Sunday, February 27, 2011

Pope Benedict XVI, trying to correct mis-conceptions of VC

"Let your Yes, be Yes, and your No, be No, anything
other than this is from the Evil one"

Benedict XVI's pontificate has been marked by
a few defining moments that have provoked some
neither entirely foreseeable nor easily controlled
reactions: one need only think of the polemics
that ensued after the release of the motu proprio
Summorum Pontificum. This act, which occasioned
an openly hostile, widespread reaction, was also
an opportunity for some to discover the Church's
genuine liturgical patrimony and, through it, they
were spurred on to discover an ecclesiology and
theological system not only different from, but also incompatible with, that forged. over the Last 50 YEARS _ and peremptorily imposed on "the People of God."

Among the choices characterizing Benedict
XVI's pontificate it seems to me that we can include the principle of the "hermeneutic of continuity,"! which was articulated in his famous speech to the Roman Curia of December 22, 2005. The speech was not followed by the explosive reactions that have occurred in other instances, but it did give rise to a current of thought, and to its opposition, that is still with us and merits our attention.
In the following reflections we intend to scrutinize what the principle of the hermeneutic of continuity asserts, and we shall try to situate it in the historical context of the Church today so as to deduce all of its implications.

A True Principle and an
Unproven Presupposition

Forty years after the close of the Second Vatican
Council, Benedict XVI recognizes the fact that
situations creating a deep malaise arose after this historic event. He immediately frames the difficulty as a problem in the acceptance of the Council linked to a problem of the interpretation(hermeneutic) of the texts of the Council itself: too often, the Council was interpreted and thus applied in discontinuity with the perennial teaching of the Church, contrary to the objective meaning of its texts and contrary to the intentions of the Council Fathers themselves.
The hermeneutic of continuity thus is presented as
the proper approach to interpreting the Council
authentically, according to its true intention and
especially in perfect harmony with Tradition.
Benedict XVI's intervention has the merit of
highlighting a basic principle,namely,that in the
Church's magisterial teaching," there cannot be a break with previous teaching, but only continuity: what the Church has always taught can neither be surpassed, nor set aside; rather, it constitutes the Church's patrimony, which can neither be repudiated, nor substantially altered.

We should remark that this truth recalled by
Benedict XVI is in one sense quite simple; it pertains to the rudiments of the Faith and to the foundational principles that define the very nature of the Church. Consequently, the fact that he deemed it necessary to outline his papal program in light of this truth constitutes a first significant acknowledgement of the doctrinal crisis in which the Church finds itself. By
solemnly reiterating such a simple, elementary truth, which had been set aside in practice and in common teaching, the Pope inevitably provided an objective indicator of the gravity of the current situation. The usual commemorative orations about
the council were replaced in this speech by a
reminder of elementary principles: it constituted
an initial acknowledgment that something has not
worked. Moreover, it should be recognized that the
fact of recalling that there can be no break in the Church's teaching prompted in some individuals
especially priests, a desire to valorize things past and the Tradition of the Church. In many cases this re-evaluation led to the progressive discovery of an absolutely new patrimony, which these priests felt had been denied them. This is certainly the most positive effect of the hermeneutic of continuity. However, the hermeneutic of continuity stands out, not so much for its intrinsic, abstract value as in the concrete application made of it, as a two-edged sword: it affirms, in effect, that the documents
of the Council are in perfect continuity with the
Church's perennial Tradition, and when it brings
to light an .objectively serious problem of a break, it systematically reduces it to a question of the interpretation of the Council itself, to a deviation that occurred in the post-conciliar period. The absolute fidelity of the Council to the previous authoritative teaching of the Church seems to remain as an indisputable postulate. In this way, the "blame" falls upon a heterodox current of thought incompatible with Catholic doctrine and foreign to the Council, but
which paradoxically succeeded in steering in large
part the application and the concrete results."
As we now get to the crux of our considerations,
we plan to situate the hermeneutic of continuity
historically by seeking to grasp every aspect without entering in detail into specific conciliar teachings, which have been discussed over and over, we realize that it postulates a series of elements which, instead of saving the Council, indirectly demonstrate its failure.

