Restore the Church

Friday, September 12, 2003

Get Those Schismatics, oh wait, they're Bishops! 

Sainthood Fast Track

Nothing more I'm gonna comment on here, but it basically shows what I've been saying all along, and even some Bishops seem to agree with your humble journalist, even though they have no clue who I am, which must mean, the problems with the canonization process are not something us "Rad-trad schismatics" just have problems with.

Some Inherent Problems with the Neo-Catholics 

There are 2 possible problems with Neo-Catholic arguments I think that are really overlooked.

First is the issue of proper leadership. Everyone who debates with me knows I take a very different approach than most. Take the political issue of affirmative action. I will let that one go, but focus on the argument that diversity is a "Compelling state interest." Two reasons. One, very few people are honestly expecting to defend that statement when they make it, and two, it's even harder to defend than affirmative action.

Now let's apply this situation to the Church. Traditionalists have some very serious problems with the likes of Cardinal Walter Kasper, who traditionalists think flatly contradicts the ecumenical views of the likes of Pius XI on what excactly ecumenism is when he makes statements such as "I deny the ecumenism of return" and making remarks sounding tantamount to a denial of Apostolic succession.

The standard Neo-Catholic defense is that we're misunderstanding Kasper, because he is a proponent of communio ecclesiology. No Neo-Catholic has actually laid out what communio ecclesiology is in a debate, so it's tough to get a definition, since it honestly means different things to different people. They state that Kasper speaks as if people understand what the theology of it all is. Well it's obvious, many don't. A Proper leader does all he can to make sure he doesn't screw up, or GIVE THE APPEARANCE HE DOES. One who constantly gives the appearance of screwing up cannot be an effective leader. So either the people in the Church are contradicting the pre-concilliar faith, or they are woefully ineffective leaders who are ignorant of what their people know. Either way, this sounds like a sound case for traditionalism. The Neo-Catholics, in their excuse making factory production, end up having to make excuses for the excuses, showing the utter impossibility of the Neo-Catholic position.

Second is an inconsistency in their views of bare-bones validity. What do I mean by this? Simple, when the question of the Novus Ordo Missae comes up, one of their primary defenses is "Well It's a Valid Mass, and that is what matters." Well I think we could turn the tables on them, and my good colleague Ian Palko raised this, although I don't think he was driving at the same point I was, maybe, maybe not. He asked about the SSPX "Schism." Noone denies the fact that the consecration of Fellay and Friends was valid. Since it's merely valid, what is the problem. Well the Neo-Catholic will answer that the SSPX gives it's adherents a "Schismatic" mentality which is dangerous for the Church, and expect this claim to be interacted with. It should, but this undercuts the Neo-Catholic thinking on the Novus Ordo Missae. One need not deny the validity of the Novus Ordo, yet still reject it outright. It's a valid Mass, but a valid Mass I will make every effort not to attend. Given it promotes egalitarianism and ambiguity I strongly believe, being far too ecumenical, the Novus Ordo I believe instills a dangerous spirit into the hearts of Catholics of laxity and ever changing facts, which is impossible. Yet the Neo-Catholics never seem willing to argue on these matters, for them, it just stops at validity. Well what works for one issue, must work for the other.

These are just 2 inconsistencies I've noticed a lot of as of late.(The argument about the Mass and mere validity is also valid for the canonization proccess, in that it demolishes the view of the saints when they are canonized so laxly, if that's a word.) Anyone else got any other ideas, I'd love to hear from ya.

Porno in the Church 

Italian Church Host of Pornographic movie

I really don't know what to say about this. The priest there simply claimed "We thought they were shooting a wedding scene." Forgive my cynicism, but the priest is either very naieve, or flat out lying. Where were Church Authorities to mointor what was going on? Anytime I've ever held a function at any Church, be it Novus Ordo or Traditional, there were always some Church reps there to make sure everything went ok.

While the Novus Ordo priest "reconsecrates" the place, perhaps he should offer some prayers to God for all the other defilings that have gone on in the sanctuary over the years.,

On the future 

I usually do not respond to our own postings, but Kevin make some points that I've often discussed with friends about the next Pope. Not that I think he is wrong in any of his analysis, far from it.

His Holiness certainly has not been the greatest pope in history, far from it, but likely not the worst ever. Were it not for his stands on certain major issues such as his stand on the possibility of Women's ordinations, which it would seem should end all discussion. He also more recently urged Catholic lawyers to refuse divorce cases, which I believe no rational Catholic would call a bad thing. There are a number of good things he has done for the Church, but, in my humble opinion, he is very weak in other areas. Much of this is exemplified when His Holiness issues a decree and bishops refuse to follow it, or that when the famous Papal commission of 9 cardinals was ready to declare the Traditional Mass never abrogated or prohibited, their findings were witheld because the French bishops threatened heresy.

Most of what I have to say is pure speculation, but it seems to make sense in my head. Most of the liberal views John Paul has I think come from his experience as a Polish Catholic, living through Communism, witnessing much of the evils of the Germans during World War II firsthand. His hatred of Capital Punishment, despite the Church's acceptance of it Traditionally, is a result of seeing so many Innocent people killed for their ethnicity, during his life. I can appreciate and understand that many of the more harmful decisions have not come about because His Holiness wanted to harm the Church, but because he adamantly believed he would be helping the Church. This, I think, stands in direct contrast to many of the liberal Papabiles who are on a mission of Novelty and even some bent on the destruction of the Catholic Church.

In some ways I hope that the Church's next pope is one of those that Kevin called a "further chastizement" but perhaps it is more of a blessing is disguise. Now in the Church, you have liberal interpretations, but limited in their scale, so many aren't convinced of the evils that exist. Consider all of the arguments that the "Neo-Catholics" and "Rad-Trads" have, often because we traditionalists look at things from that perspective of "fruitfulness" and not "validity" so much.

