Feeds

  1. Site: Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
    0 sec ago
    Since the Council, an idea has been spreading that Judaism is not superseded by the New Covenant of Jesus Christ; that Jews still have available to them the Covenant of the old Law, by which they can be saved. It is therefore unnecessary for them to turn to Christ; unnecessary for anybody to convert them to faith in Christ. Indeed, attempting to do so is an act of aggression not dissimilar to theFr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.com11
  2. Site: Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
    0 sec ago
    S Paul loved his fellow Jews, his 'kinsmen' and believed "the gifts and call of God are irrevocable". He believed that at the End, those among them who had rejected Christ would be brought in to the chosen people. He believed that they were like olive branches which had been cut off so that the Gentiles, wild olive branches, could be grafted in. But, when the fulness of the Gentiles had entered Fr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.com3
  3. Site: Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
    0 sec ago
    Lex orandi lex credendi. I have been examining the Two Covenant Dogma: the fashionable error that God's First Covenant, with the Jews, is still fully and salvifically valid, so that the call to saving faith in Christ Jesus is not made to them. The 'New' Covenant, it is claimed, is now only for Gentiles. I want to draw attention at this point to the witness of the post-Conciliar Magisterium of theFr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.com13
  4. Site: Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
    0 sec ago
    We have seen that the Two Covenant Theory, the idea that Jewry alone is guaranteed Salvation without any need to convert to Christ, is repugnant to Scripture, to the Fathers, even to the post-Conciliar liturgy of the Catholic Church. It is also subversive of the basic grammar of the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments. Throughout  two millennia, in Scripture, in Liturgy, in her Fr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.com7
  5. Site: Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
    0 sec ago
    The sort of people who would violently reject the points I am making are the sort of people who would not be impressed by the the Council of Florence. So I am going to confine myself to the Magisterium from the time of Pius XII ... since it is increasingly coming to be realised that the continuum of processes which we associate with the Conciliar and post-Conciliar period was already in operationFr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.com0
  6. Site: Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
    0 sec ago
    In 1980, addressing a Jewish gathering in Germany, B John Paul II said (I extract this from a long sentence): " ... dialogue; that is, the meeting between the people of the Old Covenant (never revoked by God, cf Romans 11:29) and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time ..." In 2013, Pope Francis, in the course of his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium, also referred to the Old Fr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.com10
  7. Site: Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
    0 sec ago
    Continues ...  I should add that Jesse Billett gives critical editions of three unregarded liturgical fragments, relegated to 'Appendix' status but all of them important and with each detail treated with scrupulous attention. I have not checked through the tables which are a prominent feature of the book and which make it easier to follow his discussion, but, in what I have looked at, I have not Fr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.com2
  8. Site: Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
    0 sec ago
    I popped into the Cathedral the other day to warm my hands at what Mgr R A Kox and his chums in the SSPP would have advertised as a "Latimer and Ridley Pricket Stand". It is propped up against a modern and rather nasty statue of our Lady. Frankly, I think the flickering candles (none of that electrical technology here; modern Anglicans find Mystic Flicker more attractive) would be better placed Fr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.com0
  9. Site: Rorate Caeli
    1 hour 38 min ago
    RORATE Note: There will many Catholics, even traditionalists, whose first defeatist reaction will be to belittle this effort. But the wise, the learned in history, will understand that this is just the first part, the first piece of the puzzle, with next steps still to come in a long and extended process. This first step is an initiative of a theological nature that will likely lead, God New Catholichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04118576661605931910noreply@blogger.com
  10. Site: Restore-DC-Catholicism
    2 hours 4 min ago
    Author: noreply@blogger.com (Restore-DC-Catholicism)
  11. Site: THE TENTH CRUSADE
    2 hours 4 min ago


    This first step is an initiative of a theological nature that will likely lead, God willing, to an initiative of a canonical nature from those who have the mandate to act. And so it begins



    Sources are reporting it was delivered to the Pope on August 11, 2017 and had 62 signatories.

    It's Latin Title: A filial correction concerning the propagation of heresies.

    It states that the pope has, by his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, and by other, related, words, deeds and omissions, effectively upheld 7 heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments, and has caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church. These 7 heresies are expressed by the signatories in Latin, the official language of the Church.
    The letter has three parts, with the main course served in part two:

    The second part of the letter is the essential one, since it contains the ‘Correction’ properly speaking. It lists the passages of Amoris laetitia in which heretical positions are insinuated or encouraged, and then it lists words, deeds, and omissions of Pope Francis which make it clear beyond reasonable doubt that he wishes Catholics to interpret these passages in a way that is, in fact, heretical. In particular, the pope has directly or indirectly countenanced the beliefs that obedience to God’s Law can be impossible or undesirable, and that the Church should sometimes accept adultery as compatible with being a practising Catholic.
    This is a major development in the life of Christ's Church. Let's read it, process it, watch some fur fly.

    Get the popcorn and lemonade. The circus has just rolled into town.
  12. Site: Vox Cantoris
    2 hours 5 min ago
    If I could, I would sign this document in bright blue ink!


    Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis
    July 16th, 2017Feast of our Lady of Mt CarmelMost Holy Father,With profound grief, but moved by fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ, by love for the Church and for the papacy, and by filial devotion toward yourself, we are compelled to address a correction to Your Holiness on account of the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia and by other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness.
    We are permitted to issue this correction by natural law, by the law of Christ, and by the law of the Church, which three things Your Holiness has been appointed by divine providence to guard. By natural law: for as subjects have by nature a duty to obey their superiors in all lawful things, so they have a right to be governed according to law, and therefore to insist, where need be, that their superiors so govern. By the law of Christ: for His Spirit inspired the apostle Paul to rebuke Peter in public when the latter did not act according to the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2). St Thomas Aquinas notes that this public rebuke from a subject to a superior was licit on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith (Summa Theologiae 2a 2ae, 33, 4 ad 2), and ‘the gloss of St Augustine’ adds that on this occasion, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects” (ibid.). The law of the Church also constrains us, since it states that “Christ’s faithful . . . have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence, and position, to manifest to the sacred pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church” (Code of Canon Law 212:2-3; Code of Canons of Oriental Churches 15:3).
    Scandal concerning faith and morals has been given to the Church and to the world by the publication ofAmoris laetitia and by other acts through which Your Holiness has sufficiently made clear the scope and purpose of this document. Heresies and other errors have in consequence spread through the Church; for while some bishops and cardinals have continued to defend the divinely revealed truths about marriage, the moral law, and the reception of the sacraments, others have denied these truths, and have received from Your Holiness not rebuke but favour. Those cardinals, by contrast, who have submitted dubia to Your Holiness, in order that by this time-honoured method the truth of the gospel might be easily affirmed, have received no answer but silence.
    Most Holy Father, the Petrine ministry has not been entrusted to you that you might impose strange doctrines on the faithful, but so that you may, as a faithful steward, guard the deposit against the day of the Lord’s return (Lk. 12; 1 Tim. 6:20). We adhere wholeheartedly to the doctrine of papal infallibility as defined by the First Vatican Council, and therefore we adhere to the explanation which that same council gave of this charism, which includes this declaration: “The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles” (Pastor aeternus, cap. 4). For this reason, Your Predecessor, Blessed Pius IX, praised the collective declaration of the German bishops, who noted that “the opinion according to which the pope is ‘an absolute sovereign because of his infallibility’ is based on a completely false understanding of the dogma of papal infallibility.”

    Read the rest at:https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/09/CORRECTION.html
  13. Site: RT - News
    2 hours 17 min ago
    Author: RT
    A businessman from Russia’s mining capital in Siberia says he regrets not mining cryptocurrency earlier, as it saved him from a “terrible crisis.” Fans of cryptocurrency mining say it gives them a sense of “freedom,” as well as bringing profits.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  14. Site: Voice of the Family
    2 hours 44 min ago
    Author: Matthew McCusker

    Share

    Voice of the Family welcomes the “filial correction“, which has been made public today by 62 Catholic scholars “on account of the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia and by other words, deeds and omissions” of Pope Francis. This “filial correction”, originally signed by 40 Catholic priests and lay scholars, was delivered to Pope Francis on 11th August but, as the pope did not respond or issue a clarification of his teaching, the signatories have decided to make the document public.

    Prominent signatories include writer Martin Mosebach, psychiatrist Gerard van den Aardweg, and well-known academics such as professors Msgr Antonio Livi, Roberto de Mattei and Thomas Stark.​ The scholars were also pleased to accept the recent addition of the signature of Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St Pius X.

    (Click here for the full list of signatories)

    The signatories, while acknowledging that they “do not have the right to issue… that form of correction by which a superior coerces those subject to him” assert their right to issue a correction of the heresies propagated by Pope Francis on the grounds of the natural law, the law of Christ and the law of the Church:

    • by natural law subjects have “a duty to obey their superiors in all lawful things” and “so they have a right to be governed according to law, and therefore to insist, where need be, that their superiors so govern.”
    • by the law of Christ, as St Thomas taught, “if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly”, as St Paul corrected St Peter “on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith” (ST II:II q. 33 a.4)
    • by the law of the Church, as stated in Canon 212 of the Code of the Canon Law which states that “Christ’s faithful” have “the right, and at times the duty… to manifest to the sacred pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church.”

    The correction clearly outlines both the extent and the limits of the papal infallibility and teaching authority and identifies the disastrous consequences of heresies found in Pope Francis’s teaching going unanswered. The scholars are issuing the correction in order to:

    “protect our fellow Catholics – and those outside the Church, from whom the key of knowledge must not be taken away (cf Lk. 11:52) – hoping to prevent the further spread of doctrines which tend of themselves to the profaning of all  the sacraments and the subversion of the law of God.”

    They proceed to specify the passages of Amoris Laetitia, and other words and actions of Pope Francis, which provide grounds for correction. They then identify seven heretical propositions that are propagated by the aforesaid words and actions. The signatories “do not venture to judge the degree of awareness with which Pope Francis has propagated these heresies” but they do “respectfully insist that he condemn these heresies, which he has directly or indirectly upheld.”

    The text of the correction gives these heretical propositions only in Latin, in order to assure the greatest possible clarity and avoid confusion regarding translations. An English translation, provided by the signatories, is as follows:

    1). ‘A justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin.’

    2). ‘Christians who have obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom they are validly married and have contracted a civil marriage with some other person during the lifetime of their spouse, who live more uxorio with their civil partner, and who choose to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of their act and full consent of the will to that act, are not necessarily in a state of mortal sin, and can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity.’

    3). ‘A Christian believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action.’

    4). ‘A person is able, while he obeys a divine prohibition, to sin against God by that very act of obedience.’