(I would say then, based on the above, that the VCII created this failure without intending to break with the traditions, that have been followed for over 2000 years. The corrective measures that Pope Benedict VXI
is attempting to do, is just, and needed then, but is being opposed by those in the Catholic church,who have read in to the VCII actions, those changes ,that were not the intention of the Council, and should then be extracted, as having no validity. JMHO)

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

SI SI NO NO

The following is excerpted from the SI SI NO NO article:
Benedict XVI's pontificate has been marked by
a few defining moments that have provoked some
neither entirely foreseeable nor easily controlled
reactions: one need only think of the polemics

that ensued after the release of the motu proprio
Summorum Pontificum. This act, which occasioned
an openly hostile, widespread reaction, was also
an opportunity for some to discover the Church's
genuine liturgical patrimony and, through it, they
were spurred on to discover an ecclesiology and
theological system not only different from, but also
incompatible with, that forged. over the Last 50 YEARS _
and peremptorily imposed on "the People of God."

Among the choices characterizing Benedict
XVI's pontificate it seems to me that we can include
the principle of the "hermeneutic of continuity,"!
which was articulated in his famous speech to the
Roman Curia of December 22, 2005. The speech
was not followed by the explosive reactions that have
occurred in other instances, but it did give rise to a
current of thought, and to its opposition, that is still
with us and merits our attention.
In the following reflections we intend to scrutinize
what the principle of the hermeneutic of continuity
asserts, and we shall try to situate it in the historical
context of the Church today so as to deduce all of its
implications.

A True Principle and an
Unproven Presupposition

Forty years after the close of the Second Vatican
Council, Benedict XVI recognizes the fact that
situations creating a deep malaise arose after this
historic event. He immediately frames the difficulty
as a problem in the acceptance of the Council linked
to a problem of the interpretation(hermeneutic) of
the texts of the Council itself: too often, the Council
was interpreted and thus applied in discontinuity
with the perennial teaching of the Church, contrary
to the objective meaning of its texts and contrary
to the intentions of the Council Fathers themselves.
The hermeneutic of continuity thus is presented as
the proper approach to interpreting the Council
authentically, according to its true intention and
especially in perfect harmony with Tradition.
Benedict XVI's intervention has the merit of
highlighting a basic principle, namely, that in the
Church's magisterial teaching," there cannot be a break
with previous teaching, but only continuity: what the
Church has always taught can neither be surpassed
nor set aside; rather, it constitutes the Church's
patrimony, which can neither be repudiated nor
substantially altered.
We should remark that this truth recalled by
Benedict XVI is in one sense quite simple; it pertains
to the rudiments of the Faith and to the foundational
principles that define the very nature of the Church.
Consequently, the fact that he deemed it necessary
to outline his papal program in light of this truth
constitutes a first significant acknowledgement of the
doctrinal crisis in which the Church finds itself. By
solemnly reiterating such a simple, elementary truth,
which had been set aside in practice and in common
teaching, the Pope inevitably provided an objective
indicator of the gravity of the current situation.
The usual commemorative orations about

the council were replaced in this speech by a
reminder of elementary principles: it constituted
an initial acknowledgment that something has not
worked. Moreover, it should be recognized that the
fact of recalling that there can be no break in the
Church's teaching prompted in some individuals
especially priests, a desire to valorize things past'
and the Tradition of the Church. In many cases this
re-evaluation led to the progressive discovery of an
absolutely new patrimony, which these priests felt had
been denied them. This is certainly the most positive
effect of the hermeneutic of continuity.
However, the hermeneutic of continuity stands
out, not so much for its intrinsic, abstract value as
in the concrete application made of it, as a two-
edged sword: it affirms, in effect, that the documents
of the Council are in perfect continuity with the
Church's perennial Tradition, and when it brings
to light an .objectively serious problem of a break,
It systematically reduces it to a question of the
interpretation of the Council itself, to a deviation that
occurred in the post-conciliar period. The absolute
fidelity of the Council to the previous authoritative
teaching of the Church seems to remain as an
indisputable postulate. In this way, the "blame" falls
upon a heterodox current of thought incompatible
with Catholic doctrine and foreign to the Council, but
which paradoxically succeeded in steering in large
part the application and the concrete results."
As we now get to the crux of our considerations,
we plan to situate the hermeneutic of continuity
historically by seeking to grasp every aspect: without
entering in detail into specific conciliar teachings,
which have been discussed over and over, we realize
that it postulates a series of elements which, instead of
saving the Council, indirectly demonstrate its failure.