This reminds me of a quote from a Military Officer: "The Minimum is sufficient, or else it wouldn't be called the minimum." I think this was intended to describe the American work ethic, but it applies well to these arguments. Often the issue really isn't "validity." We often stipulate that things are valid, but not good. No matter what you think of the 1988 Consecrations by His Grade Archbishop Lefebvre, no one argues the validity here, no one says these new bishops were not actually bishops. Now the "minimum" argument devolves there, because the rest centers around another "not seeing eye-to-eye" issue after that, but it's an example.

Back to that "blessing in disguise" : If we get a very liberal pope next, perhaps the errors of the Novus Ordo, will become even more clear. When the next pope permits women to hear confessions, or allows women's ordination, or declare that all are saved and there is no hell, or declare an end to celibacy, these declarations won't seem so murky as what traditionalist call evil now. It will be much more clear that that pope is teaching error in many cases, and perhaps that is how the Novus Ordo will die. Clear Error and Heresy realized by all will destroy it. When a clear line can be drawn between the Novus Ordo and what is truly Catholic by the majority of those that call themselves Catholic, that will be the final nail in the coffin.

Certainly I would love to see the next pope a new St. Pius X, who restore the Church to its glory, who is doctrinally sound and fixes the errors, but I doubt this will be the case. We know the the Holy Ghost certainly knows best, and will select the next pontiff which is best for the Church, be he a obvious heretic who makes clear that the Novus Ordo is a charade, or he is the best restorer that grace can buy. I just don't believe traditionalists should fret if the next pontiff is some that would make Cardinal Kasper look like a traditionalist.

That said, while John Paul is still our Pope and with us, we need to urgently pray for him, that he can use that same energy, that same power and heart that he puts into some of his more questionable actions, and use them to repair the flood damage caused by the accumulation from that leaky pipe St Pius X saw and tried so desperately to fix and called Modernism. The Church doesn't need a new elbow on that pipe or fitting, she now needs some new walls, some new paint, some spackle and lots of hard work. With his remaining strength I pray John Paul can do this, and then we can all call him John Paul the Great. As it stands now, I don't think History will afford him that title or honor, but let us never lose Hope.


Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Joanne Paulo.
Dominus conservet eum, et vivificet eum,
et beatum faciat eum in terra,
et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum ejus.

Thursday, September 11, 2003

Thoughts on Apolonio Having No Clue 

I must say, I laugh more and more at Apolonio's "thoughts on Rad-Trads" series. Now he proposes the fact that Dr. Peter Kreeft(a man who I believe is a mix of the staunchly orthodox, and the interesting, yet questionable views) is a true Traditionalist. First he says things like he's a great prophet of the modern world for foreseeing 9-11. I sure hope that isn't the only reason, because Non-Catholic(and quite possible a Jewish Zionist) Dr. Daniel Pipes argued the fact back in the early to mid 90's, when everyone viewed him a nut when he talked about Militant Islam.(Now the man is at least on one TV Station a day)

Apolonio then claims that the death of John Paul I was so John Paul II could revitalize the Church. Forgive me for being blunt, but what revitalization is there, with Europe all but dead in Catholicism, America becoming as liberal as can be, Russia off limits to the Church(But Russia converted of course), ecumenical efforts where non-Catholics become furious when told they have to convert! By the snide remark that there was problems, but Dr. Kreeft, a true traditionalist, has faith in God, one could quite easily garner Apolonio beliving us "rad-trads" don't have faith in God, though that is left unclear, and I doubt Mr. Latar is that presumptious!

He then states that we believe Kreeft is not a traditionalist because "He loves John Paul II." That of course shows just how arrogant our Lidless Eye Inquisitior is, and just how blinded to reality he is when it comes to traditionalist circles. Traditionalists do love the Pope. But Love is not always saying yes. Just as with a regular family, the worst thing you can do with an alcoholic is act like there never is a problem. Neo-Catholics are like an alcoholic's kids who won't stand up. The Father is still a good man probably, just going through a crisis, and needs the help of his children, not their praise for nothing.

He's also a traditionalist because "he believes in ecumenism." First off, what is ecumenism? Noone has been able to adaquetly define it. If it's the process by which Non-Catholics return to the Catholic Church, which Traditionalist wouldn't love it? Apolonio knows that is what we want, so ecumenism must be something counter to that, or where that isn't it's end goal. What is it mon ami?

Number 3, he likes the Muslims. This of course seems to imply that all "rad-trads" hate Muslims, again, an arrogant slap in the face by our anti-Traditionalist.

And of course, he "believes in Vatican II." What does this mean? That it's a valid council? The majority of traditionalists will admit this much.(Of course, everything in Neo-Catholicville is an issue of mere validity, not fruitfulness.)

The only things Apolonio seems to get right are the final two. Yes, Kreeft is certainly not a traditionalist by viewing John Paul II as John Paul the Great. He's not John Paul the Horrid, but to compare him with the likes of St. Gregory the Great or St. Leo the Great, not to mention St. Pius V and St. Pius X(and of course men like Pius XII) I think is a little too much.

As far as the contradiction in the faith, well, being that noone really knows WHAT Vatican II taught that is somehow different, we're left with the implementation of the Council, and what was there beforehand. And yes, any empirical study will show there has been a change.

So from absolutely flawed premises and begging the question, Apolonio seems to think he realizes what a rad-trad really is. He states that if we think most of the canonizations of John Paul II are good, we can't be a traditionalist. The argument with traditionalists is again not one of bare bones validity, but the gutting of the canonziation process, and a clear route made to move so quick a case can't really be made for or against(as with Mother Theresa.). The process which gave us the true saints, we knew they were saints, and highly respected them because they are so rare, is gone in today's Church. Not surprising, we don't hear much about the Saints today.

Apolonio really needs to actually read the arguments of most Traditionalists, and will find the people he picks out(while being strong on certain areas) are far outside what most Traditionalists believe.

Prepare for War 

There has been much buzz in the Catholic world as to the health of the Holy Father. Though he strives on fearless, time is starting to catch up with the Polish Pontiff. One, traveling as much as he does in his upper 70's and 80's will do much to a man's health. So of course we should pray for the Holy Father, as we traditionalists are his true obedient sons, seeking his well being, and that of the entire Church.

