And they perverted their own mind and turned away their eyes that they might not look unto Heaven, nor remember just judgements

The attemt to rape the Bride of Christ continues: The pirate at the helm beckons the rapists

And they perverted their own mind and turned away their eyes that they might not look unto Heaven, nor remember just judgements. Daniel 13:9

The Bible tells the story of Susanna in the Book of Daniel. She was a just woman, who 2 old leacherous men attempted to blackmail into adultery. These two men were judges, responsible for making just decisions, yet they avereted their gaze from righteousness, that they may be able to do their dirty deed. They failed, and were sentenced to death for it. I take Susanna to represent the Bride of Christ, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and the 2 leacherous men to be represented by Bergoglio and his gang of Kasperites and  modernists.

Today begins the synod on the family, ostensibly on the family in any case. I cannot help but notice that Bergoglio mentions Jesus much less nowadays - like the old men he seems to have turned away his eyes away from Heaven. Cardinals Kasper, Marx and the rest of the dirty gang hardly ever mention Christ anymore either, if they ever did, that is. Unlike the old men, who were driven by lust for Susanna, Bergoglio seems driven by a loathsomeness for Holy Mother Church that  is easier to notice by the day. He desires Her not for her beauty and strength, but rather like the old men mentioned in Daniel, he wants to shut down the doors that he can hold Her down and his gang can have their way with Her, that she be ravaged and left tarnished, just like the rest of the world.

At least the old men were driven by a natural desire and attraction to beauty. In Bergoglio's case, one wonders exactly what drives the man, but we know it is not a quest for beauty or vitue all the same, as he so often makes clear.

Last year as the synod was about to being I wrote: Will the synod on the family continue the rape of Holy Mother Church? The answer was not long in coming, and it was a resounding "yes!", at least to the attempt to carry out the rape in its entirety. He almost suceeded, but for the episcopal resistance which was raised after the mid-term report.

That Bergoglio and his gang of rapists attempted the rape can be in no doubt, as the mid-term relatio clearly demonstrated. We have been told that it was written even before the synod ever started, a claim which is eminently believable given that most of the synod fathers who have spoken about it have mentioned that it bore no relation to anything that was discussed. Even the Cardinal tasked with presenting it distanced himself away from it. Those who doubt that Bergoglio was involved would be well served to know that the man put in charge of the rape project, Cardinal Baldissieri, later admitted what everybody already knew, that Bergoglio had approved the mid-term report.

What has followed since has been one scandal after another from Team Bergoglio, leaving nobody who follows them in doubt that they have no respect for the sacrament of marriage, no respect for the family, no respect for God's laws, no respect for God's sacraments.

What we have seen in the lead-up to this synod is that the attempted rapists have been beckoned all the harder by the man placed in charge of protecting the Bride of Christ - Pope Francis - while he seems to have gone on and acquired some stronger straps, lest the Bride should try to wrestle Herself away from the rapists, and lest those faithful who defended The Church last time around attempt a rescue operation. He has evidently decided to keep the deliberations at the synod secret, lest the gullible sheep who have not discovered his evil ways should get wind of the machinations of Bergoglio and his gang. This time, in other words, there is unlikely to be the rousing of righteous indignation which the midterm report produced last  year, since there is not likely to be a mid-term report. There will not be a tally of votes on synod propositions since we are told the synod will not table any, and in any case, they will be kept secret.

It will be a rough 3 weeks. Bergoglio and his gang of rapists will once more attempt to rape the Church, scatter her children and sever her witness to Christ. They will in many cases succeed, but just like last time around, I think there will be a surprise around the corner. The Eastern Europeans have awakened, the Church in Africa is also awake. Many cardinals have spoken about the papal rape project. Whatever Berglio intends to do will not stay behind closed doors for long.

I remain convinced that whatever disasters strike the Church during this synod will soon be rectified by the next faithful pope we have, which I optimistically expect to be the one who follows Bergoglio. It says a lot about the Novus Ordo church, that the best I can hope for is that the damage that Pope Francis will cause will be reversed. I should be hoping that it will be averted at the very minimum, but the only way to avert it is through the end of this disastrous pontificate. Even if no declaration was to come, if no paper was to be released after the synod, good or bad, the damage Bergoglio has made is undeniable, and will have to be rectified by the poor man who takes over after Bergoglio.

