacy(too old to vote, but not to be a cardinal, figure that one out!) Archbishop Kenneth O'Brien was a known liberal on issues such as sexuality. Now we are told by him that the Church should keep itself open to "change on topics such as gay clergy, married priests, and artificial contraception" He claims these areas are that of Church law, not God's law. Well, he's only 33% right. Homoexuality in the clergy I would argue is very much indeed God's law, as homosexuality is intrinsically evil. Same with any form of contraception, though it hasn't been declared so ex cathedra, Humane Viate repeated the constant teaching of the Church in regards to this. And the only people backing married clergy are those who want to de-emphasize the priest even more, and sneak women into the priesthood. In short, all three should be battled against strongly.

He didn't hide these views until he got the red hat. He has always had them. So now, we come to a fairly tough conclusion. Either the Pope, when appointing these cardinals, simply is blind to reality, or he is appointing knowingly dangerous princes to the Church. I don't think it's the first option, so we have to look at the second one. Either he is doing so out of malice for the Church, giving her more poison, or he's hoping to use his authority to rein in the evil men. Again, I don't want to arrive at conclusion number one, but the latter has likewise been shown to be disastarous. These men aren't changing their views, so perhaps we Catholics need to remember this in the future, as we prepare for an entire batch of these liberals to be shoved down our throats, and one even possible become our next Pope. I just pray it isn't this cardinal discussed here.

Proposed Vatican Liturgical Norms Drops Ban on Altar Girls

Well it seems as if the Neo-Catholics can rest easy on this one. The thought of having to change their mind 3 times in 20 years for no other reason other than the Pontiff mandating altar girls being an enrichment to the liturgy is truly a tough situation.

Many talked about just how darned conservative this latest document would be, goodbye altar girls, more Latin, condeming concelbration with Protestant heretics, no dancing, no clapping, etc, Neo-Catholics told us "Look how mighty the Vatican is, looking to confront the very liturigcal innovators they hired!."

Us Traditionalists, as much as we don't like it, had to be cynical. We've seen this happen before. When John Paul II arose to the chair of Peter, he decried the abuses in the Novus Ordo Missae, and gaurenteed they would be cleaned up. 25 years later, not only was no action taken against them, they got worse, and the Pope himself admitted he was a collasal failure in this area.(Don't tell the Neo-Catholics this. How can one be the greatest Pope ever when he himself admits the liturgy, the very heart of the Church, has become so horrid he has to remind people they can't receive communion at protestant services!) Come Ecclesia Dei Afflicta in 1988, the one time the Vatican actually moved against someone(and all he wanted to do was stop the revolution that he foresaw, though perhaps jumping the gun), we were told that while the SSPX was indeed schismatic and we couldn't attend their Masses, the Pope will use his clout to get the bishops to give us the Latin Mass.(Of course, the former position was reversed, as now one is not a schismatic by merely attending the SSPX chapels.) Traditionalists point out that a "far and generous" application of the Tridentine Rite we haven't gotten, and those we do get, we aren't allowed to promote most of the time. So then we hear about a "universal indult." Again, showing just how creative the Vatican warhorse is, giving the people what they need. Of course, this was dropped within a month of saying it.

Let's face it, we are currently faced with a Vatican Adminsitration that is powerless to do anything about the dissent that they invited in. Many of the top heads now are pioneers of the Revolution that was Vatican II and it's implementation, and now they are viewed as ultraconservatives! To put it bluntly, while we have a Pope, we have a visible Church, that church is out of control, and noone wants to actually put a stop to it in Rome. They would rather "dialogue."

So we traditionalists were very cynical of this new document. Now we are proven right. Two of the things that were up for condemnation, altar girls and receiving blessings at Catholic services from Protestant "ministers", are now gone. Within the past few weeks, a fire of controversey was started over these very two things, and many essentially said they had no intention of following the Pope's wishes anyways. (this is excactly how they received communion in the hand and altar girls, just disobey the Pope, and like a bully in the schoolyard after hitting a kid "Do something!")

My only hope is this will again prove the Neo-Catholic position further beaten, so those Catholics who are doctrinally Orthodox can return to the fullness of tradition, and fight this war against the liberals we are losing, but eventually will win.

Me and Jake traded a few e-mails about the absolute contradictions of the neo-Catholic position. One of them was the entire idea of "kissing the Koran is ok since it was merely acknowledging Islam gets some things right" as Apolonio essentially says. Well, the dark side of myself is going to have some fun with this one.