Yet while we pray, forgive me for sounding pessimistic, we should also prepare. Prepare for battle. There are those traditionalists who believe that John Paul II, while still a valid Pope, is the worst Pontiff in history. While not John Paul the Great, he was not John Paul the horrid either. He has done some good. Yet look all around you, it seems nowadays that the Novus Ordo has become too liberal for even John Paul II! It appears as if many Cardinals now think that with the Holy Father's failing health, they can play Pope. It seems as if many are making powerplays for that very office, some on the middle, some somewhat center-right, yet the majority of them are center-left, or far-left.

Think about this. We could be looking at further chastizment from God. Day after day, the Novus Ordo sheds more of the past of Traditional Catholicism, to where many no longer want to even talk about anything before John XXIII. That further chastizment, is an even more liberal Pope. The faith of even seasoned traditionalists could be tested, not to mention the Neo-Catholics.

They are people we should also pray for, and indeed, prepare to aid them, as if a more liberal Pope comes across, the Neo-Catholics will finally hit the point they can defend no more novelty. The Neo-Catholics are out of ammunition, and their generals lose soldiers by the day now. With all this, we must pray those leaders of the Neo-Catholic establishment come over to join us in battle, and that they do so soon.

So let's continue praying for the Holy Father, his Neo-Catholic sons who are fearful, pray we get a good pope, but also, sound the call to arms. The Holy Father could very well pass within this year, maybe as I'm writing this. Are we ready to continue the fight for the Church against a Revolution which no longer hides it's designs?

Wednesday, September 10, 2003

Something that Probably won't be Reported during the 25th Anniversary Hoopla 

.Catholic Faith Losing Appeal in Italy


Many Catholics are eagerly awaiting John Paul II's 25th anniversary celebrations. Many will of course refer to him as John Paul the Great. I think the first thing that would make a Bishop great is how he manages his own diocese. John Paul's diocese, in a manner of speaking, is Rome. He is Rome's Bishop.

And what do we find in the Pope's own diocese. Less than one third of Catholics actively worship. A particularly disturbing fact is mentioned by the leading Italian canidate for the next Pope:

''Children...don't even know how to make the sign of the cross,'' Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi.

How can we be witnessing such a great pontificate, when the people of whom he principally governs don't even know how to make the sign of the Cross? Marriages, forget about them. His Eminence regards them as primarily a social event nowadays, in the people's eyes that is.

I have a feeling we won't be seeing an honest examination of John Paul II's 25 years in the chair of Peter. Sure, he has done some good things, stood brave on certain things, but with the good, we must also examine the not so good. Being a Catholic does not mean you blind yourself to reality.

Yet Another Call for a "Renewed Springtime" 

Pope calls for "Renewed Springtime" in Slovakia

A few things caught my eye on this article. First is the fact that His Holiness engages in an average of 4 international trips a year. Let's say for the sake of argument, each trip is around a week. That's an average of a month gone from actually governing the Church. That's 25 months, or 2 years and one month gone from actually being the Bishop of ROME, governing the Church, and reigning in dissidents, protecting the deposit of faith, you know, the things Popes are bound to do. I find that a staggering fact in and of itself.

While the trip to Slovakia has some interesting areas, including yes, more beatifications, there was one part that just made me laugh, and I don't even think Zenit realized what it wrote. It first talks about how 75% of that country is supposed to be Catholic. It then says that within 7 months, Slovakia will become a member of the European Union.

Anyone catch the irony there? A majorly Catholic country proposes to join an ogranization which refuses to recognize the impact of God, and most importantly, their own faith upon Civilization! It seems for Slovakia, belonging to the "global community" is more important than recognizing your God! Either the country is not really Catholic, or we have Catholic rulers who are Catholics on one hand, and politicans on the other, something constantly condemned, even from the times of St. Pius X, and the Syllabus of Errors!

All these calls for a "renewed springtime" yet we hear no attempts to actually implement one. No denouncing of the EU for refusing to recognize God, only remarks it was "unfortunate." One can only pray the Vatican would come out witha document, refusing recognition of the EU until it acknowledges God, and mandate that Catholic countries should do likewise. Then we could see the Catholicity of countries like Slovakia.

Dialogue at All Costs 

Dialogue at All Costs

Now this is interesting, and I wonder what the Neo-Catholics will think about this. I really don't know where to start with this article, but it's blistering, honest, and devestating to the ideas of "dialogue with Muslims." It demonstrates that due to Islam's lack on centrality(i.e. there really isn't a Bishop of Mecca so to speak) there is no unified aspect of Islam. Imans, clerics, and other religious simply rule Islam. Therefore, when they dialogue with the Pope, they are doing so only on their behalf, and not Islams. Therefore, by granting all these concessions(apologizing for the Noble, yet at times misguided crusades, praying in a Mosque which at one time was a great Christian basillica), the Pope, rather than fostering relations with Islam as a whole, is humilitating the Church. Gee, this sounds a lot like the arguments traditionalists have made for years. It seems that our views, are also those held by numerous prelates of Italy, within the Roman Curia, and it appears, even Cardinal Ratzinger himself.

This article also charitably states what the Pope is doing here is clearly new. There is nothing rooted in Tradition in this dialogue. Again, this is something the Neo-Catholics refuse to admit. A patristic admiring certain aspects of Islam is a far cry from what we see today. Indeed, I personally believe Muslims would make the best Catholics, as their respect for natural law, traditional morality, and strong discpline is ideal.

Further shocking is a statement about converts to Catholicism from Islam. These people are marked for death, and all the Vatican wants to do is "talk about it with our dialogue partners." I don't see much talk neccessary. Either stop killing our new converts, or the dialogue is done. Islam demands the same of the Vatican.(This is obvious, since they don't want the Church in their stomping grounds, while we are all too open to receive Muslims into our territories. This shows how fruitless this dialogue is.)