    5). ‘Conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, although one or both of them is sacramentally married to another person, can sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God.’

    6). ‘Moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action, inasmuch as these are always gravely unlawful on account of their object.’

    7). ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it.’

    The document concludes with an elucidation of the influence of the heresies of Modernism and Lutheranism on the words and actions of Pope Francis, demonstrating the profound contradiction that exists, on certain specific occasions, between his teaching and that of the Catholic Church.

    The full text of the document can be found here.

    Voice of the Family hopes that this correction, by 62 respected figures, will assist many more men and women of good will to recognise the gravity of the crisis now afflicting the Church, and the See of Peter, and will move us to strive more ardently for the defence of the Catholic faith and to pray more insistently to Our Lady for the hastening of the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart.

     

     

    The post “Filial correction” of Pope Francis issued by 62 Catholic scholars appeared first on Voice of the Family.

  15. Site: Fr. Z's Blog
    2 hours 48 min ago
    Author: frz@wdtprs.com (Fr. John Zuhlsdorf)

    Be careful about what you ask for.

    Pope Francis asked for “lío”.

    He got some more public “lío”.

    I had alluded to it with some warnings not to get too worked up about it.  Someone broke the embargo, which was a little low, but… now it’s out.

    LifeSite has a good summary.

    BREAKING: 62 scholars correct Pope Francis for ‘propagating heresies’

    ROME, September 23, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) –  Expressing “profound grief” and “filial devotion,” Catholic clergy and lay scholars from around the world have issued what they are calling a “Filial Correction” to Pope Francis for “propagating heresy.”  [NB: Not fraternal.]

    The Filial Correction, in the form of a 25-page letter, bears the signatures of sixty-two Catholic academics, researchers, and scholars in various fields from twenty countries. They assert that Pope Francis has supported heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the Eucharist that are causing a host of “heresies and other errors” to spread throughout the Catholic Church.

    The correction was delivered to the Pope at his Santa Marta residence on August 11, 2017. No similar action has taken place within the Catholic Church since the Middle Ages, when Pope John XXII was admonished for errors which he later recanted on his deathbed.

    “With profound grief, but moved by fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ, by love for the Church and for the papacy, and by filial devotion toward yourself, we are compelled to address a correction to Your Holiness on account of the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia and by other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness,” the signers write in the letter.

    “As subjects, we do not have the right to issue to Your Holiness that form of correction by which a superior coerces those subject to him with the threat or administration of punishment,” they state.

    “We issue this correction, rather, to protect our fellow Catholics — and those outside the Church, from whom the key of knowledge must not be taken away — hoping to prevent the further spread of doctrines which tend of themselves to the profaning of all the sacraments and the subversion of the Law of God,” they add.

    The signers respectfully insist that Pope Francis condemn the heresies that he has “directly or indirectly upheld,” and that he teach the truth of the Catholic faith in its integrity.  [I suspect that His Holiness of Our Lord will not openly respond to this.]

    They say that they make “no judgment” about the Pope’s culpability in propagating the seven heresies they list. They add that it is not their task to “judge whether the sin of heresy has been committed” whereby a person “departs from the faith by doubting or denying some revealed truth with a full choice of the will.”

    The letter was made public today, six weeks after the signers received no response from the Pope.

    Duty to correct

    The 62 clergy and lay scholars explain that, as believing and practicing Catholics, they have the right and duty to issue such a correction to the Pope “by natural law, by the law of Christ, and by the law of the Church” and that the correction in no way undermines Catholic teaching on papal infallibility.

    […]

    “We adhere wholeheartedly to the doctrine of papal infallibility,” the signers state, adding that in their opinion “neither Amoris Laetitia nor any of the statements which have served to propagate the heresies which this exhortation insinuates are protected by that divine guarantee of truth.” The signers’ opinion that the exhortation is not infallible magisterial teaching is backed by leading churchmen, such as Cardinal Raymond Burke.

    The signers list a dozen passages from Amoris Laetitia that they say “serve to propagate seven heretical propositions.

    Included in the list is the “smoking” footnote 351 where the Pope writes that those living in an objective situation of sin can receive the “help of the sacraments” to grow in the life of grace and charity. Many have interpreted this to mean that civilly-divorced-and-remarried Catholics living in adultery can receive Holy Communion, and the Pope has endorsed guidelines allowing this. Also included in the list is the text pertaining to couples living in adultery who, the Pope writes, see their situation as “what God himself is asking” of them, despite falling short of the “objective ideal.”

    The scholars say that these passages along with a number of “words, deeds and omissions” of the Pope are “serving to propagate heresies within the Church.”

    According to the signers, the “words, deeds and omissions” of Pope Francis that promote heresy include:

    • Refusing to answer the dubia (five yes-or-no questions) submitted by the four cardinals (two of whom are now deceased) asking him to confirm that Amoris Laetitia does not abolish five teachings of the Catholic faith.
    • Forcibly intervening at the 2015 Synod of the Family where he insisted on inserting into a midterm report a proposal (that did not receive sufficient votes) to allow communion for adulterers and a proposal that pastors should emphasize the “positive aspects” of lifestyles the Church considers gravely sinful, including civil remarriage after divorce and premarital cohabitation.
    • Endorsing an interpretation of the exhortation by Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schönborn that allows for Holy Communion to be given to adulterers.
    • Affirming the statement of the bishops of the Buenos Aires region that allowed Communion to be given to adulterers, stating that “there are no other interpretations.”
    • Appointing to positions of influence within the Church men who publicly dissent from Catholic teaching on the sacraments, including Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia and Cardinal Kevin Farrell.
    • Allowing guidelines for the diocese of Rome to be issued under his authority that permit adulterers to receive communion under certain circumstances.
    • Leaving uncorrected the publication in L’Osservatore Romano, the official journal of the Holy See, the Maltese bishops’ interpretation of Amoris Laetitiathat allows communion for adulterers.
    Seven heresies

    The Catholic clergy and lay scholars go on to list seven “false and heretical propositions” which they say Pope Francis “directly or indirectly” upholds through his “words, deeds, and omissions.” These seven propositions, listed below, are summaries of the positions which they attribute to Pope Francis and deem to be heretical.

    1. A justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin.
    2. Christians who have obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom they are validly married and have contracted a civil marriage with some other person during the lifetime of their spouse, who live more uxorio [as husband and wife] with their civil partner, and who choose to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of their act and full consent of the will to that act, are not necessarily in a state of mortal sin, and can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity.
    3. A Christian believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action.
    4. A person is able, while he obeys a divine prohibition, to sin against God by that very act of obedience.
    5. Conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, although one or both of them is sacramentally married to another person, can sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God.
    6. Moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action, inasmuch as these are always gravely unlawful on account of their object.
    7. Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it.

    The clergy and scholars state that these “propositions all contradict truths that are divinely revealed, and that Catholics must believe with the assent of divine faith.”

    They add that it is “necessary” that such heresies be “condemned by the authority of the Church,” on account of the “great and imminent danger” they cause to souls.

    […]

    Yes, there’s more.

    Now what?

    The moderation queue is ON!

    I ask people to inform themselves before jumping in will all sorts of wild comment.

  16. Site: OnePeterFive
    3 hours 27 min ago
    Author: Steve Skojec

    For Catholics around the world, the wait continues for the two remaining” Dubia Cardinals” to issue the promised “formal correction” to Pope Francis as regards Amoris Laetitia. Today, however, in what is being described as an “epoch-making act” unlike any taken “since the Middle Ages,” a group of Catholic clergy and lay scholars have taken a similar measure of their own, making public a “Filial Correction” that was first delivered to the pope on August 11th. The occasion of the publication of this document is today’s Feast of Our Lady of Ransom and of Our Lady of Walsingham. Versions of this correctio are now available in English, Spanish, French, and Italian, along with supporting documents and a list of signatories, on a new website created to support this effort: correctiofilialis.org

    Anticipating the objection of those who will claim that simple clergy and laymen have no place in correcting a pope, the authors make their purpose clear:

    As subjects, we do not have the right to issue to Your Holiness that form of correction by which a superior coerces those subject to him with the threat or administration of punishment (cf. Summa Theologiae 2a 2ae, 33, 4). We issue this correction, rather, to protect our fellow Catholics – and those outside the Church, from whom the key of knowledge must not be taken away (cf. Lk. 11:52) – hoping to prevent the further spread of doctrines which tend of themselves to the profaning of all the sacraments and the subversion of the Law of God.

    The letter also takes an unprecedented step, using the word “heresy” in reference not just to possible interpretations of the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, but also to other recent “words, deeds and omissions” of the pope.

    “Most Holy Father,” the letter begins, “With profound grief, but moved by fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ, by love for the Church and for the papacy, and by filial devotion toward yourself, we are compelled to address a correction to Your Holiness on account of the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia and by other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness.” [emphasis added]

    The 25-page document, which was delivered with 40 signatures, has continued to garner support while its existence was kept secret from the public, having grown to include 62 members of the clergy and lay scholars from 20 countries around the world. The list of signatories includes well-known names of Catholic leaders, theologians, and authors such as Fr. Linus Clovis, Deacon Nick Donnelly, Christopher Ferrara, Dr. Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, Martin Mosebach, Prof. Roberto de Mattei, Bishop Bernard Fellay, and many more. The authors stress that they will be welcoming additional signatures through a form on their website.

    A summary of the document says that these 62 “also represent others lacking the necessary freedom of speech”, calling to mind the recent abrupt dismissal of renowned Austrian philosopher Josef Seifert from his position as the Dietrich von Hildebrand Chair at the International Academy of Philosophy in Granada, Spain after he publicized some respectful questions about Amoris Laetitia. Bishop Athanasius Schneider, one of only a few outspoken champions of Catholic teaching amongst the global episcopacy, described Seifert’s firing as “not only unjust, but … ultimately an escape from truth”. For his part, Seifert has had to take both canonical and civil legal action to fight his summary dismissal without cause – actions which signatories of the correctio could also be forced to take in the event they face similar disciplinary action in retaliation for their involvement.

    The full title of the document is Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis, which is translated as “A filial correction concerning the propagation of heresies.” It states, according to the authors, “that the pope has, by his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, and by other, related, words, deeds and omissions, effectively upheld 7 heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments, and has caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church.”

    This correction is comprised of three parts:

    First, there an explanation from the signatories as to why they have “the right and duty” to “issue such a correction to the supreme pontiff.” They emphasize that this correction does not come into conflict with the dogma of papal infallibility, because the pope “has not declared these heretical positions to be definitive teachings of the Church, or stated that Catholics must believe them with the assent of faith.”