From what I have read from this, the VTII council was not explicit in its determination, and leeway given to the Priests. It had no intention of changing what has been the tradition of the Church for over 2000 years. What has happened, Bishops,
Pastors, and Priests have read into what was determined, to mean what they wanted it to mean. That was not the intent of the VTII Council. Therefore Pope
Benedict XVI must give an interpretation, whereby, none of the traditions of the Church have been supplanted, nor to have changed. And any conflict with the traditional teachings, should automatically, negate those changes to the traditional teachings of the church from 1962 on.
It is my sincere hope, that the Pope will return our church to the prior teachings, and traditions that were practiced prior to VTII.
I am in no way an expert, but only go with the direction of what my spirit leads me to go, and Just my Humble Opinions.

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Time to set everything straight

Very few points of the current draft of the Instruction for the Application of Summorum Pontificum seem to be available to us. The first we mentioned, on blocking the application of the liberality of the motu proprio to all non-Roman Western rites and uses may seem minor - yet it is quite significant in what it reveals: an interpretation of the rights recognized by Summorum as privileges or "indults" that can be curtailed.


Our revelation today, made jointly with Messa in Latino, could seem even more limited in its extension - but it certainly is much, much, more serious and insidious in the extent it shows that the anti-Summorum field has infiltrated the composition of the Instruction. In short, the Instruction, in its current draft, will explicitly prevent Bishops from using the Traditional Rite of Holy Orders.


There will be two exceptions. One, dedicated to the those institutes (the 'Ecclesia Dei' institutes) and particular Churches dedicated exclusively to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The other exception is that the Bishop that desires to ordain a certain seminarian in the ancient Rite will have to ask prior permission to Rome (to the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei'), which will then evaluate if said permission should be granted or not.


While the motu proprio is unclear on the use of the Traditional liturgical rites of the Roman Pontifical for Holy Orders (Baptism, Matrimony, Penance, Extreme Unction, and Confirmation are expressly mentioned in art. 9, and the Holy Eucharist throughout the text), this is no loophole. While it might make sense to clarify some points regarding other Sacraments, as directed by the "Pastor" (art. 9 § 1), it would obviously be unnecessary to "allow" these same Pastors to do what they can always do: ordain priests of the Roman Rite using the books of the Roman Rite, including the rite of Holy Orders that was used in the Latin Church for well over a millennium.

What is to be achieved by this odious restrictive interpretation? Why should Bishops be forbidden to choose with which Rite to ordain their own deacons and priests? Since the advent of Summorum, in a few privileged places, Bishops have furthered the establishment of a biritual mentality in their seminaries, and have indeed celebrated Holy Orders in the Extraordinary Form; it seems clear that, if a Bishop so desires, for an unlimited number of pastoral and spiritual reasons, he should be able to do so freely.


The intention is, among others, to ghettoize the Traditional Rite of this most pivotal of all Sacraments, Holy Orders; and, further, to identify "problematic" Bishops and future priests, with all consequences that could entail (including for their careers). It is an alarming sign that the thrust of the Instruction is once again to make, even in law, all Catholics attached to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite or those who merely appreciate it (and, in this case, even Bishops and poor hopeful seminarians) second-class Catholics.

