Athanasian Creed

The Christmas octave clarified, and reverence loses out again, starring your favourite whatever-he-is - Sunday 30th of December 2018 to Saturday 5th of January 2019

As part of my vow to try and be more timely in my weekly reviews - and to have proper weekly reviews - I thought I would release one in record time. I hope, as usual, to be brief, but given that I've been hoping for an end to the Bergoglian plague for over 5 years now with no end in sight, be prepared to learn that my hopes do seem to often end in disappointment! Anyway, here goes...

The year starts with what used to be called "The Feast of the Circumcision", but which was renamed to "The Solemnity of Mary" in the Novus Ordo deforms, on the 1st of January. Fr. John Hunwicke has often written about how this is a return to ancient tradition and not a proper novelty, strictly speaking. I have been willing to accept this notion, even though I have had my doubts, given how all the readings of the Mass have to do with the Circumcision and do not even mention the Blessed Virgin Mary. That is even without going into the question of whether reverting to ancient practice would not fall into the heresy of antiquarianism, given there was no particular need for it.

Well, I need not have worried much because Gregory DiPippo over at the beautiful blog Novus Motus Liturgicus had my back covered. He explained in The Ancient Character of the Feast of the Circumcision first of all how stunning it is that historians who ought to know better manage to get this issue wrong despite all evidence to the contrary. He also explained why the confusion came about, and why the feast is not called "The Feast of the Circumcision" until much later: It seems as though in the early Church there were 2 celebrations which fell on that day - none of which were particularly Marian -, these being the Circumcision and the Presentation.

Here are my first reflections of his piece, as commented on that day:

I am indebted to Gregory DiPippo over at Novus Motus Liturgicus for clearing up a few points of irritation I have had with the whole notion of the Octave of Christmas. It has become fashionable to say that it only acquired the name of circumcision later and that traditionally it was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary. This would seem to vindicate at least in part NOChurch practice.

He manages to slay that notion entirely by showing that the most ancient sacramentaries all have reference to the Circumcision and that possibly the only reason it was not called the Feast of the Circumcision is because it might have been united with the Feast of the Presentation of Christ in the Temple.

Given what  I know - however inadequate - about the Tridentine Reform, it would have been odd to see them innovating on titles. The explanation given in his piece titled  The Ancient Character of the Feast of the Circumcision does much to bring clarity to this whole issue.

He then followed his initial article with another one titled The Marian Character of the Feast of the Circumcision. That is also well-worth reading.

It often gives me pause to disagree with the good Fr. Hunwicke, but Gregory DiPippo is a very meticulous scholar, and he provides very strong evidence for his assertions - which Fr. Hunwicke does not even attempt to do - so I have no hesitation in following Gregory DiPippo's line on this. Ultimately, whether or not there may have been observance of some Marian feast on this day, the theological significance of Christ's Circumcision is much more necessary to commemorate on that day, especially given that it cannot escape anyone that all of Christmastide is a celebration of the divine motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and we detract nothing from it by not celerbating it on the octave day of Christmas, the day on which Jesus Christ was circumcised.

The Bergoglian apostasy tour continues as do his attempts to try and prove to anyone paying attention that he absolutely abhors anything that Catholics hold sacred. The latest installment in his displays of irreverence was standing and absolutely refusing to kneel in front of the Blessed Sacrament  during Eucharistic Adoration on new year's eve. The man will kneel for all and sundry, but not for God. I commented the following:

The Bergoglio menace - a beast of irreverence - does it again, refusing to kneel in front of the Holy Eucharist. Quite how anybody can claim that Bergoglio is a Catholic of any stripe is beyond my comprehension, because I doubt there are many who have worked harder to prove that point than Bergoglio has.

In fact, I would be willing to wager he is a satanist, a free-mason, a Talmudic Jew, even a Muslim, before I can call him a Catholic, and I can't even wager on him being a  believing protestant because although most such protestants, though they do not believe in reason, natural law or Sacred Tradition, at least they pretend to believe in the Bible, which Bergoglio clearly does not.

I don't know who or what Bergoglio is, but as I have often remarked, if there is a problem with perceiving Bergoglio as an anti-Catholic, the problem is not on the broadacasting side, but on the reception side. He has been broadcasing in high-fidelity audio ever since at least Maundy Thursday of 2013 that he has little regard for the Catholic Faith.

No doubt the Novus Ordites will tell us that standing is the new kneeling,  but anybody using his mind ought to be able to see that Bergoglio is now simply mocking us, and is being very forthright in his atheism. If  you don't believe me, then keep in mind that the Bergoglian Vatican press had written in celebration of...

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

Synod 2015 approaches: All hands on deck!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe to Athanasian Creed