The 2 leacherous judges were punished by death for their transgressions. Nobody will sentence Bergoglio to death for his. All he will get is plaudits from a world which has turned its back towards the LORD. Rather, it is the poor laity which will have to face the culture of death without having...

An emeny speaketh sweetly with his lips, but in his heart he lies in wait, to throw thee into a pit

An emeny speaketh sweetly with his lips, but in his heart he lies in wait, to throw thee into a pit. An enemy weepeth with his eyes: but if he find an opporunity he will not be satisfied with blood.

That is a quotation from the  Ecclesiasticus 12:15-16. I did not know before today that the same book is also called the "Book of Sirach". On top of that, the numbering of the verses seems to differ. So in the RSV, we find the corresponding verse in Sirach 12:16, which combines both verses into one:

An enemy will speak sweetly with his lips, but in his mind he will plan to throw you into a pit; an enemy will weep with his eyes but if he finds an opportunity his thirst for blood will be insatiable.

The topic today is that of the 2015-2016 Holy Year of Mercy, announced some time ago. In particular, I wish to address the developments which came about yesterday when Pope Francis wrote a letter to Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelisation. I still haven't figured out what the "new evangelisation" is supposed to be, by the way. If you ask me it seems to be another way of saying "no evangelisation", a point which has been made by others.

In any case, most of the letter is surprisingly Catholic, apart from somewhere in the middle where Pope Francis addresses the issue of abortion, writing "I am well aware of the pressure that has led them to this decision". I am unsuere of which pressure Pope Francis speaks, but he makes it seem as though all women are forced into it through outside pressure or threats. For some it may be the case, but one may be hard-pressed to argue that it is the case for most. Many do it so that a baby won't interfere with their leisure activities, such as interfering with one's volleyball aspirations - and I don't even mean sex, which for most people in the West is just one leisure activity among many. In typical Pope Francis fashion, the sin is someone else's fault, although at least he does seem to think it is a big issue, although using words such as "tragedy of abortion" again give the impression that is is something brought about by external forces and not through the conscious choice of the women who make the conscious decision to kill an unborn child.

I especially liked the part about those who have been incarcerated, and are therefore unable to make a pilgrimage to obtain the Jubilee Indulgence. I liked it that the letter did not take the opportunity to rail against incarceration and instead speaks of those who "despite deserving punishment, have become conscious of the injustice they worked and sinceredly wish to re-enter society and make their honest contribution to it". That statement entails a kind of culpability which Pope Francis does not seem to think can be attributed to those who have their unborn children killed. The indulgence "can also be obtained for the deceased" so without a doubt we are looking at one of the few Catholic documents released in the name of Pope Francis.

Given that the letter is quite concise and without many contradictions, I am inclined to agree with Mundabor that it has not been written by Pope Francis. I am sad to conclude that, but I have a very hard time believing that the man who when he is allowed to speak freely cannot bring himself to uttering perhaps as little as 2 consecutive sentences or an Orthodox bent can write a document which is very much to the point and does not attack Catholic orthodoxy.

I write though regarding the SSPX, which is the very topic that Pope Francis addresses before concluding the document. Pope Francis makes it clear that "This Jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one" and that "those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins." That is all well and good, and the SSPX has taken time to respond, thanking the pope for his gesture while insisting that they did not need to be granted special permission during this  year of mercy as they have "extraordinary jurisdiction", as granted by canon law in emergency situations. One can hardly argue that the post-Vatican II period does not consitute a period of emergency - one which Pope Francis has made all too visible-, but I am not going to go into the particulars.

My point is that I simply don't buy that Poper Francis is being well-intentioned to the point of being generous. The synod is but a month away and Pope Francis has shown his cards very clearly. It is very clear that in his mind, Church discipline should have nothing to do with Church doctrine or Church teaching, or even obedience to Our Lord. I cannot help but detect a rather sinister ploy in which Pope Francis will turn around some time soon and say that since the year of mercy "excludes no one", and he has proven this by granting the SSPX special jurisdiction during the course of that year, that he would have to extend it to those in adulterous relationships as well. This is, after all, the same pope who said just 2 days prior to this that:

With these words, Jesus also wants to put us, today, on guard against considering that the exterior observance of the law may be sufficient to be good Christians.