Rorate Caeli

Friday, February 18, 2011

Urgent appeal for the Pope's clarification of Motu Proprio

All of you Conservatives, please go to this site to appeal to our Pope Benedict XVI
to continue with his clarification of Motu Proprio, in which he grants the permission of priests to say the Latin Masses without the permission of their PASTOR, OR BISHOP, plus to futher explain that VTII did not do away with the former liturgy. There has been mounted an opposition to this by the Liberals, and Progressives in the Catholic Church, and your signatures are urgently needed at this time. Thank you and GOD's Bleesing on you and your families.


http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/motuproprioappeal/



An Appeal to the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, Pertaining to the Instruction/Clarification of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum

Email friends
Most Holy Father, we the undersigned:

1. Express our profound gratitude to Your Holiness for your personal liturgical example to the Universal Church. You are a true homo liturgicus whose love for the sacred liturgy is an inspiration; it teaches more clearly than words the centrality of the liturgy in the life of the Church.

2. Thank Your Holiness for your gift to the Church of your 2007 Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. Since 2007 it has brought forth many fruits, including greater unity in the Church of Christ and a widespread enrichment of the liturgical life of the Church.

3. Note with sadness the continuing and real opposition to the implementation of Summorum Pontificum in many dioceses and on the part of many members of the hierarchy, the suffering and distress this continues to cause many of Christ’s faithful and the obstacle this opposition is to an effective reconciliation within the Church.

4. Note with anxiety the apparent signs that a forthcoming Instruction on Summorum Pontificum will, in some way, take away from what you have legally established in that Motu Proprio and from its wide application in the generous spirit so eloquently explained by Your Holiness in the letter accompanying it: “Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.”

5. Express our grave concern that any restrictive measures would cause scandal, disunity and suffering in the Church and would frustrate the reconciliation you so earnestly desire, as well as impede further liturgical renewal and development in continuity with Tradition, which is already so great a fruit of your pontificate.

6. Express our hope, our desire and our urgent appeal that the good Your Holiness personally initiated through Summorum Pontificum not be allowed to be hindered by such restrictions.

7. Turn to you with filial trust and as obedient sons and daughters, Most Holy Father, and ask that you urgently consider our concerns and intervene if you judge it necessary.
8. Assure Your Holiness of our continuing prayers, of our deep affection and of our loyalty.

Why I may be remiss in my postings here.

If any of you readers here may know, I post on three other blogs, "Is it right for the new Pastor to attack his parishioners", and Elmont blog.
Another blog is "Cutting of Pastors roll called Vindictive" in the Massapequ park blogspot.
The third, "Swift name as principal at Our Lady of Lourdes School" also Mass. Park.
I have been malign, slandered,cursed at, and demeaned with lewd references.
Their posts are all without substance, and their intent is only to try to shut me up.
The posters who supposedly are Catholic, or Christian, have aligned themselves with a Woman who posts as "Ilona", or "Puffin Lady". She is obsessed in attacking the Catholic Church, as her family was Catholic(if you are to believe her). She has slandered the Catholic Church, made fun of Jesus with demeaning jokes, posted a prayer that she made up starting with " Our mother which are in ....".
I say this, only to show how far those, who profess to be Catholic, will go, in their attempt to censure my Conservative views, both in the Catholic church, and in my political beliefs. Many supposed Catholic posters, had been on these sites, and not one of them will tell her to shut up speaking against the Catholic Church.
She posts anti-Catholic information that she has cut and pasted from other sources,
the latest quoting Mark Twain. The progressives believe they have the right to
stand up side by side with Wicca, Heretic, Pagans , like this Ilona(PuffinLady), and still feel they are doing nothing wrong, as long as it is against my posts. They do not answer any of the posting information, but instead rant and rave against me.