    Second, there is the “correction” itself. In this section, the passages of Amoris Laetitia are listed “in which heretical positions are insinuated or encouraged”; also listed are “words, deeds, and omissions of Pope Francis which make it clear beyond reasonable doubt that he wishes Catholics to interpret these passages in a way that is, in fact, heretical.”

    Third, there is the “elucidation,” which examines more deeply the roots of the present situation. “One cause,” write the authors, “is ‘Modernism’. Theologically speaking, Modernism is the belief that God has not delivered definite truths to the Church, which she must continue to teach in exactly the same sense until the end of time.” The authors insist that because of the great confusion that follows from Modernism’s presence in the Church, the signatories are obliged to “describe the true meaning of ‘faith’, ‘heresy’, ‘revelation’, and ‘magisterium’.” The authors go on in the “elucidation” of the correctio to focus in a particular way on the influence of the thought of the arch-heretic Martin Luther on the pontificate of Pope Francis.

    The passages from Amoris Laetitia giving rise to the greatest harm are listed, along with several other “words, deeds, and omissions” of the pope which “in conjunction with these passages of Amoris laetitia are serving to propagate heresies within the Church”. These include:

    • The refusal of the pope to answer the dubia
    • The intervention of Pope Francis in the Relatio post disceptationem for the Extraordinary Synod on the Family to include proposals for Holy Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics “despite the fact that they did not receive the two-thirds majority required by the Synod rules for a proposal to be included in the Relatio.”
    • The papal interview of April 2016, in which a journalist asked if there were any new “concrete possibilities for the divorced and remarried” as a result of Amoris Laetitia, and to which the pope responded, “I can say yes. Period.” [Readers can view our translated video of that exchange here.] Also mentioned here were related statements of Cardinal Cristoph Schönborn, who was given the unofficial role of interpreting Amoris Laetitia by the pope, and who affirmed that in “certain cases” the pope intended “the help of the sacraments” for people in these situations.
    • The letter of Pope Francis affirming the guidelines of the Bishops of the Buenos Aires’ region, which “offers the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist” in “a specific case” “when a declaration of nullity has not been obtained” and “there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability”. Of these guidelines, the pope wrote, “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris laetitia. There are no other interpretations.”

    Several other examples of papal actions that support these same interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, allowing communion for those living in an objectively adulterous situation, were also listed.

    The authors then turn to the seven “false and heretical propositions” that have been promoted within the Church. They insist that they, and the signatories who have joined them, “do not not venture to judge the degree of awareness with which Pope Francis has propagated the 7 heresies which they list.” It is the purpose of their correction, however, to “respectfully insist that he condemn these heresies, which he has directly or indirectly upheld.”

    The seven propositions of the correctio itself, though issued in Latin, have also been translated by the authors as follows:

    By these words, deeds, and omissions, and by the above-mentioned passages of the document Amoris laetitia, Your Holiness has upheld, directly or indirectly, and, with what degree of awareness we do not seek to judge, both by public office and by private act propagated in the Church the following false and heretical propositions:

    1). ‘A justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin.’

    2). ‘Christians who have obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom they are validly married and have contracted a civil marriage with some other person during the lifetime of their spouse, who live more uxorio with their civil partner, and who choose to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of their act and full consent of the will to that act, are not necessarily in a state of mortal sin, and can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity.’

    3). ‘A Christian believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action.’

    4). ‘A person is able, while he obeys a divine prohibition, to sin against God by that very act of obedience.’

    5). ‘Conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, although one or both of them is sacramentally married to another person, can sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God.’

    6). ‘Moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action, inasmuch as these are always gravely unlawful on account of their object.’

    7). ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it.’

    For each of these propositions, citations are given from both Scripture and the Church’s magisterium documenting where they come into conflict with Catholic teaching. “These propositions” the authors write, “all contradict truths that are divinely revealed, and that Catholics must believe with the assent of divine faith.”

    The authors conclude the correctio as true sons of the Church:

    At this critical hour, therefore, we turn to the cathedra veritatis, the Roman Church, which has by divine law pre-eminence over all the churches, and of which we are and intend always to remain loyal children, and we respectfully insist that Your Holiness publicly reject these propositions, thus accomplishing the mandate of our Lord Jesus Christ given to St Peter and through him to all his successors until the end of the world: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”

    It is difficult to predict what, if any, impact this correctio will have on a papacy that has steadfastly ignored a previous filial appeal with nearly 800,000 signatures, the circulation of a theological censures document authored by 45 theologians and scholars amongst the entire college of cardinals, and the five dubia presented by four cardinals who have, as yet, not been able to even obtain a papal audience over a year after their initial intervention and in the wake of the deaths of two of their number.

    Nevertheless, the language used in this latest document advances the case further than anything that came before it, and some speculate that it may help establish that the pope is guilty of public and notorious material heresy. If so, his failure to respond could be an important step in determining that the pope is “incorrigible and pertinacious” in the promotion of heresy, and possibly trigger additional remedial actions further down the road.

    The post Catholic Clergy & Scholars Issue “Filial Correction” to Pope, Against “Propagation of Heresies” appeared first on OnePeterFive.

  17. Site: Traditional Catholic Priest
    3 hours 36 min ago
    Author: Jonathan Byrd

    SERMON XLV. SIXTEENTH SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST. – ON IMPURITY. “And behold, there was a certain man before him, who had the dropsy.” LUKE xiv. 2. THE man who indulges in impurity is like a person labouring under the dropsy. The latter is so much tormented by thirst, that the more he drinks the more thirsty …

    The post ON IMPURITY – St. Alphonsus appeared first on Traditional Catholic Priest.

  18. Site: Community in Mission
    3 hours 37 min ago
    Author: Msgr. Charles Pope

    credit: זלדה10, wikimedia

    What Jesus teaches in this Sunday’s Gospel is one of those parables that rock our world and challenge our worldly way of thinking. Frankly, that is one of its purposes. We are tempted to side with the laborers who worked the longest, thinking that their being paid the same amount as those who worked only for an hour is unfair.

    Think very carefully before asking God to be “fair.” What we really should ask of God is that He be merciful, for if He were fair, we’d all be in Hell right now. We have no innate capacity to stand before God in pure justice; we simply cannot measure up. It is only grace and mercy that will win the day for us. So be very careful about challenging God’s fairness. In fact, when we see Him being merciful to someone else, we ought to rejoice, for it means that we might stand a chance.

    There are other aspects of this Gospel that are important to learn from, in particular, the various dispositions of discipleship. As the parable unfolds, we can see five teachings. Let’s consider each in turn.

    I.  The AVAILABILITY of Discipleship – The text says, A landowner went at dawn to hire laborers to work in his field … He went later and found others standing idle … “Why do you stand here all day idle?”

    What are described here are “day workers” or “day laborers.” These were men who stood in public places hoping to be hired for the day. It was and still is a tough life. If you worked, you ate; if you didn’t, you might have little or nothing to eat. They were hired on a day-to-day basis, only when needed. This is a particularly burdensome form of poverty for its uncertainty and instability. Men like these were and are the poorest of the poor.

    Notice, however, that their poverty, their hunger, makes them available. Each morning they show up and are ready, available to be hired. Their poverty also motivates them to seek out the landowner and indicate that they are ready and willing to work. The well-fed and the otherwise employed do not show up; they are not available. There’s something about poverty that makes these men available. Because their cup is empty, it is able to be filled.

    We are these men. We are the poor who depend upon God for everything. Sometimes we don’t want to admit it, but we are. Every now and then it is made plain to us how poor, vulnerable, and needy we really are; this tends to make us seek God. In our emptiness, poverty, and powerlessness, suddenly there is room for God. Suddenly our glass, too often filled with the world, is empty enough for God to find room. In our pain we stand ready for God to usher us into the vineyard of His Kingdom. An old gospel song says, “Lord, I’m available to you; my storage is empty and I’m available to you.” It is our troubles that make us get up and go out with the poor to seek the Lord and be available to Him. When things are going too well, heaven knows where we are to be found! Another gospel song says, “Lord don’t move my mountain but give me the strength to climb it. Don’t take away my stumbling blocks but lead me all around, ’cause Lord when my life gets a little too easy, you know I tend to stray from thee.

    Yes, we might wish for a trouble-free life, but then where would we be? Would we seek the Lord? Would we make ourselves available to God? Would we ever call on Him?

    II.  The AUTHORITY of Discipleship – The text says, The LandOWNER said, “Go into my vineyard” … HE sent them into HIS vineyard.

    Notice that it is the landowner who calls the shots. Too many who call themselves the Lord’s disciples rush into His vineyard with great ideas and grand projects that they have never really asked God about. This passage teaches us that entrance into the vineyard requires the owner’s permission. If we expect to see fruits (payment for the work) at the end of the day, we have to be on the list of “approved workers.”

    Fruitful discipleship is based on a call from the Lord. Scripture says, Unless the Lord builds the House, they that labor to build it labor in vain (Ps 127:1). Too many people run off and get married, take new jobs, accept promotions, start projects, and so forth without ever asking God.

    True discipleship requires the Lord’s to call us first: “Go into my vineyard.” Got a bright idea? Ask God first. Discern His call with the Church and a good spiritual director, guide, or pastor.

    III.  The ALLOTMENT of Discipleship – The text says, The vineyard owner came at dawn, 9:00 AM, Noon, 3:00 PM, and 5:00 PM.

    We may wonder why God calls some early and others late; it’s none of our business. He does call at different times. Even those whom He calls early are not always asked to do everything right now. There is a timing to discipleship.

    Moses thought he was ready at age 40, and in his haste murdered a man. God said, “Not now!” and made him wait until he was 80.

    Sometimes we’ve got something we want to do but the Lord says, “Not yet.” We think, “But Lord, this is a great project and many will benefit!” But the Lord says, “Not yet.” We say, “But Lord, I’m ready to do it now!” And the Lord says, “Not yet.”

    Sometimes we think we’re ready, but we’re really not. An old gospel song says, “God is preparing me. He’s preparing me for something I cannot handle right now. He’s making me ready, just because he cares. He’s providing me with what I’ll need to carry out the next matter in my life. God is preparing me. Just because he cares for me. He’s maturing me, arranging me, realigning my attitude. He’s training me, teaching me, tuning me, purging me, pruning me. He’s preparing me.”

    IV.  The ABIDING of Discipleship – The text says, When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to the foreman, “… summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.”

    Notice that the wages are paid in the evening and in the order determined by the landowner. The lesson is simple: we’ve got to stay in the vineyard. Some people start things but do not finish them. If you’re not there at the end of the day, there’s no pay.

    Scripture says that we must persevere. Here are three passages carrying this message: But he who perseveres to the end will be saved (Mat 24:13). To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, he will give eternal life (Rom 2:7). You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised (Heb 10:36).