Then there is the next part of the article, which details an essay written that shows while Islam does indeed believe in "One God", their manifestation of God is ultimately different from Christinaity, indeed, their theocentric theology is incompatible with that of Catholicism. I'm sorry, but this is just another case of Captain Obvious. Many thanks to Peter Miller over at Seattle Catholic for pointing this article out. We at Restore the Church reward him with the Captain Obvious Award, for pointing out the blatantly obvious in today's Church, where many of it's members lack such common sense.

On the Road to Nowhere Fast 

China and the Vatican, Points of Disagreement

One of the largest controversies since the pontificate of John XXIII in the Roman Catholic Church is the way the Church deals with the world, particulary communism. Starting with John XXIII's pontificate, the Church took a very different approach to communism. Under Pius XI(after being duped by the Communists) and Pius XII, communism was condemned. Indeed, the idea of Vatican II originated not with a dream by John XXIII, but had been in planning for quite some time by Pius XII, and one of the subjects considering being condemned was communism and it's incompatability with communism. Since John XXIII, the approach against communism has been far less militant. Granted, we have had John Paul II's standing up to communism, especially in Latin America, but the church has seemed powerless, or unwilling, to attack the beast head on where it still lives openly. China is a perfect example.

China has what is known as the Chinese Patriotic Association, China's version of the Catholic Church. The people take oaths against the power of the Pope. It has consecrated over 100 Bishops since it's founding. Of course, this organization was strongly condemned by Pius XII when it was founded. While many may claim Lefebrve is a schismatic and some may not, there can really be no doubt this organization is a schismatic ogranization. They deny the authority of The Pope. Yet rather than condemnation, the Modern Day Vatican has attempted to normalize relations with this evil institution, while forgetting the courageous underground Catholics of the Cardinal Kung Foundation, the heroic organization which remains faithful to the Church. When the son of the Late Cardinal Kung wrote a letter pleading with the Church to help them, and stating how they had been virtually ignored, the Vatican essentially continued to ignore them, to normalize relations with the Church. Some have even said within the Vatican there really isn't a serious distinction between the underground and "official Catholics."

The Vatican has always been pressing as of late for diplomatic relations with the evil institution of the "People's Repbulic" of China. Nothing is really talked about China's horrid population control programs, or the bitterness and brutality of their rule. China is one of the few countries I might add, that has squashed all public dissidence. A state so ruthless to merely disagree with them leaves you a marked man, and the Church wants to "Noramlize" relations with them.

Yet here we see why dialogue is indeed the road to nowhere fast. By endless meetings and talks, here is what China demands for relations with the Vatican:

"Beijing affirms that there are two conditions for securing relations with the Holy See: The Vatican “must break off relations with Taiwan” and it “must not involve itself in Chinese internal affairs, including religious ones.”

Break of relations with Non-communists and don't demand religious freedom for Catholics. Let us do what we want, and we'll have diplmoatic relations with you. This is the fruits of dialogue people. China is indeed nowhere near closer to ending communism, it increases in it's brutality, and has not inched closer towards the Churches positions on basic morality! What are we doing talking with these guys? Why aren't we making known the case of the heroic Cardinal Kung Foundation, fighting for their regularization?

The article laments that China needs to respect religious freedoms and enter into the service of humanity. Of course, none of this matters for China. What matters, is the control of the lives of the people. Therefore, it is impossible for China to give the Vatican what it wants(the abolition of the Chinese Patriotic movement and the rights of the Vatican to consecrate Bishops) and it is impossible for the Vatican to give what China wants(staying out of China's affairs, including religious ones.) The simple point is this, dialogue with communists is absolutely useless, just like the 40 year dialogue of nothing with everyone else.

Tuesday, September 09, 2003

A sad, sad day 

Catholics denounce rewarding dissenters

I truly found the idea of this conference in and of itself laughable. It seemed as if the layity needed to pastor the Bishops! Although the layity are the latest people to receive the Captain Obvious award:

They stated to the Bishops dissenters should not be given key roles on committees

Don't invite pro-abortion "Catholics" to speak at conferences

Call evil by it's name

Actually do something about the sexual abuse scandal

The issue of "Catholic" senators being pro-abortion and filibustering Pro-life justices

These issues are all obvious, and I find it quite stunning that the Bishops really needed to understand this. Well actually, I don't. Nothing surprises me with the American Church anymore.

Putin Further Limits Press Freedoms in Russia 

Putin puts 'Soviet' bar on poll coverage

I'll admit, I've always been skeptical of the Neo-Catholic excuse factory when it comes to Fatima. Indeed, I have sensed a feeling of anger and resentment towards the message itself. There of course is the case of Father Gruhner, everyone's favorite whipping boy. My view on him is I sure hope the case for his "suspension" is stronger than what the Neo-Catholics have presented it as, because so far, it simply is baseless.

Faced with the obvious fact that after Russia's "consecration" in 1984 by The Holy Father that there hasn't been any spiritual improvement in that poor country, many tried to say the "conversion" was one of economics. That's right, a spiritual vision talks about economics. They claim Russia's conversion was one of turning away from communism. Traditionalists have said Russia is preparing to become as communist as ever.

I disagree with both parties. Communism as we knew it in the USSR I believe is truly dead. The Chinese version of communism I believe is the latest expirement. It has a similar tie with modernism. When the modernists first came out, they didn't try to conceal their views. Hence, St. Pius X very easily and carefully exposed their views. They couldn't survive in the open, so they had to go underground, and learn from their mistakes. That is the same thing Russia has done. The hardliners looking for the old Soviet days, such as Vladimir Zhironovsky I don't think will carry the day. The biggest threat is their current "President" Vladimir Putin.

Many people scoffed around September 11th when I made the predicition the real winner in the war on terror will not be America, no Al Quida, but Russia. Russia gives the terrorists a lot of resources, and can also be counted on as an intelligence ally for America. One wonders what happened to the press coverage of the Chechnian rebellion after September 11th. Case in point. Russia got a free ride to be as tyrannical and brutal as can be, in exchange for intelligence info on the terrorists. (Yet another brilliant move by our President I suppose.)