The literal observance of the precepts is something sterile if it does not change the heart and is not translated into concrete attitudes.

Those are words which would not trouble us if they were said by a...

Where there is no governor, the people shall fall: but there is safety where there is much counsel.

Synod 2015 approaches: All hands on deck!

Where there is no governor, the people shall fall: but there is safety where there is much counsel.

Thus says Proverbs 11:14, as rendered in the Douay-Rheims version. The Revised Standard Version renders it:

Where there is no guidance, a people falls; but in an abundance of counselors there is safety.

This article begins my attempt to headline every article I write with a quotation from Sacred Scripture. There is much good in the Good Book and I hope this decision will force me to study it a bit more.

As I do not comprehend either ancient Greek or ancient Hebrew, I am at the mercy of translators. I felt compelled to include both English translations because although the RSV renders it in the sense I would have wanted for my piece - for it is the notion of "guidance" and not "governor" I wanted conveyed - , I have decided to use the Douay-Rheims because I deem it more trustworthy from a fidelity-to-the-deposit-of-faith point of view.

Speaking of "trustworthy"; "trustworthiness", indeed, is a good word for what is lacking in the Church hierarchy today, and it is precisely that which compels me to write a piece before the upcoming synod of 2015, ostensibly on the family. Anybody who has been paying a close eye on what is happening will know that there is much to be concerned about. The reasons for the concern are very obvious.

For quite a while, although not anywhere near as long as the neo-Catholics or professional Catholics, I was compelled to hold my tongue a bit and not name the enemies directly, instead hinting at them. The time for such subtlety has long since passed, and I am even ashamed that I have been forceful enough in fighting back against the assault that we see on the Catholic faith from high ranking prelates, including the very highest.

There is little trustworthiness for the hierarchy among the faithful, for the simple reason that the barque of St. Peter is headed at this moment in time not by a faithful captain seeking to steer us into calmer waters where "there is safety", as the Proverbs tell us, but rather by a pirate, seemingly intent on crashing the Church onto the rocks and that is, when he is not content with sinking her by blowing holes in her hull. We thus have a twin-danger; on the one hand destroying the ship up - sometimes covertly, other times quite overtly - from inside, but lest the crew manage to repair the damage quickly enough, the pirate insists on launching the barque of St. Peter full steam ahead towards the rocks, all the while choosing the most troubled waters as his preferred course.

I would give much to never have to mention Pope Francis on this website, but the situation forces me to join forces with other faithful Christians who have made no secret of their resistance to him, often at great personal cost. A man does not sit idly by while others fight his battles. For this reason I feel compelled to write a few words about Pope Francis and his Bergoglian mutiny before the synod. After that it is my sincere intention never to write about Pope Francis or his gang of co-conspirators ever again, or at least  until his pontificate ends - which I obviously hope will be very soon. Of course, my end could come before that of Pope Francis, in which case the words I shall have written regarding Pope Francis before the synod will have been my last on him and his gang.

What will hopefully follow is a 3-piece series of  articles detailing precisely why it is very obvious that we are in the days of papal piracy. In these I shall attempt to show that Pope Francis is following the blueprint perfectly of one who commandeers the barque of St. Peter with the intent of sinking her. That he will not succeed we can be sure of: Indeed, we have divine assurance. However, it is very likely that the waves he causes will throw many overboard, and the explosions he keeps hurling - growing in size with remarkable consistency - in trying destroy the Church from within will dishearten many onboard. As the Book  of Proverbs tells us,  "the people shall fall".

Now, one might ask: Given that so many high-profile Catholics have had their say on Pope Francis, what exactly do I bring to the table that is so important that I had to write about it? Well, as I have written previously, this blog is mainy for personal reasons, and I have hardly any visitors, so swaying public opinion is certainly not my intention. Still, what else can I do? I cannot exactly denounce Pope Francis from the high altar at St. Peter's Basilica, any more than I can lead a large protest to warn Pope Francis and his gang that many of us are onto him. What I can do, however, is try and give a proper analysis of the situation, such that when someone comes along and says that "Pope Francis has not said anything heretical", I can point out that he has. When someone comes out and says "Pope Francis is trying his best" I can point out clearly that he is not, or rather that perhaps he is,  but not his best in proclaiming the Gospel, rather in undermining it.