I am telling you this, so that if you come across any of these Progressive Catholics,
who fear and hate the traditional ways, you will not be silent, and speak out against them. Our Lord GOD said, "FEAR NOT FOR I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS" Isaiah 41:10
This is one of the last posts on those sites:


I have tried to help poor Ilona(PuffinLady),but as most heathen pagans, she is devoid of conscience.
"Itchy Watch" on the other hand is puffed up with his young childlike ways, that he believes he is a grown-up. Quite the contrary, it is a sign of
his "Oppositional Defiant Disorder".
In Puffin Lady's case, her elders were Catholics,
and her unacknowledged "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" went unchecked, and her rebellious nature grew into the Wicca she now follows. as C.S. Lewis wisely observed in his "Letters to an American Lady", "Nothing gives one a more spuriously good conscience than keeping rules, even if there has been a total absence of all real charity and faith. She believing she is free from the bad conscience by doing good deeds, feels that nothing more is needed. In reality, we are called to ore than rule-observance, and in reality, right conscience, does more than alert us to evil.
Her lewdness, foul mouth, posts show the true nature, and anger, still burning inside of her.
I noted that originally she was attacking the "people from India" having 3 day festivities,and on her postings in the topic called "love"(of all things, which she denies posting, as she used the name Ilona, and not Puffin Lady), she offers to meet with anyone at the "frozen Ice cream" stand,and that she "would show you why I am called the John Wayne of Elmont, I do not take any S...from any Indians." So then her actions belie her charity works, that she claims to do, along with her daughter. It would be a case of "do as I say,not as I do" situation, as her lewd mouth and actions show what she is really about. A person frothing with hate and anger, much as she tried to judge every one else. Conscience has an important role of approving, instigating, and inspiring us to positive action. Ilona, is devoid of any conscience, as her posts have proven from the beginning, when she latched on intentionally to this site. It was not by accident, but intentional,as she saw a chance of raving, and ranting against Catholics. She is blind, and refuses to admit to this fact, and is still acting out her "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" I can but pray for her soul, and that of my detractors, "Itchy Watch"......et. al. and reiterate:

Dominus Vobiscum, Omnipotens Deus have misericordia in vestri penuriosus animus

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Answer to OLL Bullitin Feb 6, 2011

I notice in the latest bulletin from OLL, that the Pastor is making an appeal to the congregation, to:
"inviting new members to join us. Or to "Bring Home", parishioners who may have drifted away over the years".
What part of," you drove them away", doesn't the Pastor understand? You destroyed the essence of the faithful of this parish, by your anger from uncovering the priest without faculties, that you had covered up for over 8 years, from St Thomas, to Our Lady of Lourdes parishes. This parish was a vibrant, thriving parish until you, for whatever reason you had, decided to rip apart this loving congregation.
And now you are looking for them to return to Our Lady of Lourdes? To what? An altar without the crucifix on it ? To the beloved statue given to us as a gift from pilgrims returning from Fatima being banished at one time in a closet?
A closed school? To a parking lot too small to hold the parishioners going to mass? To reduced confessions? To false teachings? To a pastor who doesn't say masses during the week, who doesn't hear confessions?It wasn't too long ago that the Pastor wanted to build a grotto,
facing Carmans Road. Was the parish flushed with so much money, that they could do that? Was it necessary for us to have a new Nativity for Christmas? Who complained about the old one?
FAITH, and Faith alone, will bring people back to the Catholic Church. Not the new progressive ideas, of turning the Catholic Church into a Protestant Church, but the returning back to the Catholic church as it had celebrated mass, with reverence To our Lord Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, as it had been celebrated
for over 2000 years. The Pastor did not want to listen to anyone that tried to contact him, as he did not want to listen to any criticism, or suggestion, from the Faithful of the parish, but instead listened, and pandered, to the progressives, who wanted instead to have their ears tickled, and to see dignitaries, who are pro-abortionists, receive holy communion, when our Pope had expressively stated that they should not.
No Msgr, you have no idea of the money you have lost, nor the amount of Parishioners, by your anger, and actions. Mathew Blockley was a lose cannon, and a lost priest, who should have had professional help within the church. Had his case been brought to light through the Bishop, and had the Bishop handled the matter, instead of you, taking it upon yourself to intercede, and not have him go back to Bishop Tomas Comacho, just maybe everything in the parish would have been dealt with ,in a loving, Catholic way. By dialogue and not angry actions. The actions taken against the faithful parishioners of Our Lady of Lourdes, are your responsibility. Whether ordered by you, or done without your knowledge, it is your job to oversee all that goes on in the Parish. If you are too busy with your TV, and Radio shows, to actively do your job, then Msgr, it is time to resign from the job of being the Pastor at Our Lady of Lourdes Parish.
My disdain, is not for a Pastor that made a mistake because of inability to understand, but from actions allowed to happen, with or without, your knowledge. As President Truman always said
"the Buck stops here" meaning he was responsible for anything under his charge. So too, should the Pastor of a parish, be responsible for all that happens in that parish. You can not run a parish from a long distance telephone call. Too bad you could not have learned that before coming to Our Lady of Lourdes. The Pastors job was accepted at that parish, and you should have done the job as it should have been done, by being in the parish to see to it that the parish is run by a caring Shepherd, that Pastors should be, leading the sheep safely home to our Lord.
Itzik