We don't really hear any condemnation of Russia flirting with it's old ways with a new twist from either America on the political side, or the Vatican on the religious side. The Vatican is too worried not to offend the Russian Orthodox Church, I mean the KGB infested Church. Yet for the Neo-Catholics who claim Russia was opening up to political freedom, and this was their conversion(mainly the talk of political neo-conservatives who happened to be Catholic) have increasing evidence that they spun one elaborate web of lies.

Putin as of late has become ultra tyrannical, now barring the media from criticizing campaigners, or examining their policies. Explain how Russia has converted in any sense, my Neo-Catholic brethren.

More Disregard for Tradition 

John Paul II considered same day beatification and canonization for Mother Theresa

I've always been one for order and discpline when I ran a show. Indeed, St. Paul wishes everyone be done proper and in order. Thankfully, this spirit was left in the drug ministry I ran long after I was gone. Recently, they just appointed a new head of ministry operations. There was certainly no doubt as to who would get the job, a good youth named Ryan Thompson. He had overwhelming support from those who could appoint. Many said the proccess to appoint him was a mere "formality." Indeed it was. Yet that's not the point. That "mere formality" shows a respect for order, and makes sure no abuses creep in the process. To go away from that ordered process, indeed could invite disaster to that group, as with any group.

Why did I give that little story, other than giving a shameless promotion for the ministry I founded? We now hear the case of Mother Theresa, someone who I believe the case for canonization is fairly strong. Yet I believe the strict process should still be followed. Sadly, it isn't. Once again, I don't honestly believe the issue of the validity of the canonization is really the point. The respect for the person being canonized I think is the point.

Now we here the Holy Father wished to add another unprecedented move to his resume already filled with unprecedented actions; to beatify and canonize a person on the same day. There have been people I would argue that were far holier than the sainlty nun who were subject to the strict rules and regulations, knowing that when everything was said and done, those who were saints, truly deserved the title.

This is a spirit of the Church since the close of the Second Vatican Council, to disregard everything that came before them(at least as much as they can) and constantly try something new. They never point out what was so wrong with the original system. They needed to change it for change's sake. An institution that one day was very reluctant to change is now changing constantly, to the point where now even the "reform of the reform" needs to be launched, further changing things. Of course, the idea that we should go back to what we were as much as possible is never entertained, the days of yesteryear were just absolutely horrible.

Now granted, in the mind of the Holy Father, he is simply doing the obvious, declaring what everyone already knows(or at least the majority): Mother Theresa is a saint. Even if that is the case(which I believe it could very well be) don't in the proccess of canonizing her, gut the safegaurds that have been there for the canonization proccess, instilled by the providence of God.

A Response to Greg on the United Nations 

Well, the Lidless Eye Inquisition has issued a response to my response on the United Nations. I don't want to take up too much time with it, because I'd like to tackle this issue with Shawn sometime in the future.

Kevin:
I must say, I'm a little disappointed in the latest posting to the Lidless Eye Inquisition.

Greg M.:
Since when is Kevin NOT disappointed in what is posted on the Lidless Eye Inquisition?

Kevin: Actually, there are times where some legitimate questions are raised. (The recent posting about modernism poses a very interesting question, something I'm in the middle of formulating an answer to, because traditionalists do need to think about it.) Same with Gary Gubinski's reply to me, and postings from Gregg the Obscure. Just because I don't like their views, doesn't mean I harbor the hatred implied by such a statement.

Greg:
"I don't need a long answer. A simple yes or no answer will do.

He responded on the same day by saying that his position is too nuanced to avail itself to a yes or no answer. Excuse me! But a point blank question as to whether or not one thinks that a Pope, in an encyclical letter, is advocating a position that is egregiously contrary to Catholic belief is too nuanced? Please! Now, I understand that nuances may come into play when trying to explain why he may take a position, one way or the other, but not in basically stating where he stands on such a fundamental question. "

Kevin: Well first, the issue isn't that cut and dry. Do the nations give up control willingly, with no violence? That's difference than forced stripping of their independence. What is the organizations grounds in relation to Christ the King, the Catholic faith, etc, all these questions need to be taken into consideration, and I said excactly this. His own Lidless Eye colleague Apolonio advanced the possibility that global governance was not only advocated by John XXIII, but is a logical conclusion of Leo XIII's teaching! So therefore, this is an issue that is far more simple than a yes or no answer.

"Greg M.:
Gee, I hope he wasn’t driving at the time he fired off that message. If he ever comes out here to San Diego, I hope he doesn’t drive. We have enough problems on our roads with idiots in rice rockets (souped up Hondas and other small foreign cars) barreling down the freeways at 100+MPH and people yaking away on cell phones when they should be paying attention to the road. The last thing we need is someone banging away on a laptop while driving. LOL "

My cell phone is absolutely hands-free in the car, and friend was driving that time, and the governor on my car kicks in at 106, so don't think Greg has to worry. :-)

"At any rate, I must say that this one of the sorriest excuses I have ever heard. Since Kevin is familiar enough with the Modus Operandi of the Lidless Eye Inquisition to know that anything he says via e-mail to any of the Inquisitors, unless he specifically requests otherwise, is fair game for blogging (In fact, a disclaimer stating such is prominently displayed on the Lidless Eye site.), you would think that he would a little more careful and not shoot off messages to any of them in such a haphazard way. "

There is only one problem with this, Greg is not listed as a member of the Lidless Eye Inquisition. Therefore, there is no Welborn Protocol here. Furthermore, me and Apolonio essentially have an unwritten understanding, that we ask for clarification for people, before we go out and slander them unknowingly. Lately that understanding has seemed to develop with the rest of the Lidless Eye Inquisitors as well. Whether or not thereis some protocol, you still attempt to have decency and charity, something I think is lacking from my adversary in this contest.