I can do this because I have a reading of Pope Francis like few others it seems, and truth be told he never fooled me for long. There is a remarkable consistensy to Pope Francis that only becomes clear once one stops deluding oneself that he is trying his best for the Church. One only needs intellectually honesty, some historical knowledge and a grasp a healthy dose of scepticism.

Let us, however, be honest, and perfectly clear: Pope Francis did not grow...

The Communion of Saints - where men and women are held in equal glory

Not so long ago I watched a news piece on a Swedish channel- probably TV4. It was lamenting that the history books are biased towards men, which is to say that not many female figures feature prominently in history books. The claim was that even in more recent times, men get more mention in the media and history books, and sports in particular were mentioned as one arena in which men get more attention even though there are many prominent sportswomen.

The implication seemed to be that the history books have to be re-written in order to include more women. This would, naturally, come at the expense of many of the towering male figures that we have had. It is the leftist's creed all over again: If the truth doesn't fit, we must re-write!

As I have previously mentioned, feminism is the lens through which much of Swedish debate takes place. That men feature more prominently in history books because the major events of human history have been shaped by men seemed not to interest the makers of that piece, for the opinion did not even make a mention. That we would have to dislodge real historical figures to invent false ones does not seem to bother these people, nor is the fact that history ought to be the study of what has been, not what we would like to have been.

I would like to make it clear that I do not for one moment think that history books are skewed towards men and against women. That history books are skewed we know very well, but claiming that there is a bias against women is as absurd as claiming that they are biased towards humans and against animals; or less hyperbolically, at least as absurd as claiming that there is a bias in favour of adults over childen. History books can be skewed in favour of or against people for various reasons, and normally the victors get to write history books: "History is written by those who have hanged heroes", the narrator of "Braveheart" says very presciently.

However, be that as it may, the main protagonists of the main events of human history - until at least very recently - have almost invariably been men. History has been written by warriors and conquerors, by warrior kings and maybe even warrior poets, but the warrior has been at the forefront and men will almost always make better warriors - save for one exception of which I know, to which I shall return presently.

So the theory that women have been edited out of history books is patently absurd.

Nonetheless, it did get me thinking of one thing, and that is that there is a community, and a rather large one at that, in which men and women are held in equally high esteem, and have been held so for as long as one cares to remember. The list of these protagonists is not dominated either by men or by women, and women have been esteemed members throughout all the ages. This community is, of course, the Communion of Saints.

In this communion we also find our warrior poets (if there is such a thing),  our warrior kings and even our warrior priests. We even have a warrior virgin - the most esteemed Jean d'Arc. If one ever wanted to highlight an all-conquering woman then surely Jean d'Arc would tower above all of them. Tales of her achievements absolutely beggar belief: She was as good as any warrior, and better than most yet one finds very little mention of her. That must have more to do with the fact that in the end she was another loyal daughter of the Church, a young maid who wanted nothing more than a quiet life in the quiet village, a woman who despite that put her duty towards God before everything else. That she was French in a mostly Anglo-Saxon narrative doesn't help; for sure there would be much more of her if she had been an English-speaking woman.

She will not do, however, and neither will all the other women we proudly revere as our sisters and mothers in the faith, our torchbearers on Earth and our intercessors in Heaven, because you see, if feminism is the lens through which all political discourse takes place in Sweden, anti-Christianity - and especially anti-Catholicism - is the creed which holds all the contradictions of Swedish political discourse together. When feminism runs out of fashion - and it probably will - then (if the very same people who shape public opinion get to decide),  the fashion will just shift onto something else equally un-Christian. I am tempted to write "more un-Christian" but it is not apparent to me whether there exists such a thing.

So all our female saints, from the young to the elderly, will be edited out of history books, and proudly so by these people, because writing about them does not fit into the anti-Christian creed of the modern political establishment and its minions,. What they want is one which lures gullible women into thinking that women have always been oppressed by the patriarchal and paternalistic Church and that they have to buy into every debasing fashion that is drudged along nowadays to avoid getting back to 'the dark old ways'.