I'd like to see Apolonio kiss a book written by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, that nasty schismatic of the Society of St. Pius X. This is a man whose "errors" apolonio constantly decries. Yet, the man certainly preached some truth. So, in an effor to be ecumenical with traditionalists, and show he doesn't really hate the frenchman, will Apolonio kiss any of The Archbishop's books such as "I Accuse the Council?"

Don't bet your life on it.

Cardinal Ratzinger Asks, Are Inter-Religious Prayers Possible?

It is the conviction of traditionalists that most of what has passed for "authentic reform" in the Post-Vatican II era is anything but, and had it not been for the very smart, but useful idiot nonetheless Neo-Catholic establishment, these reforms would've never survived.

For the Neo-Catholic, their hero is Cardinal Ratzinger, the strong lion who denounces dissent with article after article. For Traditionalists, there is a mixed feeling on Ratzinger. At times, we feel as if he does not take action when action should be taken, paralyzed by the weakness that the Church has seen in the past 40 years since we switched to "Modern man is great, if we just talk to him long enough, he'll realize his ways." Ratzinger I would also argue, is the embodiment of Neo-Catholicism, for the current pontificate has no stronger ally to explain away the problems in the Church other than Ratzinger. It is Ratzinger who viewed the Syllabus as something that no longer corresponded with the facts of modern society(The world after 1789) thus shedding the Churches strong armor against modernism. Ratzinger I believe is overall quite orthodox, yet like the Neo-Catholic, will do anything in his power to keep the revolution going, the revolution which their entire life has been invested in.

Now we see the practice of Inter-Religious Prayer. The Catholic faithful was shocked by the Assisi prayer gatherings, a move even opposed by John Paul II's closest aides. Somehow, these distinctions had to be made, so there wouldn't be any problems. The Churches new approach of just getting the world's religions to get along, rather than aggresively promoting their conversion(since this they fear would offend the false religions), must be justified.

Now we see the idea that while inter-religious prayer is futile, as Ratzinger readily admits. Under the guise of "inter-religious prayer and dialogue" Assisi was built. This would seem to condemn the entire inter-religious movement. Yet, a new term is invented, yet another term within the Post Vatican II era. "Multi-religious meetings." What is the difference, to quote the article about Ratzinger's New book:

"The prayers for peace in Assisi, called by John Paul II, are multireligious, as all participants pray at the same time but in different places. "

whereas interreligious are:

On the contrary, in interreligious prayers, people of diverse religious traditions pray together, he explains.

I honestly fail to see a real difference between the two. Both have the same end result, the pagan thinks that by praying to his God, his requests should be answered. This is not a situation for invincible ignorance, as it is obvious the faith could be presented to them, and what better setting to do so then through prayer. Suggest the Rosary, and show how the Rosary exemplifies the Catholic faith in regards to Christ, the savior of the world.

Furthermore, does a mere wall shatter the fact that they were called to the place, given rooms to pray, mean they aren't "praying together?" I don't see how merely erecting a wall between the two in the same house really helps anything. There's still that pagan who is putting his soul in jeopardy, and rather than help him, we help him to become complacent in his false religion. Of course the Neo-Catholics will disagree, but even staunch defenders of the Pope ended up claiming that the latest Assisi gathering gave everyone the impression that one faith was as good as the next, not to mention turned away Protestants, who returning them to full unity should be the most paramount, since they are closer to the truth than non-Christian religions.

Furthermore, after doubting inter-religious prayer(which is now different from what they called interreligious prayer before) could really work, he then says "if we're gonna do it, let's do this." Perhaps a noble compromise given the circumstances, but I think again that runs into problems.

"First, he says, it must be made clear that one is praying to the one, personal God;"

What is the "one, personal God?" Is it the one true God of all, who had his son die for us? This is not what non-Christians refer to as God, so it can't be asking them to pray to the Father, as that would be blasphemy in their eyes. So essentially, it's pray to whatever God you believe in, and hence, I think we run back into the interreligious problem all over again.

"second, it must be established that what is being prayed for is not in contradiction to the Our Father"

I think these meetings in and of themself run contrary to "hollow be they name, the Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." I think it even runs contrary to the title itself. Sure us Catholics say, he's "our father" but he isn't yours. These distinctions I believe are fatally flawed, because the premise itself is fatally flawed, that there can be any true unity between light and darkness, instead of essential opposition.

"and third, it must be stressed that for Christians Jesus Christ is the sole redeemer of all people."

Stress it for Christians, but noone else. In other words, Christ is the redeemer of all people according to us, but not for you guys, but it's still ok you reject the essential tenet of the faith God has given, your prayers are still quite pleasing to him.

I'll have to pick up the book mentioned, because I seriously believe the distinctions made so far cannot weight the vast risks that are associated, primarily being offense to God himself.