    Yes, we must work until evening comes. Saying that we had faith and received all our sacraments when we were young will not suffice. We have to work until evening. An old spiritual says, “Some go to Church for to sing and shout, before six months they’s all turned out.” How about you?

    V.  The ASSESSMENT of Discipleship – The text says, Those hired first grumbled … “We bore the heat of the day and burdens thereof.”

    The workers hired early think of their entrance into the vineyard and its labors as a “burden.” The vineyard, of course, is really the Kingdom of God. Many lukewarm “cradle Catholics” consider the faith to be a burden; they think that sinners “have all the fun.” Never mind that such thinking is completely perverse; it is held by many anyway, whether consciously or unconsciously.

    Consider the laborers hired last. Were they having a picnic? Not exactly. Most were resigning themselves to the fact that they and their families would have little or nothing to eat that night. Similarly, most sinners are not “living the life of Riley.” Repeated, lifelong sin brings much grief: disease, dissipation of wealth, regret, loss of family, and addiction. No matter what they tell you, sinners do not have all the fun.

    Further, being a Christian is not a burden. If we accept it, we receive a whole new life from Christ: a life of freedom, purity, simplicity, victory over sin, joy, serenity, vision, and destiny.

    How do you view the Christian life? Is it a gift, a treasure beyond compare no matter its difficulties? Or is it a burden, a bearing of labor in the heat of the day? Scripture says, For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God. The passage goes on to describe our “works” not as burdens but as something God enables us to do: For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (Eph 2:8-10).

    So these are five dispositions of discipleship, as taught by the Lord in this parable.

    Note well what the Lord teaches, for too often we want to decide what it means to be a disciple. Beware, for the worst kind of disciple is the one who gets out ahead of the Lord and tries to define his or her own role. Jesus is Lord; let Him lead. Here are some final questions for you: Are you a disciple who is glad at being called, the earlier the better? Or are you like the disciples who grumbled at having to do all the work in the heat of the day? Is discipleship delightful or dreary for you?

    The song in the video below says, “I’m available to you.” It reminds us that the owner still seeks souls to enter His vineyard. He wants to use your voice to say to someone, “You, too, go into my vineyard!”

    The post Dimensions of Discipleship – A Homily for the 25th Sunday of the Year appeared first on Community in Mission.

  19. Site: LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH
    4 hours 38 min ago
    Author: noreply@blogger.com (Mary Ann Kreitzer)
  20. Site: RT - News
    4 hours 55 min ago
    Author: RT
    Tens of thousands of North Koreans gathered at Kim Il-Sung Square in Pyongyang to denounce US President Donald Trump, whom leader Kim Jong-un has branded a “dotard” in an escalating standoff between the two countries.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  21. Site: OnePeterFive
    5 hours 27 min ago
    Author: Maike Hickson

    The recent dismissal of Professor Josef Seifert – the prominent Catholic philosopher who has been punished by his ordinary, Archbishop Francisco Javier Martínez Fernández of Granada, Spain, for publishing polite questions with regard to Amoris Laetitia – has provoked an international and just sense of indignation. Among the growing list of public commentators on this incident are: Bishop Athanasius Schneider; Professor Claudio Pierantoni; Dr. John Haas, and Professor Paolo Pasqualucci. The story also has found its way into an article by Ross Douthat at the New York Times. In addition, today we have published a new commentary written by Father Brian Harrison, O.S., who has habitually shown Catholic courage and witness in these times of disorder. This strong collective reaction highlights the gravity of the injustice shown to the highly-respected Professor Seifert, as well as the danger of a direct attack on legitimate academic freedom.

    Yesterday, 22 September, Professor Seifert took steps to defend himself legally against the episcopal injustice to remove him from his Dietrich von Hildebrand Chair at the International Academy of Philosophy in Granada. He has filed a civil law suit against the archdiocese of Granada and the Instituto de Filosofía Edith Stein with the argument that his dismissal was unjustified and violated two of his fundamental human and constitutional rights. This legal step comes after Professor Seifert repeatedly tried to find a truly peaceful – yet truthful and just – extrajudicial solution with the archbishop. He did, however, file an immediate canonical remonstratio due to the very short period of time in which he was permitted to register such a complaint. (This is something to keep in mind by anybody who is being punished by his ecclesiastical superiors: canon law often gives only a certain amount of time, sometimes only ten days, for the faithful to file an ecclesiastic complaint!) Important, too, in this context, is that Archbishop Martínez never met personally with Professor Seifert or gave him a chance to defend himself before punishing him, and he even went so far as to publish a public announcement of Seifert’s forced retirement in response to his latest article, without first sending a formal personal letter to Seifert himself.

    Thus, even to an outsider, it is evident that there have been many abnormalities in the episcopal conduct of Archbishop Martínez. Conduct that seems to bypass normal – not to speak of humane and charitable – procedures and customs that are designed to prevent such arbitrary actions. As our readers will see in the attached commentary written by Father Brian Harrison, O.S., a well-known theologian, we are also dealing here with the danger that a sort of arbitrary rule tendentiously replaces reason and justice.

    One of the most grievous parts of this dismissal of Professor Seifert – next to the material damage and the fact that Seifert’s professional career has been gravely damaged – is that Archbishop Martínez published, in his official statement, some grave accusations against Professor Seifert as a Catholic. That is to say, he has claimed that Professor Seifert – with his attempt to defend the traditional Catholic teaching on marriage and the family and to put a serious question about one statement in Amoris Laetitia to the pope – had “spread distrust in the papacy,” had “harmed the ecclesial community,” and also had “caused confusion of faith among the faithful.” Such charges could lead, under other historic conditions, to an excommunication, such as St. Athanasius suffered it repeatedly for defending the true divinity of Christ against Pope Liberius’ semi-Arian declarations that put this central dogma of faith into question. It was for these reasons that Professor Seifert had to act expeditiously and immediately, and to file a “remonstratio” with the Church tribunal about the injustices done to him in this matter.

    However, he did not file any civil legal complaint without making every conceivable effort to reach a peaceful solution and reconciliation. Being keenly aware of the damage a civil law suit – as well as the ecclesiastical proceeding – could cause to the archdiocese, as well as to the Institute of Philosophy Edith Stein (IFES), which is Seifert’s employer, and to Archbishop Martínez, whom he is close to and admires in many respects, Seifert repeatedly reached out to the archbishop for a peaceful solution of the conflict. In spite of the harsh treatment he had already received, acceptance of his proposals would have moved him to recall the ecclesiastic, and to abstain from the civil, legal proceedings.

    I personally can testify to Josef Seifert’s attempt at seeking a charitable reconciliation, since he openly (but confidentially) shared with me his own different steps and written proposals. In his last attempt – after the archbishop had refused his first written and oral proposal – Seifert went so far as to drop any request for a material and professional restitution and only requested a public recantation to be made of the grave charges against him as a Catholic. He offered to withdraw both processes (civil and ecclesiastical), in order to avoid the great economic and moral damage that losing two processes (Seifert was told by both lawyers that he could easily win them) would cause to the sacred person of the archbishop, to whom he owed much, to the IFES, the Diocese of Granada, and to the Holy Church, under the following conditions:

    He asked Don Francisco Javier Martínez to put out a text that would confirm that his article (“Droht eine reine Logik die gesamte Morallehre der katholischen Kirche zu zerstören?,” Aemaet, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie, http://aemaet.de, Bd. 2 (2017), 10-20 – “¿La lógica pura amenaza con destruir la entera doctrina moral de la Iglesia católica?” Infovaticana, 1. 9. 2017) stands in total harmony with the encyclicals Familiaris Consortio and Veritatis Splendor of Saint Pope John Paul II and with 2000 years of the moral doctrine of the Church. He wanted the archbishop to mention that Seifert’s article coincides with one of the dubia that the four cardinals have presented to Pope Francis.  Therefore, to accuse his article of “harming the community of the church”, “confusing the faith of the faithful,” and “sowing distrust in the Holy Father” could not be more justifiedly attributed to his article than to the dubia of the four cardinals who posed their questions in the most polite form and with deep respect for the office of the Pope, just as did Seifert. Seifert asked Don Javier also to put in writing that the cardinals themselves understand their dubia, just as Seifert understands his article (with the additional support of several cardinals, archbishops, bishops and other many faithful), as a service to the Holy Church and to Pope Francis.

    Seifert left it entirely in the hands of the archbishop to revoke his forced retirement, which was not due to any valid and constitutional law about retirement at age 70, but was clearly a response to his article so severely attacked by the public statement put out by the Archdiocese of Granada. Seifert proposed to leave him in his chair, at least for four years, in order to honor the commitment of IFES to do so  in order to receive a large research grant Seifert has requested. However, Seifert promised not to undertake any legal steps to save his position or salary, if the charges against him were publicly set into perspective (even if not retracted) and if Professor Seifert could revoke a donation he had made to the Institute of many books and unedited original writings of four or five important philosophers and his own unpublished manuscripts, according to the terms of the contract of the donation. It is worth noting that Professor Seifert thought that he would spend the rest of his life in Granada!

    What can be seen from this proposal of peace is that Professor Seifert has accepted to suffer any damage to his career, as well as financial and material losses that would result from his dismissal in the mere exchange for a reconciliation with his archbishop on the level of justice and truthfulness. At the same time, he could not sacrifice the truth and his reputation as a respected Catholic thinker in own good standing and full orthodoxy.

    To Professor Seifert’s second written proposal of a conciliary solution, Martínez did not make any further reply.

    Thus it seems more than just and appropriate for Professor Seifert now to take all the licit steps at his disposal to receive justice and to defend the truth, including the truth about the real reasons for his dismissal, which IFES and the Diocese now seek to hide under the false pretext of simply applying a “law about retiring at age 70,” a law the Supreme Courtof Spain has declared unconstituional in 2016. He thereby fights not only for the truth and his own reputation and career, but also for all those within the Catholic Church who already suffer under similar injustices, or who will do so in the future. Thus we ask our readers to keep these legal actions in your prayers, for the greater good of the Church and also for the deeper “conversion” of Archbishop Martínez from his flagrantly unjust claims and actions. As we understand from different sources, Professor Seifert has very good chances to win both his ecclesiastical and civil cases because so many ecclesiastic and civil rules have been unjustly broken and rights violated. Since the civil claim went first to a “Peace-Court of Reconciliation” there are still chances and hopes that the conflict can be resolved in an extrajudicial forum.

    The post With No Recourse Against Ecclesial Injustice, Professor Seifert Turns to Legal Proceedings appeared first on OnePeterFive.