That is the real tragedy of history books.

St. John of God - Real humility in the washing of feet

Today is the feast day of St. John of God.

There is a story about how he picked up a homeless man to tend to him.  After picking him up fron near death, he carried him to the hospital and when he went to wash his feet, he found that they were pierced, and the imprints shone with an unearhly radiance. Upon looking up he was amzed to find that it was his LORD.

I recently wrote about Pope Francis' annual liturgical abuse bonanza which coincides with the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday. If Bergolio wanted to learn humility, he would do well to look to St. Anthony of God. I very much doubt that had St. John of God lived today, he would wait until all the cameras had been paraded before he started washing feet. I know for a fact that he would not choose to profane the Holy Liturgy through liturgical abuse.

They just don't make feet-washers as they used to, it seems.

The Bergoglio foot washing show - only a month to go!

It struck me that today is exactly 4 weeks until Holy Thursday, the day in which Christians celebrate the founding of the priesthood by Jesus Christ through the washing of the feet.

Not to be outdone, and in case he might be left out of the limelight for a day out of respect for the Church's most solemn celebrations, our good friend Pope Bergoglio has chosen this as the time of the year to showcase the wondrous joy of liturgical abuse and false humility in all its Vatican-II-ness. Having washed the feet of non-Christians during his first commemmoration of the day as Pope - gravely abusing the rubrics - he then went on to I think increase the number of non-Christians the second time out (or so I believe), this time taking time to kiss their feet.

The novelty at the time had kind of worn off, given that we had become accustomed to his many offences towards the faith and ceremonies. Most people had come to expect it, and I think everybody expected him to do it again anyway, so we mostly just shrugged our shoulders. Of course, the Pope could have changed liturgical law - which although gravely insulting towards the faith would have at least made his acts licit - but "petty rules" are just for "small-minded" people, aren't they? The big fish don't need them, and even if the little fish break them, hey, who are we to judge?

As many have noted, a lot of Catholics have begun to ignore his Bergoglioness, Pope Francis.  Knowing the man as well as I do - and just as importantly, knowing the type- the always-look-at-me hubris of the Pope will not allow him to go quietly into irrelevance, and what better occasion to burst into the headlines than on Maundy Thursday? It's the perfect occasion to get some kudos from the anti-Christian press for his alleged humility, and allow his many modernist friends to acclaim that he must be the most humble man to walk the Earth since at least the word "humility" was invented.

However, having washed the feet of a Muslim woman, and kissed feet (I don't know if he kissed hers) on Maundy Thursday, his foot-fetish displays will hardly grab many headlines. So I am left wondering just what of diabolical scheme he will conjure up this year to undermine not only the faith but liturgical law, Sacred Tradition, sacred gestures and even the papacy itself this year.

I would just like it pointed out - lest anybody think that I have anything against washing feet - that I dutifully have mine washed at least twice a day, even (perhaps especially) on Thursdays! On top of that, I support any and all feet-washing initiatives: After all, cleanliness is next to Godliness, or so they say. Now with that disclaimer out of the way...

The problem, of course, is that there are 365 days in a regular year. A priest - or pope - is welcome to wash all the feet he wants to his heart's delight on any 364 of these. In fact, for about 23 out of 24 hours on the 365th day of Maundy Thursday, he is allowed to do it. In fact, there is only 1 hour during the year in which the washing of feet is reserved for the holy liturgy (though not mandated). What he is not allowed to do is turn that very hour in which Christians commemmorate the institution of the priesthood - through among other things the washing of the feet before the disciples are sent off to proclaim the Gospel - into a foot-fetishing bonanza as that is a very direct liturgical abuse. Any priest doing that we know cannot be doing it out of humility but out of hubristical arrogance and disregard for the most venerable rituals of the Faith.