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

From the "New Catholic"

Let us defend Summorum Pontificum against the Trojan Horse

[Update: We will keep this up; all signs from different sources are aligning, and unexpected sources have confirmed our fears; the matter is too relevant to be kept in silence.]

[1014 GMT] Strange, violent, and dark forces wish to derail the application of Summorum Pontificum. Lawyers (and those who know lawyers...) and legislators are quite aware how this goes: a lower-ranking interpretive text so modifies the clear letter of the law that renders the latter ineffectual.


Reports from different sources suggest that ill-intentioned people within the highest ranks of the Holy See wish to use the clarification document on Summorum Pontificum as a Trojan Horse, emptying the motu proprio of all its content, especially regarding Parish Priests and other members of the diocesan clergy (see e.g. Messa in Latino). This is a dangerous, clear, and credible threat. We must pray, indeed, but all priests and lay faithful must act. All Catholic faithful must send urgent and respectful letters to the Holy Father, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Secretariat of State, the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei', and other authorities, asking the Holy Father and curial authorities to defend the clear letter of the motu proprio that gave us freedom and thanking once again the Holy Father for the gift that was Summorum Pontificum, including references to the personal improvement brought to one's Catholic life and family by the wider availability of the Traditional liturgy.



This is also a time for open letters to the Pope, from all concerned Catholic intellectuals, in Italy, in France, in Germany, in Britain, in America, and elsewhere. We must make our voices heard BEFORE the storm hits, and it may hit us very soon.

CFN interview with FR. Arnaud Rostand,SSPX

The cause of Apostasy. The wrong interpretation allowed by the Church.
CFN Interview with
Father Arnaud Rostand, SSPX
FR: The confidentiality of these discussions pertains essentially to the matter that is being examined. However, certain aspects of these discussions were made public. Bishop de Galarreta, the President of the Society of Saint Pius X’s commission, explained from the very beginning that these talks are on a doctrinal level and bear exclusively on the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium. Rome accepted also the Magisterium of the Church prior to Vatican II as the reference. It was for us a condition sine qua non for these discussions. So, we expose how the teaching of Vatican II is contradictory to what the Popes and Councils have expounded in the past, while they attempt to demonstrate that there is continuity.

Although everyone keeps the necessary confidentiality of these discussions, the positions of both parties are well known, and have even been publicly re-stated recently.

The Society of Saint Pius X continues faithfully to condemn the errors of Vatican II. Let me quote Bishop de Galarreta as an example among many: “We do clearly know what we are not disposed to accept. If we do not know perfectly how things may evolve, on the other hand, we do know clearly what we have no intention of doing under any circumstances: firstly, to yield on matters of doctrine, and secondly, to make a purely practical agreement.” (December, 19 2009) We stick to this course of action.

On the other hand, Msgr. Pozzo, the head of the Pontifical Commission, also publicly stated his position : holding on to Vatican II and defending the views of the Pope, Benedict XVI. Thus far, neither side has changed their point of view.