"Greg M.:
If it were only a matter of criticizing prudential judgment, that would be one thing. But saying that John XXIII’s statement in #127 “sounds like almost pure pacifism” and that the encyclical is advocating global government, both of which are contrary to Catholic belief, extends beyond a critique of prudential judgment. "

Kevin:
I don't think the idea of a global institution in governance is absolutely contrary to Catholic belief, just depends on how it operates. There can be a global community, just what type of global community. Furthermore, when the encyclical states what kind of community is neccessary, and then says the UN is that type of group, it is a fact the UN is full of globalists. What are we to think?

Greg:
Yes, the issue is complex¾far more complex than Kevin realizes. But what I find alarming is that Kevin does not give a Pope, who is also a Blessed, writing in an encyclical, the same benefit of the doubt he claims I, and many others he saddles with the “conservative” moniker, am not giving him. As a son of the Church, Kevin has the obligation to give the pope such benefit of the doubt. If a more recent Church document (which in this case is an encyclical letter addressed to the universal Church) seems (and this is the operative word here) to contradict what was previously taught, an obedient son of the Church, especially one engaging in apologetics, instinctively believes that since both come from the same Church, they are indeed congruent. Such fidelity gives us the clarity we need to enable us to take into account the realities of a given age and how to best speak the truths of the faith to them. This is precisely what Blessed Pope John XXIII is doing in Pacem in Terris.

Kevin: Of course, let's paint me as a disobedient son, before dealing with my arguments. I swear, that's a lovely touch you Neo-Catholics employ, although you're beating it to death. Notice elsewhere in my original paper I said I struggled with what certain statements about the neccessity of war, the United Nations, I constantly struggled with these issues, and it was far before my "conversion" to Traditionalism. What if you think the realities of the day and age, and the solution proposed, is quite faulty? Being the issue is not one of dogma, but a pastoral approach, can we not wish it be changed, and indeed, if the results are destructive, resist further implementation of those approaches?

"Kevin:
“Why did Greg not consult what I had written then as well?”

Greg M.:
Give me the URL or let me know by some other means as to how I can access such statements and we can go from there."

Kevin: And as I had told Greg twice in e-mail, I hadn't written in depth on the issue, only very passing statements. Therefore, he knew full well that I hadn't really spoken on the issue, but he decided to take what I had, and guess what the rest of it was. Very scholarly work from the Neo-Catholic fringe.

"Two things. The first of which is contained the statement itself. And that is due to what John XXIII calls “...an age such as ours that prides itself on its atomic energy [read weapons].” In other words, he was afraid that any provocation of war, particularly between major world powers, ran the grave risk of the use of nuclear weapons. Secondly, he had good reason to fear this. Such a concern was also shared by the entire Western World at the time. Throughout the entire 1950’s and into the early 60’s, the fear of an eminent nuclear showdown between the U.S. and Russia was at fever pitch. Anybody who has any memory of that time will tell you this.

Furthermore, the encyclical was promulgated in April of 1963, less than six months after the Cuban Missile Crisis in which the U.S. and Russia came within seconds and inches of a nuclear holocaust. And since the Russians had better first strike capability than we did given the proximity of Cuba to the U.S., we would have suffered the brunt of it. Chances are neither one of us would ever have been born if that had come to pass.

There’s your distinction with a difference."

So because of such a thing, essentially, without directly saying so, we can't have war, because a nuclear strike might occur. Then you go back to what I originally said was the case. So allow me to ask a question, since we now have nukes, is there any true basis for war nowadays that is "suitable." And if it is suitable, what's the difference between suitability and morality in this particular case?

Greg M.:
I have shown Kevin on several occasions in private dialogue that his accusations of pacifism toward the popes he mentions above are baseless. I have also shown him that, in the interest of self-consistency, he must also accuse Pope Pius XII of pacifism. Pius XII not only opposed the Allied demand for unconditional surrender during WWII, he also, along with the U.S. and Sweden, put pressure on Britain in 1940 to accept Hitler’s “peace proposal.” In his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, arguably the single most definitive account of the Nazi period, historian William Shirer points out:

Churchill himself, as he related later in his memoirs, was somewhat troubled by the peace feelers emanating through Sweden, the United States and the Vatican and convinced that Hitler was trying to make the most of them, took stern measures to counter them. (pg. 986)

I will prophesy Kevin’s response thus, “Oh, but Pius XII never said that war is never the answer.” He might as well have if he, in concert with the U.S. and Sweden, urged Britain to take Hitler’s olive branch, which, if taken, would have been used to beat Britain to death with. I had also stated my hunch on this as that Pius XII, like his successors, urged peace, in hopes of giving pause, even to the extent of hoping against hope that somehow a breakthrough would take place, thus avoiding the need for war. In rereading Pacem in Terris, I found my hunch vindicated in the quotations John XXIII uses from his immediate predecessor like the following from a radio address of 1939: “ Nothing is lost by peace; everything may be lost by war” and several other like it.

Of course, Pius XII did everything to procure peace, but did not hesitate to offer his assistance to the allies in forms of intelligence when the allies finally reached Italy. It has also been reported that he said he wouldn't condemn an attempt on Hitler's life, but I can't confirm that. His position was surely far more balanced this his successor.

"Furthermore, if these popes, i.e. Paul VI and John Paul II, are the pacifists Kevin seems to be claiming, then why would Paul VI tell former POW, retired Admiral, and former Senator Jeremiah Denton in private audience that the Vietnam War was a just war for the US and why would JPII promulgate a universal catechism stating that war is just, provided the traditional conditions are met and go so far as to say that the State has the final say in determining whether or not the use of force in a given situation falls within those conditions. Such is totally incompatible with the idea of pacifism."

As far as the latter naming, sure he may state that there is a just war, in theory, but it is precisely my argument that it would never be employed into practice, because of his views on war! I don't really think that's a tough position to understand. Words are never really the problem, actions speak far louder than those words.