Now with that bit of background out of the way, I ask again, what will Pope Francis do to shock and awe this year? Will he decide to wash the entire body, as our first Pope St. Peter himself asked our blessed LORD to do upon hearing that he would not be welcome unless he allowed his feet to be washed? Will he kiss his way all up to the knee this time? Will he bring out his favourite pet - or other animal - and wash its feet, perhaps in anticiplation of his encyclical on climate change, and to remind us that Mother Nature deserves first dibs on the wash, or some other nonsense? Maybe he will wash his small Kia, or Ford Focus, or gold-plated silver ring, or perhaps his black shoes, no doubt making some far-fetched allusion to a Biblical passage which will be instantly identifiable as complete and utter nonsense by any faithful Christian with a functiong brain past the age of 5 years?

The world is truly at his feet, and notoriety through that of others!

What we know by now is that to Pope Francis the Bergoglian, nothing is holy, and nothing is too sacred to desecrate, as he has shown by calumniating both our Blessed LORD and the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that's when he's not occupied with twisting their words to mean the exact opposite of their literal meaning - or hiring his thugs to do it - or persecuting the few Christian orders with vacations to the priesthood. In fact, judging by his friends and enemies lists, we can see that the holier one is, the more one is rejected by the man. In fact, if the man likes you, chances are you need to start seriously consider whether you're on the right path.

Holy Thursday is indeed a holy day. What will Pope Bergoglio come up with this time to top up his profanity?

The answer is but 4 weeks away, and it will be coming to a screen near you.


The movie "Oblivion" and its analogy to the Novus Ordo

A few weeks ago I happened to watch "Oblivion", a Hollywood movie set in an undefined future time. I caution that this piece has a bit of a spoiler alert on it, so if you haven't seen the movie "Oblivion" and plan to see it then you might want to see it first, for the twist is half the movie.

In any case, the movie is set in future time and we follow a technician played by Tom Cruise with what seems to be his girlfriend, or fiancé perhaps - they do not seem married in any case, although I'll admit I didn't check for wedding rings. His time is spent servicing these firghter droids which are kept on Earth to destroy the remnants of an invading alien force which invaded the Earth, but lost the battle. As a result all of the Earth's humans have migratede/are in the process of migrating to another planet, and left behind are these machines which harvest the Earth's resources for transportation to the new planet, I presume. It is these machines which the technician services.

This couple is responsible for its sector, and they are aware of other sectors although they never venture into them. Their memories have been wiped out to protect the mission and the mission is run from a ship in outer space - in a command centre called "the Tet" -, the only communication that these 2 people have with the outside world.

An incident takes place which opens the main character's eyes  - a space vessel crash landing on Earth. The only survivor is a woman, who is only saved by the actions of the main character, who gets in the way of the droids which killed all the other crew members in the vessel. This woman turns out to know him from before, and further on we learn that she was his wife. She seemed familiar since he had had many flashbacks of her before he had even met her.

It turns out that he was an astronaut  previously, and that his crew was preparing for a discovery mission to another planet when this vessel arrived from outer space. The crew was instead sent to check it out. Approaching the vessel their craft were pulled in somehow, at which point the main character and his now-girlfriend - the pilots - ejected the hibernation module from the space craft. They pilots succumbed, and had their memories wiped out.

It gets worse. They were then sent back to Earth, first as part of an invading army, having been cloned, and then after the army had managed to wipe out most of mankind, having also taken the chance to destroy the moon, they were sent to service these machines which extract vital supplies from the Earth. We never see who made the alien vessel, and we do not know of its motives: All we know is that it is intent on destroying mankind and has no qualms about using them to destroy one another, although it realises that their memories have to be wiped out first.

The line which struck me most with the movie was when the main character's 'real' wife, in attempting to convince him that he is working for the enemy, tells him how their crew was sent to investigate this mysterious object which had been spotted in space: "It was the Tet".

It is that line which made the analogy with Vatican II unavoidable. Imagine a naive commander ( represented by Pope John XXIII) sending his crew (in this case represented by the bishops)  to meet a foreign threat (call it 1960s hippism, modernism, what-have-you). Returning from this journey these crew members then find themselves embracing the threat they were sent to oppose, and on top of that, embark on an unrelentless quest to wipe out those who they were supposed to protect all along. That is pretty much what happened, except obviously along the way the naivity of Pope John XXIII gave way to the recklessness of Pope Paul VI.