  22. Site: Rorate Caeli
    5 hours 38 min ago
    Monsignor Brunero Gherardini was a lion in defense of the Catholic Faith, even more so in the last years of his life, when he had to witness so much confusion. His death, on the evening of September 21st, in Rome, was another blow to the small army of defenders of orthodoxy and Tradition in Rome. Monsignor's funeral will take place in his beloved Vatican Basilica on Monday morning. New Catholichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04118576661605931910noreply@blogger.com
  23. Site: RT - News
    5 hours 44 min ago
    Author: RT
    Scientists studying the origin of cosmic rays that bombard the Earth from the heavens have been perplexed for half a century. Now they may finally have an answer - and it’s intergalactic.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  24. Site: RT - News
    6 hours 10 min ago
    Author: RT
    The bad-mouthing by the US president only makes a North Korean strike on the US “inevitable,” while the sanctions would not move Pyongyang’s resolve to develop nuclear and missile weaponry “by an inch,” according to the North Korean Foreign Minister.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  25. Site: OnePeterFive
    6 hours 28 min ago
    Author: Father Brian Harrison, O.S.

    The recent dismissal of Professor Josef Seifert, an outstanding Catholic scholar, can be seen as a particularly acute symptom of at least three distinct, but interdependent, maladies that have been afflicting the Church for many decades now, but which are becoming critical under the unprecedented pontificate of Pope Francis.

    First, at the level of Dr. Seifert’s own sphere of professional expertise, philosophy, we are seeing a crisis of natural, rationally knowable truth. When a philosopher is removed from office for pointing out that premises inexorably produce logical conclusions, the very foundations of all philosophy are being undermined – and in this case by the Church’s own leaders. Unlike Luther, who railed against human reason as being “the Devil’s whore” ever since the Fall, the Catholic Church has always understood that the credibility of Catholic doctrine rests on its harmony with sound philosophy. Therefore, when leading prelates brush aside the importance of logic, revealed truth is also undermined.

    This in fact is the second malady now afflicting us. If the Church were to formally contradict what it had always taught emphatically about moral principles and specific norms regarding marriage and sacramental life, it would not be an infallible Church. It would be reduced to a protestantized community wherein the individual’s private judgment ultimately reigns supreme: a community in which the ‘depositum fidei‘ is increasingly relativized by what the present Pontiff likes to call the ‘depositum vitae‘. But a so-called “deposit of life” is by nature indefinable and indeterminate. Appealing to it thus leaves everyone free to subjectively apply, adapt, or reinterpret the moral law according to the way each person evaluates his or her “real life circumstances.”

    In the essay that provoked the wrath of his superiors, Professor Seifert pointed out that if God could sometimes “ask” a person in a particular “life situation” to continue violating a norm of sexual ethics which the Church has always taught allows for no exceptions, that novel principle would flow over catastrophically to influence other areas of conduct.

    Perhaps even more ominous is the passage of Amoris Laetitia which says that in some circumstances a person might incur “further sin” (supposedly against the children springing from an adulterous union) by compliance with the norm against sexual intimacy outside of a valid marriage. But to say that in some circumstances one could be guilty of sin, and thus offend God, precisely by OBEYING a Commandment of the divinely revealed Decalogue, would not only be ruinous to all Christian morality; it would also verge on blasphemy by seeming to impugn the veracity of God himself.

    The above-mentioned philosophical and theological maladies have to do with the Church’s doctrinal, magisterial function – her role as ‘Ecclesia docens‘. The third malady of which Dr. Seifert’s dismissal is symptomatic is located in the Church’s pastoral, administrative and disciplinary function: the ‘Ecclesia gubernans‘. But it follows inevitably from the two previous afflictions. If logical coherence, the law of self-contradiction, and doctrinal consistency are now no longer to be absolute standards for Catholic thought and practice, but are to be continually adapted to a supposed “deposit of life” by which one “reinterprets” the deposit of faith according to ever-changing circumstances, then order and unity in the Church will have to be maintained by the simple exercise of power, authority, jurisdiction.

    So the spectre of a new era of ecclesial voluntarism looms before us, in which the primacy of the Intellect – always recognized by the ‘philosophia perennis‘ championed by St. Thomas Aquinas – may give way to the primacy of Will. The fact that Professor Seifert’s ecclesiastical superior in Spain felt no need to offer any reasoned rebuttal of his criticism of Amoris Laetitia is ominous. The mere fact that he had openly charged the Supreme Pontiff with error was deemed sufficient cause for his removal from office. That was traditionally a reasonable procedure when the Supreme Pontiff’s teaching was always backed up by a massive and solid wall of agreement on the part of all his predecessors. But Dr. Seifert was pointing out that Pope Francis was DEPARTING from the teaching of his predecessors! “No matter”, was the implied response: “The present pope says what he says, and that settles it!” This is to convert legitimate papal authority into Papal Positivism: the sheer Will of the present pontiff defeats all his predecessors and defeats all contrary arguments. Indeed, it makes any contrary argument simply irrelevant.

    May heaven preserve us from this threatening Triumph of the Will over both faith and reason!

    The post A Triumph of the Will Over Faith and Reason appeared first on OnePeterFive.

  26. Site: Sunlit Uplands
    6 hours 29 min ago
    Author: noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Cassidy)

    Once more at Walsingham Friary, if now to an open sky, the Blessed Sacrament was held aloft.  K.V. Turley  If you have ever visited Walsingham, England’s National Marian Shrine, you may have seen the poignant sight of a ruined friary standing upon a small hill just outside the village. It forms part of a private property now, and so is not normally accessible to the public.

    At the entrance gate, one July day, there stood a figure dressed in dark gray, a member of the Order of Friars Minor Conventual, more commonly known as Grey Friars. This was the order that used to live and worship at the Walsingham Friary centuries earlier.

    The Grey Friar in question was Fr. James Mary. Each day of his Walsingham pilgrimage, he would stand at the gate that leads to the ruins. He would gaze upon the ruined friary offering supplication for the friars buried there, and also for those who had caused the destruction of this once holy place. He also offered a unique prayer for a specific intention: namely that, one day, the Grey Friars would return to Walsingham.

    Upon his arrival in the village, I had noted this friar. With Fr. James Mary, it was immediately observable how he talked to everyone and anyone he met, to say nothing of his gift for disarming even the most confirmed atheist. There was the woman who owns a local teashop. No believer, she was obviously so charmed by the tall, gentle friar who came each day for coffee that when the friar offered to bless her shop, she agreed. Perhaps she thought: ‘Why not?’ The day after she had something to tell the friar. He could ‘bless her shop any day’ because following its blessing, the teashop had enjoyed its busiest custom yet.

    It was not just shops that were blessed; souls were touched. I saw pregnant women upon the street having their unborn babies very gently but very publicly blessed. Seemingly, no one refused Fr. James Mary’s offer to impart a blessing. Some, I know, were non-believers; some were Anglicans; many were Catholics.

    Read more at National Catholic Register >>

  27. Site: RT - News
    6 hours 53 min ago
    Author: RT
    Spain’s central government has taken direct control over the local police force in the autonomous region of Catalonia in an attempt to halt the upcoming independence referendum that Madrid considers illegal.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  28. Site: RT - News
    7 hours 20 sec ago
    Author: RT
    Despite belligerent rhetoric over Korean nuclear crisis, neither party would win from actual military action, observers say. But there is a risk of a ‘war by mistake’, triggered by some unintentional accident and spiraling out of anyone’s control.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  29. Site: RT - News
    7 hours 15 min ago
    Author: RT
    Indian police have arrested a well-known spiritual guru for allegedly raping a 21-year-old woman. Falahari Maharaja was imprisoned for 15 days while authorities complete their investigation.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  30. Site: Home Living
    7 hours 20 min ago
    I got this comment on an old post. As I am off and running to the farmers market this morning, I will only be able to post the question and hopefully with your help I can post some ideas on it later.Thank you, Miss Lydia for your posts. I was a keeper-at-home for nearly two decades. I loved being the heart and guard of the home, something I know God entrusted me with. Yes, it meant living with Lydiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530969871397361970noreply@blogger.com0
  31. Site: RT - News
    8 hours 23 min ago
    Author: RT
    The war of words between US President Donald Trump and Supreme Leader of North Korea Kim Jong-un has been by far the most entertaining prelude to the apocalypse the world has ever witnessed, filled with razor-sharp wit and barbed insults.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  32. Site: ChurchPOP
    8 hours 25 min ago
    Author: ChurchPOP Editor

    Talk about showing a stark contrast! The Facebook page “Architectural Revival” recently shared a short video that’s been going viral in Catholic

    The post Viral Video Shows “Campus Marxists” Run From Traditional Eucharistic Procession appeared first on ChurchPOP.

  33. Site: Roman Catholic Man
    8 hours 49 min ago
    Author: Fr Richard Heilman

    “The life of a Christian is nothing but a perpetual struggle against self; there is no flowering of the soul to the beauty of its perfection except at the price of pain.” St. Padre Pio

    On the Feast of St. Padre Pio, the Gospel has Jesus telling a parable that does not point at how the truths of our faith are given, but how they are received.

    You can read the whole Gospel HERE, but I will just focus on Jesus’ explanation of the parable:

    “This is the meaning of the parable.
    The seed is the word of God.
    Those on the path are the ones who have heard,
    but the Devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts
    that they may not believe and be saved.
    Those on rocky ground are the ones who, when they hear,
    receive the word with joy, but they have no root;
    they believe only for a time and fall away in time of temptation.
    As for the seed that fell among thorns,
    they are the ones who have heard, but as they go along,
    they are choked by the anxieties and riches and pleasures of life,
    and they fail to produce mature fruit.
    But as for the seed that fell on rich soil,
    they are the ones who, when they have heard the word,
    embrace it with a generous and good heart,
    and bear fruit through perseverance.”

    For all of my priesthood, I have been shouting from the rooftops that, “It is not about ‘poor catechesis!’ WE CAN GOOGLE IT, FOR GOODNESS SAKE! It is about hearts ‘disinterested’ in catechesis at all! Where are the hungry hearts?”

    Before Mass, this morning, my altar server (an adult man) and I were talking. He’s “lit up!” He told me he’s up to Maccabees in the Bible, as he is reading the Bible cover to cover. And, he just order St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, and plans to read it. He said, “I can’t wait!” You see? His “soil” is ready to receive. He’s not waiting for the next “cool DVD” to entice him to learn. He’s hungry, and he is seeking truth wherever he can gobble it up.

    Isn’t it true that when a young person enters college, and settles on a major he/she is excited about, that they begin devouring everything they can on the subject? Why are so many hearts disinterested in devouring the truths of our faith?