Greg M.:
And Kevin would find, if he read my piece, that I acknowledge his recognition of such. But, as I pointed out, his claiming that it should be one recognizing the Kingship of Christ is a practical impossibility. (If I am mischaracterizing him here, let him explain how.) Practically no nation on earth would go along with that. What is the Church supposed to do? Say “Recognize the universal Kingship of Christ or we’ll have nothing to do with you?” Pacem in Terris takes into account what is realistically attainable and goes along with whatever positive elements there are.

Kevin: For years, popes such as Pius IX, Pius X, and numerous others were mocked by the world especially for their hardline stances. As far as a global organization, yes if it does not recognize the Kingship of Christ, we should have nothing to do with the institution. Greg seems to think this world cannot live without the UN. Furthermore, when are we to lower our standards to this world, rather than the world is to conform it's standards to God!

"Greg M.:
Given what was realistically attainable at the time, what would Kevin suggest instead? He gives no alternative, or at least any realistic alternative anyway. As I state in my original piece, many of those who have their hands on the levers of power within the U.N. today advocate things (such as what he lists above) that are not only incompatible with Catholic teaching, but also with the U.N. Charter. Kevin does not in anyway prove how the U.N. Charter, in and of itself, is incompatible with Catholic teaching. I would say that it is insufficient, but not contrary. "

Kevin: Who says that such an institution as the United Nations needed to be recognized by John XXIII as some great institution to begin with? He could've praised the basic idea of a global community, and then contrasted the Catholic understanding of things, with the way the United Nations was already handling things(especially the heavy infestation of the UN with communism, which no one denies.). Show how this worldly principle is false, and the true Catholic answer to it. Although I think this would've required too much condemning, and in the past 40 years, the only people who have been condemned are those who celebrate the Traditional Mass and say we shouldn't be the worlds friend.

Kevin:
”Next Greg makes a serious blunder, for this he must be held accountable. He claims I stated John XXIII's support for the UN was "unqualified." “

Greg M.:
Since my original piece does read like I am making that claim, I will modify what I said. Kevin, at least in his public statements, makes no recognition of the fact that John XXIII did in fact recognize weaknesses in the UN Declaration of Human Rights in Pacem in Terris. In other words, he makes sweeping statements without qualifying them. If Kevin can prove he did publicly make such statements before I posted my piece on August 29th, I’ll strike what I have just said.

Kevin: Here's the problem, I hadn't made any. I didn't develop the thesis in public, because I was still hammering it out, as he was told! So that's nothing short of maliciousness on his behalf. I of course accept the modification that has been made, but seriously question the scholarship and integrity of my opponent here.

He then lists the articles in mention of the UN HDR, and I shall respond to those when my dialogue with Shawn commences, to save time basically repeating the same old thing over and over. So stay tuned for that.

"Greg M.:
If we are to accept the logic of this statement and follow it to its conclusion, we would to believe one of two things, either Pope John XXIII, and by extension his successors, are idiots in allowing themselves to be duped or they were and are deliberately selling the Church out to the God-less secular world vis-a-vis the UN. This is a serious charge either way. Is Kevin willing to standby either of these two claims? If he is not, then the only honorable thing for him to do is retract this last statement. "

Kevin:

How about in their attempt to find a way to build an amicable peace in the post-war world, they could've simply been wrong? They don't have to be idioits, they don't have to maliciously sell everything down the river, they made an error in trusting the UN, and in the general prudential judgement of their optimism in the world, which is admitted even by Neo-Catholic press organs such as Catholic World Report.

"His claim sounds very odd considering the fact that the Korean War, a war against the Communist aggression of North Korea, was carried out with the blessing of the UN. "

Kevin: And if Greg knows his history, he should know the Soviet Union abstained from voting in protest!

"Greg M.:
So would Kevin go along with an international body that doesn’t recognize the Social Kingship of Christ, but was a step up from the UN? Would I be misrepresenting him if I were to say no he would not?"

Would they be working directly against the social teachings of the Kingship of Christ? In all honesty, this world has become so bankrupt, it is not time to work from within the system, but to oppose that very system I believe.

"Greg M.:
So is the reader to interpret this statement to mean that no Catholic in good conscience can go along, under any circumstances, with either of these two? If the answer is in the affirmative, Kevin would have to take umbrage with Pope Pius XII’s allowing American Catholics to support the Allies, even though Russia was part of the Alliance during WWII. "

Kevin:

No the answer is not what Greg thinks it is. I argue that the UN has been, and is so incredibly bankrupt, work with them is mainly fruitless nowadays. Furthermore, there is no bear neccessity of aligning ourselves with the UN, as did exist during WW2. We allied ourselves with the USSR simply because we had no choice.

Greg M.:
It is true that Kevin did note with praise John XXIII’s solid statements about man, the natural order, and his dependence on God. I did not state this fact in my original piece. Perhaps I should have. Be that as it may, I repeat what said in that piece that Kevin is either unwilling or unable to see that it is through this paradigm that Pope Blessed John XXIII views the realities of his day and how to make the most of what was realistically attainable.

Kevin:

And of course, we are not allowed to disagree with those conclusions, since the Pope is inspired, not only infallible. I recognize the distinction Greg is making here, I just strongly disagree with such an outcome. Furthermore, he well admits again he left something out. When you're attacking my views on a given subject, it is again a wise move to actually write what is said on the subject! Almost all of what Greg stated was conjecture, and he seems to be amazed I take offense to it. Wouldn't you?

"Greg M.
I also believe, as I said before, that the reason for such blindness on the part of Kevin and so many other “traditionalists” in regards to this and many other issues is that they are wedded to this pre vs. post Vatican II view of the Church. "

Kevin: Of course, Greg makes yet another assertion he never even tries to prove, because if he had to, it would fail. I am ending this dialogue with Greg, for the obvious errors he himself admitted. Furthermore, I do think in the future, when the dialogue between myself and Shawn starts, a better discussion can be had upon it.





Monday, September 08, 2003

Possible Successor to His Holiness Backs Womens Ordination 

Cardinal Backs Women Clergy

Well, I really don't know what to say about this one, other than it is further proof the Novus Ordo is imploding. Now, one of it's top prelates, a prince of the Church, and a possible successor to the current Pontiff, says we should perhaps look into doing away with even the teaching of the current Pontiff and get rid of the ban on womens ordination!