Some analogies are quite striking:

  • The memory wiped out so that the crew members will attack their own reminds me of modern Catholics, who are so uninformed about the Catholic faith that they view any authentic Catholic expression with suspicion. They gleefully embrace the errors which so horrified their forebears.
  • The Church started in the 1960s according to many, not least those who prepared the synod documents of the 2014 estraordinary synod on the family, in which no document or Pope before 1960 was cited, as if the family sprung up as a result of people cosying up to see their favourite astronatus on their space flights. For the crew, their lives started when  their memories were wiped out, so they only remember the past 3 years even though the main character is well into his 40s at least.
  • The way the Earth is divided into different zones, with the crew not being allowed to see beyond their own. This is a direct analogy to how the Church has splintered into different national churches, most with their own distinctive heresies, each unable to participate in the liturgy of another because instead of one Roman rite liturgy, we essentially have different liturgies per parish. If you can't go beyond your zone, then you will be at the mercy or whatever priest or bishop who happens to be around.
  • The way the crew which was meant to serve comes back persecuting its own has its direct analogy in how the bishops have shouted down so many who have stood up for what the Church teaches, the latest clear example being the Franciscans of the Immaculate.
  • Getting rid of the Latin and the Tridentine Mass means that both priests and laity have no communication with the outside world - the Catholics who came before them  - just like the crew only has communication with the outside world through the Tet,

The analogy with Vatican II is...

My Christmas worries

Every year when Christmas comes around I think of what a wonderful time it is, how much hope that event some 2,000 years ago still insipires even in those who are not familiar with the Biblical details.

Related to that hope, however, is the anxiety I have for all those Christians who live in countries in which going to Holy Mass on for Christmas entails a very real possibility that they will not make it back, either being attacked on their way to church or even during Holy Mass. Primarily this happens in Muslim countries or in countries where there is a militant Islamist presence.

It seems that in between militant atheists in the West, and militant Islamists outside the West, there is no place for Christians to live and worship freely, paying homage in everything they do. I often think back to Pope Benedict XVI's "Spirit of the Liturgy", in which he writes that the Israelites had to flee Egypt so they could worship God in the proper way. Often it feels as though we need a new Exodus. But where to? All the avenues seem closed, and formerly Christian lands seem oftentimes to be even more violently opposed to true worship than Islamic lands.

Then it occurs to me that Christianity has always been an uphill battle, not a religion for the fainthearted. In between Herod at the beginning of Jesus' life and the Sanhedrin at the end of it, people have been trying to snuff out the light of Christ and where they did not succeed in putting it out at its inception, they continued to try and snuff it out through persecuting His disciples. Even those who recognised that Christ was innocent, as did Pontius Pilate, still could not get themselves to defend Christ and rather had him tortured to pacify the crowds. So it often feels of people who claim to be 'friendly' to Christianity, even unfortunately, amongst our very own shepherds. Well, we are still here and we shall still be here until Christ comes back in glory.

Still, at this time of year, I cannot help but say a heartfelt prayer for those Christians who know full well that the very act of worship is often inseparable from the cross of martyrdom. For sure there are other issues of gravity in the Church, but at this time of year, those persecuted Christians deserve as much of our admiration and goodwill as we can muster.

Will the synod on the family continue the rape of Holy Mother Church?

I wish I had something more uplifting to write, or that I could put my thoughts in a more uplifting tone, but that is all I can think of right now. They are strong words, but there is no other way to express the blatant apostasy, disrespect and spitting-in-the-face of Christ and His Bride that I have witnessed during this latest pontificate.

There has been no shortage of high-ranking Churchmen throughout history who have done grave damage to Holy Mother Church and her flock. The difference between most previous times and present ones lies mainly in that the rank of those abusing Her has been climbing ever since the Second Vatican Council.

So I can only ask: Will the synod on the family which began today continue the rape of Holy Mother Church?

I surely hope not, but I am not optimistic.

Summorum Pontificum turns 7 - A recollection and a prediction

The future is always uncertain: The only certainty is that the LORD will prevail.