    In my homily, this morning, I pointed a finger directly at us – religious leaders – who, unlike Padre Pio, soft-pedaled our faith through homilies that massage the message rather than challenging through truth, and liturgies that entertain rather than inspire. We have gone out of our way to send the message,

    “Don’t get too fanatical (rigid) about your faith. We want to look like the worldly and compromise with the world, so people won’t think this ‘faith thing’ is too hard.”

    Of course, that was never the message of Jesus who would even implore us to cut off our hand or gouge out our eye, if they cause us to sin. Or, telling his disciples the way is very hard. How hard? It’s is easier for a camel pass through an eye of needle than for a rich man (someone engrossed in worldliness) to enter the kingdom of God.

    Padre Pio pulled no punches either …

    “The life of a Christian is nothing but a perpetual struggle against self; there is no flowering of the soul to the beauty of its perfection except at the price of pain.”

     

    “The longer the trial to which God subjects you, the greater the goodness in comforting you during the time of the trial and in the exaltation after the combat.”

     

    “The most beautiful act of faith is the one made in darkness, in sacrifice, and with extreme effort.”

    “Sacrifice and Effort.” Parents? Your children are watching.

    I am always amazed at the learning capacity of children. They learn a whole language as a toddler. Why? Because they trust their parents and see that their parents see learning the language as very important. If it’s important to the parent, it is important to the child.

    Listen, if faith/religion is simply relegated to something done on Sunday, as you squeeze an hour in amidst all of your other worldly “priorities” in your life, your children are seeing the level of importance faith has in your life. They are learning to make faith a “low priority” in their lives. And, if the children are sitting through liturgies that look like a picnic in the park, rather than a heavenly liturgy that is the representation of the Holy Sacrifice of our Lord, Jesus Christ, then the children will never be inspired to take the Mass or their faith seriously.

    So, when it comes time to prioritize what a family does with their time, children are “catching” what “truly matters” to the parents.

    I’m watching a local Catholic school doing a 5k fundraiser for the school today. So many parents poured themselves into soliciting donations, promotion, etc. for this day. Parents, you have done so much more than raise money for your children’s education, you have prepared the soil of their hearts to set their faith and Catholic education as a high priority.

    I have a large family helping to fill 2,000 bottles with Holy Water and Blessed Salt, and the they are overjoyed to take on the project (see this photo). “Church” and its needs are set as a “high priority,” and these children are gobbling up everything they can find to learn about this faith that is so “AWESOME” to them.

    I have an army of men (see photo above) who gather once a month for prayer, catechesis and fraternity. Their children watch them walk out the door. This is not abandonment, this is AMAZING preparation of the soil of those children’s hearts … “WOW! Dad takes his faith seriously!”

    I come from a family of seven. We had the same high priority when it came to our parish. We practically lived there, helping in anyway we could. The fruit? I am a priest, my sister is a Catholic School Principal, and my other brothers and sisters have been actively involved in their parishes throughout their lives. All of them know their faith very well. Faith, and the boots on the ground “involvement” in their faith, has the “highest” priority.

    I get it when people say they need to have as their highest priority their “primary vocation” of their family. What drives me crazy is when some tout this expression – “primary vocation” – as a way to beg off of participating in parish activities. But, when their children start playing soccer or join a group putting on a musical, they – all of a sudden – discover thousands of hours available for their family to devote themselves to these activities.

    I get so frustrated with this. These parents believe it is more valuable to sit in front of the TV at home, rather than demonstrate their dedication to their parish (and/or Catholic school). They use their children as human shields to beg off, rather than model the “effort and sacrifice” necessary when we “take our faith seriously” … when it has the highest priority.

    All I am saying is … “Your children are watching.” When they grow up, and find their faith boring, and lack interest in learning more about it, know – as Jesus teaches in today’s Gospel – it is not about “poor catechesis,” as much as it is about the preparation of the soil of your children’s hearts.

    The post Parents: You are Responsible for the ‘Soil’ of Your Children’s Hearts appeared first on Roman Catholic Man.

  34. Site: RT - News
    8 hours 58 min ago
    Author: RT
    If Hitler had his way and the Nazis developed an atomic bomb before the allies, the world in which we live would be a very different place. A surprising new find by a German relic hunter suggests Hitler may have been closer to his goal than we thought.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  35. Site: Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
    9 hours 4 min ago
    There are wild rumours on the Internet about News due to break tomorrow, Sunday. They are, as far as I know, all wrong. Far too wild. Far too dramatic. Far too much in the febrile spirit of the current pontificate. Calm down! ... No; it's not that, either !! But, tomorrow, a piece of news will break: an action taken by a small group of small and very humble Christian people from many countries; Fr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.com0
  36. Site: Padre Peregrino
    9 hours 4 min ago
    Author: Father David Nix

    This is a sermon on Padre Pio, suffering and love. (If you want to help spread these sermons, please click “Apple Podcasts” below and review this podcast on iTunes.)

  37. Site: Roman Catholic Man
    9 hours 30 min ago
    Author: Fr Richard Heilman

    “The life of a Christian is nothing but a perpetual struggle against self; there is no flowering of the soul to the beauty of its perfection except at the price of pain.” St. Padre Pio

    On the Feast of St. Padre Pio, the Gospel has Jesus telling a parable that does not point at how the truths of our faith are given, but how they are received.

    You can read the whole Gospel HERE, but I will just focus on Jesus’ explanation of the parable:

    “This is the meaning of the parable.
    The seed is the word of God.
    Those on the path are the ones who have heard,
    but the Devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts
    that they may not believe and be saved.
    Those on rocky ground are the ones who, when they hear,
    receive the word with joy, but they have no root;
    they believe only for a time and fall away in time of temptation.
    As for the seed that fell among thorns,
    they are the ones who have heard, but as they go along,
    they are choked by the anxieties and riches and pleasures of life,
    and they fail to produce mature fruit.
    But as for the seed that fell on rich soil,
    they are the ones who, when they have heard the word,
    embrace it with a generous and good heart,
    and bear fruit through perseverance.”

    For all of my priesthood, I have been shouting from the rooftops that, “It is not about ‘poor catechesis!’ WE CAN GOOGLE IT, FOR GOODNESS SAKE! It is about hearts ‘disinterested’ in catechesis at all! Where are the hungry hearts?”

    Before Mass, this morning, my altar server (an adult man) and I were talking. He’s “lit up!” He told he’s up to Maccabees in the Bible, as he is reading the Bible cover to cover. And, he just order St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, and plans to read it. He said, “I can’t wait!” You see? His “soil” is ready to receive. He’s not waiting for the next “cool DVD” to entice him to learn. He’s hungry, and he is seeking truth wherever he can gobble it up.

    Isn’t it true that when a young person enters college, and settles on a major he/she is excited about, that they begin devouring everything they can on the subject? Why are so many hearts disinterested in devouring the truths of our faith?

    In my homily, this morning, I pointed a finger directly at us – religious leaders – who, unlike Padre Pio, soft-pedaled our faith through homilies that massage the message rather than challenging through truth, and liturgies that entertain rather than inspire. We have gone out of our way to send the message,

    “Don’t get too fanatical (rigid) about your faith. We want to look like the worldly and compromise with the world, so people won’t think this ‘faith thing’ is too hard.”

    Of course, that was never the message of Jesus who would even implore us to cut off our hand or gouge out our eye, if they cause us to sin. Or, telling his disciples the way is very hard. How hard? It’s is easier for a camel pass through an eye of needle than for a rich man (someone engrossed in worldliness) to enter the kingdom of God.

    Padre Pio pulled no punches either …

    “The life of a Christian is nothing but a perpetual struggle against self; there is no flowering of the soul to the beauty of its perfection except at the price of pain.”

     

    “The longer the trial to which God subjects you, the greater the goodness in comforting you during the time of the trial and in the exaltation after the combat.”

     

    “The most beautiful act of faith is the one made in darkness, in sacrifice, and with extreme effort.”

    “Sacrifice and Effort.” Parents? Your children are watching.

    I am always amazed at the learning capacity of children. They learn a whole language as a toddler. Why? Because they trust their parents and see that their parents see learning the language as very important. If it’s important to the parent, it is important to the child.

    Listen, if faith/religion is simply relegated to something done on Sunday, as you squeeze an hour in amidst all of your other worldly “priorities” in your life, your children are seeing the level of importance faith has in your life. They are learning to make faith a “low priority” in their lives. And, if the children are sitting through liturgies that look like a picnic in the park, rather than a heavenly liturgy that is the representation of the Holy Sacrifice of our Lord, Jesus Christ, then the children will never be inspired to take the Mass or their faith seriously.

    So, when it comes time to prioritize what a family does with their time, children are “catching” what “truly matters” to the parents.

    I’m watching a local Catholic school doing a 5k fundraiser for the school today. So many parents poured themselves into soliciting donations, promotion, etc. for this day. Parents, you have done so much more than raise money for your children’s education, you have prepared the soil of their hearts to set their faith and Catholic education as a high priority.

    I have a large family helping to fill 2,000 bottles with Holy Water and Blessed Salt, and the they are overjoyed to take on the project (see this photo). “Church” and its needs are set as a “high priority,” and these children are gobbling up everything they can find to learn about this faith that is so “AWESOME” to them.

    I have an army of men (see photo above) who gather once a month for prayer, catechesis and fraternity. Their children watch them walk out the door. This is not abandonment, this is AMAZING preparation of the soil of those children’s hearts … “WOW! Dad takes his faith seriously!”

    I come from a family of seven. We had the same high priority when it came to our parish. We practically lived there, helping in anyway we could. I am a priest, my sister is a Catholic School Principal, and my other brothers and sisters have been actively involved in their parishes throughout their lives. All of them know they faith very well. Faith, and the boots on the ground practice of their faith, has the “highest” priority.

    I get it when people say they need to have as their highest priority their “primary vocation” of their family. What drives me crazy is when some tout this expression – “primary vocation” – as a way to beg off of participating in parish activities, But, when their children start playing soccer or join a group putting on a musical, they – all of a sudden – discover thousands of hours available for their family to devote themselves to these activities.

    I get so frustrated with this. These parents believe it is more valuable to sit in front of the TV at home, rather than demonstrate their dedication to their parish (and/or Catholic school). They use their children as human shields to beg off, rather than model the “effort and sacrifice” necessary when we “take our faith seriously” … when it has the highest priority.

    All I am saying is … “Your children are watching.” When they grow up, and find their faith boring, and lack interest in learning more about it, know – as Jesus teaches in today’s Gospel – it is not about “poor catechesis,” as much as it is about the preparation of the soil of your children’s hearts.

    The post Parents: You are Responsible for the ‘Soil” of Your Children’s Hearts appeared first on Roman Catholic Man.