Remember when traditionalists claimed that having altar girls as an "enrichment to the liturgy" was only a small step towards womens ordination? Well, here you have it. Here's the real question, will any prelate take him to task on his obviously heretical view? Forgive me sounding sarcastic, but if the man celebrated the traditional Mass and was perfectly Orthodox, you would see people denouncing him as schismatic, and calling for his removal. But when he comes out in favor of women priests, without any evidence from tradition to support his claims, of course there is silence.

So my Neo-Catholic excuse factory friends, us traditionalists would like to see this one explained away. When you realize it can't be, how about you stop denouncing us, and start denouncing the true heretics?

Mary This, Mary That, the over-emphasis of Mary. 

When I was an Evangelical Protestant, and running a monthly periodical on the web which was quickly becoming an underground success, I used to always complain about just how high Catholics placed Mary. When I became Catholic, I understood. When I became a Traditional Catholic, I saw how devotion to Mary was being misused.

Although this is an imgainary scenario, just hear me out.

Wife: You find a job yet honey. You've been out of work for 2 years, and haven't gone to fill out one application.

Husband: I'll just entrust The Blessed Virgin to find me a job.

Wife: Dear, you have to go forth and apply for a job.

Husband: It's entrusted to Mary. I can just sit on my lazyboy, and the phones will start ringing.

Obviously, this is a stupid form of devotion, as the person merely thinks he can sit around and do nothing other than pray the Rosary, and he'll get the job, without actually trying to look for one! The one who has a true devotion to Mary would be in constant prayer, seeking her intercession before God asking for the grace to find a job. He would then ACT on that grace that God has given through Mary's intercession. St. Ignatius of Loyola said something along the lines of:

"Pray as if it all depends on God. Then act as if it all depends on you." Wise advice.

Now why do I write about this?

""In the past Sundays, my reflection has focused on Europe and its Christian roots, reviewing the text of the postsynodal apostolic exhortation 'Ecclesia in Europa.' This document concludes with an "Entrustment to Mary" of all the men and women of the continent, an entrustment that I wish to renew today, so that the Holy Virgin will make Europe become a symphony of nations committed to building together the civilization of love and peace! ...To you, sweet Lady of Tears, we present the Church and the whole world. Look at those who have most need of forgiveness and reconciliation; bring concord to families and peace among peoples. Dry the tears that hatred and violence cause in many regions of the Earth, especially in the Middle East and the African continent. May your tears, O Mother, be a pledge of conversion and peace for all your children!"

This quote comes from our Holy Father, on August 31st of this year talking about an "Entrustment to Mary." It seems as if he's simply just leaving it to Mary, without actually implementing into action the grace he could receive. After all the so called consecrations of the world, when he failed to mention Russia(though tried a loophole), after all the entrustments to Mary, the world is in no better shape. It's almost as if the buck stops once you ask Mary, as if that was ever her job at all. She is our intercessor before Christ, indeed, our most powerful intercessor other than her son himself. She can get me to whatever water in the world I need to, yet I, as that horse, still have to drink that water.

The graces are there for us Catholics to make a difference, of this I am certain. We can call for 1,000 "entrustments" to Mary and it won't matter. Want to save Europe, distance yourself rom the European Union, that group which doesn't even admit God! If one believes in the Fatima message, adore the precious blood and in the Holy Fathers case, just consecrate Russia! Mention her by name, what is so hard about it. I well understand Fatima isn't a de fide belief, but all these people claim to be sincere devotees of Fatima, and go out of their way to either obstruct, or not follow through on the Fatima Request. (Indeed, for some reason, this request has been problematic for the past now 8 Popes!)

In conclusion, Mary is out intercessor, our greatest. Let's make sure her intercession bears fruit, by acting upon her intercession, instead of just simply saying "Mary, take care of this, while I just sit here and wait for the phone to ring."

The Biker Mass 

Bikers gather for Mass

Just look at the reverence shown in these photos. Assisting at Mass leaning on a Harley. Modest Dress? Are you kidding me? The typical attire was a bunch of leather and black. Let us not remember we are approaching our King, and we should be dressed fittingly. No, that would require regulations and rules, and force people to change their lives around.

Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with bikers in general. I know a good deal of them, and some of them are very nice guys. Yet here is the problem. One should show respect for our King at Mass. He isn't a normal human being, but Allmighty God himself.

How did the "presiders" perform? Well, they arrived to the altar of God atop a big wagon pulled by a tractor. Gone is the solemn procession in which people reflect about their unworthiness, and what is about to happen. No, in all honesty, there is no difference between this and a sporting event.

Founder of the EU a Saint?  

Polish Catholics urge sainthood for EU Founding Father

I really couldn't believe this title, but yes, then I saw it. Well being that many no longer see saints as "anything special", Traditionalists have warned that in the end, everyone would be beatified or canonized. Well, they are trying that now.

What is his claim to sainthood? Founding a steel company that promised Germany and France would never wage war again. Is that a good act? Perhaps. Is that in itself an act worthy of sainthood? Of course not! The fact is, now it seems as if people want to canonize globalism. The article makes an interesting point that his canonization, might replace mentioning God in the EU constitution. Ah yes, politics rears it's ugly head again.

The article then rightly notes that the Vatican, at least to everyone but Neo-Catholics, has made an absolute mockery of the canonization process. Everyone is a saint nowadays. I hardly believe that there have been more saints in the past 100 years than in 1900 years beforehand! Even more so, he mentions the troubling case of Mother Theresa.

Now perhaps Mother Theresa will be a saint, a very holy woman. Yet why "fast-track" it? Why not allow the devils advocate? People lose confidence in the saints, no matter if they are truly authentic saints. Those who were canonized before, you knew you could count on their intercession, because of the strict rules that had to be followed before beatification was even considered! Now I think we have yet another case of a loss of confidence, thanks to more novelty out of the Vatican and her prelates.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?