Looking back 7 years ago, I cannot claim that I made note of it when Pope Benedict XVI the beloved issued Summorum Pontificum. Back then I didn't even know what a Motu Proprio was; much less would I have cared to remedy that ignorace. In fact, at the time, I had only been to one Catholic Mass in Sweden, and that was when Pope John Paul II died, and I do not remember much about that Mass, apart from that the Church was very small and crowded.

The first I heard of a "liturgy war", as such, was when I read about some effort to get the Pope to limit something. I didn't know what that something was, but I realise now that it must have been Summorum Pontificum. I remember signing a petition in favour of upholding tradition, although I was not quite sure what that meant; I did know though that tradition is not to be taken lightly. It is to be revered, not disdained. This might have been in 2008; I doubt it was in 2007 or 2009.

To my pleasant surprise, it turns out that when news broke from Rome, it was very good indeed, and the Mass was given even more exposure, and more liberty.

It took a few years before I attended Mass again - following Pope John Paul II's funeral - but I had remembered reading from a coommentor in a newspaper that the Catholics have Mass with the priest turned against the people. The writer of that particular comment did not mean it in a complementary manner. When I finally did attend Mass, I went there loaded with a Bible - like I had learned to do while attending non-denominational services - fully expecting the priest to have his back turned towards us. Alas, this was not the case!

It turns out that my Bible was of no use at the Mass - strange people these Catholics are that don't need a Bible at Mass! There was a hymn book though and I sat next to a young man who I assumed was Spanish, and he must have realised I was new because he helped me out. The Mass was in English. This was in 2010. I admit readily that I felt a bit short-changed, but I was also very exhilirated about finally attending a Catholic Mass all on my own.

It would be 2013 before I attended my first Tridentine Mass. I had made a New Year's resolution to attend the 'Old Mass', tired as I was about the arguments regarding the new English Translation of the Roman Missal, and also frankly questioning all the innovations and liturgical abuses that I had been reading about. I had even ordered a missal, although it had not arrived in time for the first Sunday Mass of the year.

Mass came and went. I took part. I had never felt more at home than I did then.

Sure, a lot of things seemed perplexing, and I hardly understood a word, but it was clear that I was worshipping with the saints in Heaven, and that this Mass was one made for God, and not for man. I have really never looked back since, and how I wish I had discovered it sooner. Sadly, the Tridentine Mass is not as available as it should be, and in Sweden at least, the growth has not been as exponential as that (allegedly) experienced elsewhere, but at least the knowledge that it exists is growing - it has even made enemies-, and in time those who have an opinion on the Tridentine Mass without even knowing what it is will open their eyes. Some of them will undoubtedly come to revere the immense treasure that Holy Mother Church has bequeathed us through the Mass.

As to why Pope Benedict XVI chose to issue Summorum Pontificum, it is difficult to know for sure. From his writing, it is clear that he laments the apostasy and watering down of the faith that has taken place since Vatican II. His writings clearly display a reverence for the sacrifice of the Mass that is as humbling as it is pious - wisdom in action. I have little doubt that Pope Benedict XVI would have much rather had us return to the Tridentine Mass, and that he would have taken us there had he felt he had the power to do so - this much is clear from his writings. As it is, he left us without ever having offered a Tridentine Mass as Pope; regrettable indeed.

What he felt was not in his power to accomplish he left to the laity instead: With the Tridentine Mass liberated, it is up to the faithful to the world the true face of worship so that the Church can once again teach with the clarity she once did. It is up to those who insist that God deserves to be worshipped in dignity and modesty, that apostolic tradition deserves to be upheld, that the Liturgy should shine forth in all its supernatural beauty, and that the Church's teachings should filter down to us unchanged from the first centuries onwards to bring people to the Mass and do what Pope Benedict XVI felt incapable of doing: Restore the Tridentine Mass to its pride of place in the Latin-rite Church. For sure Summorum Pontificum will not be the final salvo, but without an authentic Catholic liturgy, it is impossible to have an authentically Catholic Church. The battle goes on, but now those on Christ's side can fight with the most powerful of weapons.

As to what the future holds, the fault lines seem to be quite clear. The craziest and wildest of the heretics are dying off, but that does not mean that the faithful can take it easy. Much of the apostasy they fought for now goes for Catholicism in many places,...


Subscribe to Distinctions Matter RSS