  38. Site: RT - News
    10 hours 31 min ago
    Author: RT
    Ever wondered what your city looks like from space? Well, thanks to the good people on the International Space Station (ISS), now you can see for yourself. Assuming you live in a city from Northwest Africa across to Russia.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  39. Site: RT - News
    10 hours 39 min ago
    Author: RT
    An explosion at a power plant lit the sky overnight in central Russia, the country’s energy ministry reported. Two people were injured in the blast, footage of which was captured on CCTV.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  40. Site: RT - News
    10 hours 42 min ago
    Author: RT
    Germany is heading to the polls on Sunday in a federal election, with ‘Mutti’ (‘mum’) Angela Merkel aiming to win her fourth term as Chancellor. This would mean her overtaking the larger-than-life Helmut Kohl as modern Germany’s longest-serving leader.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  41. Site: Catholic Conclave
    11 hours 8 min ago
    Author: noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Gillibrand)
    This is the new Bishop of Innsbruck, Hermann Glettler  The Pope rejected the Terna and made his own choice.


    (showing enormous respect for the decoration of his baroque church)

    Here he is putting the finishing touches to one of his works of art, "Wounded Light". in Vienna's Votivkirche.

    Pictures can only be seen by following the link as they are copyright.

    The statue is decorated with mini-torchlights.

    Meaningless modernism.

    It is meant to say something (what?) about the theology of the body.




    Cathcon despairs.
    Kath,net reports.
    The new bishop of the diocese of Innsbruck is likely to be conformed: Pope Francis has appointed the Episcopal Vicar of the Diocese of Graz-Seckau, Hermann Glettler (52), according to the information provided by the Tiroler Tageszeitung (Friday). The decision would be approved by the Council of Ministers next week, they said. There is no official confirmation of this either from the Diocese of Innsbruck or the diocese of Graz-Seckau.

    Hermann Glettler was born in 1965 in Übelbach (district Graz area). He is parish priest in Graz and Episcopal Vicar for Caritas and Evangelism. He became well-known. for his commitment to the socially weak as well as for being an "artist priest".

    Glettler would be the first fifth bishop at the head of the diocese, which was set up  in 1964. Since the move of Bishop Manfred Scheuer to Linz at the beginning of the year 2016, the Diocese had been  led in the interim by Jakob Bürgler as a diocesan administrator.



  42. Site: RT - News
    11 hours 8 min ago
    Author: RT
    Human Rights Watch (HRW) has accused the UN Security Council (UNSC) of failing to investigate war crimes and rights abuses by anti-ISIS forces in Iraq. The group said it’s a “flawed and selective” approach that turns a blind eye to abuses that have plagued the country for decades.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  43. Site: Vox Cantoris
    11 hours 23 min ago
    You might remember this story about the Holy Moly Doors at Our Lady of Sorrows parish in Toronto. Some wealthy friends of the parish put up over $400,000.00 for new bronze doors created by the studio of Ernesto Lamagna

    http://voxcantor.blogspot.ca/2016/01/the-holy-moly-doors-at-torontos-our.html

    http://voxcantor.blogspot.ca/2016/01/part-second-on-40000000-plus-shipping.html

    On the exterior of the doors is a relief of St. Michael the Archangel slaying Satan. On the inside is a rather hideous art of a decapitated and dismembered Christ.






    There is an inscription on each door below the sculpture, it is the same on each. Can you read it?
    Let's look at where it is from. 

    It is a phrase from the Lamentations of the Prophet Jeremiah, 1:12, and is used in the Tenebrae Responsories for Good Friday, the whole scriptural phrase being.


    "O all ye that pass by the way, attend, and see if there be any sorrow like to my sorrow."
    One will also hear this in Handel's Messiah from the tenor aria:


    "Behold, and see, if there be any sorrow like unto his sorrow."
    So, what is the issue? Well, let us look at the Latin of the most sublime motet composed by Tomas Luis do Victoria, O Vox Omnes from Matins of Good Friday which contains the whole phrase from whence the inscription comes.

    "O vos omnes, qui transitis per viam: attendite et videte si est dolor sicut dolor meus. Attendite, universi populi, et videte dolorem meum. Si est dolor similis sicut dolor meus."Now, going back to the inscription on those Holy Moly Doors. 



    "VIDITE!"
    Really?
    For $400,000.00 you would think they would have spelt it correctly.
    The word doesn't even exist.
    At least the The Sixteen got it right.




  44. Site: Regina Magazine
    11 hours 26 min ago
    Author: Eddie Masters

    September 23 Today is the feast day of Saint Thecla. ...

    The post Saint Thecla, Virgin, Martyr appeared first on Regina Magazine.

  45. Site: RT - News
    11 hours 31 min ago
    Author: RT
    While most people are more concerned with the threat of nuclear war posed by the ongoing spat between North Korea and US President Donald Trump, others believe that today is doomsday, courtesy of a mysterious planet hurtling right for us.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  46. Site: Steyn Online
    11 hours 38 min ago
    In this brand new SteynPost, Mark takes as his starting point the contrasting treatments of the Hillary Clinton "investigation" and the Trump "Russia' investigation, and argues that the alleged "foreign interference with US elections" is, in fact, a far more disturbing case of domestic interference with US elections. Click below to watch: SteynPosts and The Mark Steyn Show are made possible through the support of members of The Mark Steyn Club, for which we...
  47. Site: Steyn Online
    11 hours 38 min ago
    For our Saturday movie date this week, we're marking the twentieth anniversary of LA Confidential, which opened in September 1997, with a belated tip of the hat to its director, Curtis Hanson, who died last year sooner than he should have. You expect
  48. Site: southern orders
    11 hours 56 min ago

    As I approach my 64th birthday at the end of this year (and thus in 2018 will be in my 65th year), I do not have the energy in my new parish to promote something that under Pope Benedict I thought would become the norm again, but realize under Pope Francis, there is no intention of continuing to push that agenda.

    In my new parish, there is no groundswell either for Latin or the Extraordinary Form. Perhaps the reason for that is the Cathedral EF weekly Mass in downtown Savannah which I am fortunate to celebrate once a month.

    So in my new parish, I simply have the modified "Benedictine Altar Arrangement" for facing the congregation similar to the arrangement in my previous parish.

    In my previous parish after about 10 years there, I begin to celebrate one of our 5 weekend Mass, the 12:10 PM Mass ad orientem simply for the Liturgy of the Eucharist. In all other ways it was like the Ordinary Form Masses celebrated at other times facing the people (we did restore kneeling at the altar railing for the 12:10 PM Mass once our altar railing was restored.

    Then I took the bold step of celebrating our once a month additional 2 pm EF Mass and moving it to the ad orientem 12:10 PM OF Mass, once a month. No one complained to me about these two major liturgical changes nor did the bishop ever tell me he received letters complaining about it. I did my job of catechizing the parish about it and did things slowly and methodically over the 12 years I was in Macon.

    I simply don't have the energy to push this agenda in my new parish, because I feel it needs the full backing of the local bishop who is the primary liturgist of the diocese and it needs the backing of cardinals like Cardinal Sarah. But it also needs papal support which is lukewarm or non existent today.

    Will Cardinal Sarah's vision of the renewal of the Ordinary Form of the Mass happen in the future? I don't know, but of course everyone knows that I am clairvoyant so I will venture, as a liturgical visionary, that it will happen--but not before I retire at the age of 70 when I will simply enjoy being a priest celebrating Mass free of all administrative headaches and in-house, hot-house liturgical and other politics associated with the Church today.

    But I like this article from last August's National Catholic Register!!!

    Facing East



    Thursday, August 17, 2017
    It has been one year since our parish changed over to the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass facing the liturgical East. My decision to switch to ad orientem was prompted by Cardinal Sarah’s encouragement of the return to this ancient practice of the Church.
    The reception of this change by parishioners has been largely positive. Visitors attending Mass naturally remark upon it, expressing in general surprise but only occasional dissatisfaction. Some remark that they are happy to participate in the Mass as they remember it from their childhood. The priests of the parish (and most visiting priests) have found this change to be a great improvement that promotes a prayerful and recollected celebration of Mass.
    Cardinal Sarah spoke again recently about the celebration ad orientem in a conference published in the French magazine La Nef (July-August 2017). He said:
    To be oriented towards God is before all else an interior action, a conversion of our soul towards the one God. The liturgy should foster in us this conversion towards the Lord who is the Way, the Truth, the Life. To do this it uses signs, simple means. The celebration [of Mass] ad orientem is part of this. It is one of the treasures of the Christian people that permit us to preserve the spirit of the liturgy. The oriented celebration should not become the expression of a partisan and polemical attitude. On the contrary, it should be the expression of the most intimate and essential movement of all liturgy: turning ourselves towards the Lord who comes.The spiritual truth that worship is a turning to the Lord is visually communicated to the worshiping faithful in the pews when the priest does not look at them when addressing God, but rather looks towards the crucifix, towards Christ, towards God.
    Mass of St. John of Matha by Juan Carreño de Miranda, 1666 [Louvre, Paris]The Rorate Caeli website recently published a translation of a short piece Paul Claudel wrote in Le Figaro in 1955 protesting against the incipient spread in France of the celebration of the Mass facing the people. Claudel expressed a severely negative judgment on this innovation: “The Mass is the homage par excellence which we render to God by the Sacrifice which the priest offers to Him in our name on the altar of His Son. It is us led by the priest and as one with him, going to God to offer Him hostias et preces [victims and prayers]. It is not God presenting Himself to us for our convenience to make us indifferent witnesses of the mystery about to be accomplished.”

    Claudel’s insight rings true, in my experience. The priest celebrant leads and brings the people with him as he raises his hands and voice to God in prayer and worship. They are not spectators but rather fellow pilgrims who look with the priest towards Christ. In reply to the objection that the people need to see the entire liturgical action at the altar, which is not possible during the ad orientem celebration, Claudel writes: “It is true that in the traditional liturgy the most touching, the most moving part of the Holy Sacrifice is hidden from the view of the faithful. But it is not hidden from their hearts and their faith. To demonstrate this, during Solemn High Masses the sub-deacon stays at the foot of the altar during the Offertory, hiding his face with his left hand. We too are invited to pray, to withdraw into ourselves, not in a spirit of curiosity but of recollection.”

    That recollection helps us to see with the eyes of faith the hidden presence of Christ in the sacred host and the chalice as they are elevated by the priest following the consecration. In the ad orientem celebration, the people do not have to look at the expression on the priest celebrant’s face (for weal or for woe) when he elevates the host and the chalice. This unnecessary distraction is eliminated and his role as mediator between God and man is best expressed when he offers no competition to the Holy Eucharist for the faithful’s glance.

    Claudel further observed: “The novel liturgy deprives the Christian people of their dignity and their rights. It is no longer they who say the Mass with the priest, by ‘following’ it, as the saying very rightly goes, and to whom the priest turns from time to time to assure them of his presence, participation and cooperation, in the work which he undertakes in their name. All that remains is a curious audience watching him do his job. Small wonder that the impious compare him to a magician performing his act before a politely admiring crowd.”

    My happy experience at the parish is that the ad orientem celebration of Mass, combined with the practice of the priest now sitting along the side wall of the sanctuary and no longer seated directly behind the free standing altar, has resulted in a more prayerful and Christ-centered liturgical experience. The priest celebrant is not an unending center of attention – as he can easily become when he first sits overlooking the congregation during the readings – and then when he stands behind the altar looking at the congregation while offering the prayers of the Mass to God.

    Cardinal Sarah observes: “Allow me to express humbly my fear: the liturgy in the Ordinary Form could lead us to run the risk of turning ourselves away from God because of the overwhelming and central presence of the priest. He is constantly in front of the microphone, and ceaselessly has his eyes and his attention turned towards the people. He is like an opaque screen between God and man.”

    After one year of the ad orientem celebration, I am absolutely convinced that Cardinal Sarah is correct. Turning physically and contemplatively towards the Lord promotes a deeper experience for both priest and people of prayer and worship at Mass.
  49. Site: Catholic Herald
    12 hours 23 min ago
    Author: Andrew Cusack

    Catholics make up an increasing proportion of Conservative voters and supporters, as well as activists like myself. During the general election campaign I was proud to stand behind the Prime Minister in the hall of a Catholic state school in London and recognise some familiar faces around me. Had fewer Catholics voted Tory in June, the party would have had an even greater struggle to stay in...

    Source

  50. Site: Ron Paul Institute - Featured Articles
    12 hours 29 min ago
    Author: James Bovard


    This year is the 100th anniversary of Woodrow Wilson’s pulling America into World War I. Many people celebrate this centenary of America’s emergence as a world power. But at a time when the Trump administration is bombing or rattling sabers at half a dozen nations and many Democrats are clamoring to bloody Russia, it is worth reviewing how World War I turned out so much worse than the experts and politicians promised.

    Wilson was narrowly reelected in 1916 on the basis of a campaign slogan, “He kept us out of war.” But Wilson had massively violated neutrality by providing armaments and money to the Allied powers that had been fighting Germany since 1914. At the same time, he had no quarrel with the British blockade that was slowly starving the German people. In his April 1917 speech to Congress seeking a declaration of war against Germany, he hailed the U.S. government as “one of the champions of the rights of mankind” and proclaimed that “the world must be made safe for democracy.”

    American soldiers helped turn the tide on the Western Front in late 1918. But the cost was far higher than Americans anticipated. More than 100,000 American soldiers died in the third-bloodiest war in U.S. history. Another half-million Americans perished from the Spanish Flu epidemic spurred and spread by the war. But the political damage lasted far longer.

    In his speech to Congress, Wilson declared, “We have no quarrel with the German people” and feel “sympathy and friendship” towards them. But his administration speedily commenced demonizing the “Huns.” One Army recruiting poster portrayed German troops as an ape ravaging a half-naked damsel beneath an appeal to “Destroy this Mad Brute.” Wilson’s evocations of fighting for universal freedom were quickly followed by bans on sauerkraut, beer, and teaching German in public schools. Tolerance quickly became unpatriotic.

    The Wilson administration sold the war as an easy win — failing to realize how close France and Russia were to either collapsing or surrendering. When fewer than 100,000 Americans volunteered for the military, Congress responded by authorizing conscripting 10 million men. Wilson proclaimed that “it is in no sense a conscription of the unwilling. It is, rather, selection from a Nation which has volunteered in mass.” But people had voted against the war. Regardless, Wilson touted the draft as a new type of freedom: “It is nothing less than the day upon which the manhood of the country shall step forward in one solid rank in defense of the ideals to which this Nation is consecrated.” It was as if Wilson was presaging George Orwell’s motto in 1984 — “Freedom is Slavery.”

    Wilson acted as if the congressional declaration of war against Germany was also a declaration of war against the Constitution. Harvard professor Irving Babbitt commented in 1924, “Wilson, in the pursuit of his scheme for world service, was led to make light of the constitutional checks on his authority and to reach out almost automatically for unlimited power.” Wilson even urged Congress to set up detention camps to quarantine “alien enemies.”

    Wilson unleashed ruthless censorship. Anyone who spoke publicly against military conscription was likely to get slammed with federal espionage or sedition charges. Possessing a pamphlet entitled “Long Live the Constitution of the United States” earned six months in jail for a Pennsylvania malcontent. Censorship was buttressed by fanatic propaganda campaigns led by the Committee for Public Information, a federal agency whose shameless motto was “faith in democracy … faith in fact.” The government cared so much about the American people that it could not burden them with details of government follies and fiascoes.

    The government also assumed it was entitled to practically brainwash any and all conscripts. As Thomas Fleming noted in his masterpiece The Illusion of Victory: America in World War One,soldiers were subject to many hours of exhortations “to resist sexual temptation…. Spokesmen for the Committee on Training Camp Activities urged soldiers to stop thinking about sex: ‘A man who is thinking below the belt is not efficient.’” The Wilson administration strove for the creation of “‘moral and intellectual armor’ that would sustain the soldiers when they went overseas and were beyond the U.S. government’s ‘comforting and restraining and helpful hand.’” The failure of the purity campaign was best reflected in the lyrics of a 1919 hit song: “How ya gonna keep ’em down on the farm after they’ve seen Paree?”

    To broaden support for the war, Wilson partnered with the Prohibition movement. Prohibition advocates “indignantly insisted that … any kind of opposition to prohibition was sinister and subversively pro-German,” noted William Ross, author of World War 1 and the American Constitution. Even before the 18th Amendment (which banned alcohol manufacture, sale, and transportation) was ratified, Wilson banned beer sales as a wartime measure. Prohibition itself was a public-health disaster; the rate of alcoholism tripled during the 1920s. To punish lawbreakers, the federal government added poisons to industrial alcohol that was often converted into drinkable hooch; 10,000 people were killed as a result. Deborah Blum, the author of The Poisoner’s Handbook, noted that “an official sense of higher purpose kept the poisoning program in place.” It took more than half a century for the quality of American beer to recover from Prohibition. And the effects of the booster shot that organized crime received in those years lasted even longer. Even worse, the war on alcohol paved the way for the war on drugs; many former Prohibition agents signed up to crusade against marijuana after the ban on booze ended.

    Attacking speech, ruining farms

    World War I exposed the cravenness and authoritarianism of progressive intellectuals. As journalist Randolph Bourne wrote, “‘Loyalty,’ or rather war orthodoxy, becomes the sole test for all professions, techniques, occupations. Particularly is this true in the sphere of the intellectual life.” Bourne lamented: It has been a bitter experience to see the unanimity with which the American intellectuals have thrown their support to the use of war-technique in the crisis in which America found herself. Socialists, college professors, publicists, new-republicans, practitioners of literature, have vied with each other in confirming with their intellectual faith the collapse of neutrality and the riveting of the war-mind on a hundred million more of the world’s people…. Herd-instinct became herd-intellect. Writers who failed to join the stampede found themselves banished or, in some cases, persecuted. One of the Post Office’s primary targets for suppression was magazines guilty of “high-browism.” The collapse of honest, thoughtful criticism was invaluable to Wilson’s effort to spur mass mindless obedience. Unfortunately, with the same pattern of servility repeated in subsequent wars, few intellectuals seem to recall how World War I set the model for cravenness.

    As Bourne noted, “War is the health of the state.” The war provided the pretext for unprecedented federal domination of the economy — and endless debacles. In early 1918, the government “shut down all the factories in the country east of the Mississippi River for a week” to save fuel, as Fleming noted. Even Wilson’s Democratic congressional allies were aghast at the mismanagement and inefficiency. Wilson was outraged at criticism, declaring that it showed “such an ignorance of the actual conditions as to make it impossible to attach any importance” to the charge. But presidential indignation failed to straighten out the snafus from central control of production processes.

    Perhaps the most dramatic economic impact fell on American farmers. Washington promised that “food will win the war” and farmers vastly increased their plantings. Price supports and government credits for foreign buyers sent crop prices and land prices skyrocketing. However, when the credits ended in 1920, prices and land values plunged, spurring massive bankruptcies across rural America. They in turn spurred perennial political discontent that helped lead to a federal takeover of agriculture by the Roosevelt administration in the 1930s. When the New Deal imposed price controls across the economy in 1933, World War I was the model that administrators touted.

    Making the world safe

    Before the war began, Wilson declared in April 2015, “No nation is fit to sit in judgement upon any other nation.” In his war speech to Congress in 1917, he portrayed the Kaiser as a dictator (though Germany was actually far more democratic than most parts of the British Empire). By 1919, Wilson had totally reversed his moral compass, declaring, “In the last analysis, my fellow countrymen, as we in America would be the first to claim, a people are responsible for the acts of their government.” Unfortunately, that became the lodestar for subsequent U.S. warring — including the massive civilian bombings of Germany and Japan in World War II, in North Korea in 1952, in Vietnam, and in Iraq in this century.

    World War I was ended by the Treaty of Versailles, which redrew European borders willy-nilly and imposed ruinous reparations on Germany. Wilson had proclaimed 14 points to guide peace talks; instead, there were 14 separate small wars in Europe towards the end of his term — after peace had been proclaimed. The League of Nations charter was written so smarmily that the United States could have been obliged to assist Britain and France in suppressing revolts in the new colonies they garnered from the war.

    The chaos and economic depression sowed by the war and the Treaty of Versailles helped open the door to some of the worst dictators in modern times, including Germany’s Adolf Hitler, Italy’s Benito Mussolini, and Russia’s N. Lenin — whom Wilson intensely disliked because “he felt the Bolshevik leader had stolen his ideas for world peace,” as historian Fleming noted.

    Despite winning the war, Wilson’s Democratic Party was crushed at the polls in both 1918 and 1920. H.L. Mencken wrote on the eve of the 1920 election that Americans were sickened of Wilsonian “idealism that is oblique, confusing, dishonest, and ferocious.” Unfortunately, the recoil against bogus idealism was temporary. Starting in 2002, George W. Bush practically recycled Wilson en masse to whip up fervor for invading Iraq.

    Have today’s policymakers learned anything from the debacle a century ago? Wilson continues to be invoked by politicians who believe America can achieve great things by warring abroad. The bellicosity of both Republican and Democratic leaders is a reminder that Wilson also failed to make democracy safe for the world.

    Reprinted with permission from the Future of Freedom Foundation.

Pages

Subscribe to Feeds