Despite that, we can already see some good fruits from these discussions: The first example I would give is the interest that is shown today in Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Last year, four books about the Archbishop were published in Europe, two in Italy, two in France! These studies, these publications, were not made by Society of Saint Pius X priests or faithful – they were written by what we may refer to as “outsiders” and most of them are in favor of, and defending the work of the Archbishop. This consideration is new and is an indirect result of these talks.


“If we do not know perfectly how things may evolve … we do know clearly what we have no intention of doing under any circumstances: firstly, to yield on matters of doctrine, and secondly, to make a purely practical agreement.” – Bishop Alphonse de Galarreta, SSPX.


Another example is the influence of the Society of Saint Pius X on more and more diocesan priests. For example, Bishop Fellay, in the conference referred to above, revealed that a quite large group of priests in Italy are regularly communicating with the Society. In the last meeting he attended, there were about thirty diocesan priests. What these priests expect from the Society of Saint Pius X is even more interesting. They beg us to give them doctrine; they entreat us to teach them the Catholic Doctrine. They realize they were not fed with sound and solid doctrine. This is very important. It is not just a question of the Latin Mass as the Ecclesia Dei Commission and the different fraternities under the Commission claim; it is really a question of doctrine. Diocesan priests realize that they were not taught the true doctrine and they have a thirst for it!

Two years ago, for the first time, a voice in Rome rose up to question the Second Vatican Council; Monsignor Gherardini wrote several articles and a book criticizing the Council. He demonstrates that the Second Vatican Council is not in continuity with the previous doctrine of the Church. On December 17, 2010 a bishop, Mgr. Schneider asked for a new Syllabus. In a conference in Rome, he denounced the wrong interpretations of Vatican II and proposed a list of propositions (a Syllabus) condemning “the errors of interpretation of Vatican II”. So, the solution he recommends to correct the actual situation of the Church is the use of the extraordinary Magisterium of the Pope, a solemn infallible declaration of the Pope to clear up the Council. This evolution is very interesting and it will go farther, because if the infallible Magisterium is necessary to clarify the Council, it means that, to say the least, it is ambiguous and therefore leads to errors regarding the Faith! This shift of the debate toward the doctrinal level is clearly happening, albeit at a slow pace. I believe that this is another effect of these doctrinal discussions.

The simple fact that we are able to discuss doctrine with Rome, even though it remains private, has resulted in some very important unforeseen effects. For us, it is just a question of firmness and patience.

The Society of St. Pius X rightly insists that the crisis in the Church is caused from the problems with the Second Vatican Council itself. Pope Benedict holds that the problem is not with the Council, but with a bad interpretation of the Council.
As mentioned above, the Society of Saint Pius X insists that the main cause of the internal crisis of the Church is Vatican II. We do not say that it is the only cause of the de-Christianization of the world today; the roots of the crisis started well before Vatican II, and Saint Pius X clearly saw the dangers many decades before the Council. Other factors cannot be excluded, such as the political actions of secularization, the separation of the Church and State, the immoral laws spread throughout the world and so on.

On the other hand, the Pope holds that only the interpretation of the Council went wrong. He affirms that there is no rupture between the teaching of the Church before and after Vatican II. There is continuity because there must be continuity!
(question)
So, is the Rome commission trying to “save” Vatican II? I would say no, they are not trying to save Vatican II; they are really convinced of Vatican II.
FR Arnaud:

I base my opinion on this matter only on their public declaration and not on the discussions themselves. These statements show that they do not yet admit that Vatican II is the real cause.

The line that Rome is following is that we must come back to the true interpretation of the Council, avoid the extremes, come back to the true spirit of the Council. They try to correct the excesses, the translation of “pro multis” for instance, or the “subsistit”, the communion in the hand or girls as altar servers… but there is no questioning of the principles behind these. So at the same time you still have actions that are far more serious and devastating for the Church, like the visit to the Synagogue, preaching in a protestant temple, the ecumenical “Week of Unity” and lately the announcement of Assisi III.

However, we can see an evolution in the analysis of the situation of the Church. The first step is to accept that there is a crisis in the Church, then to accept discussion about the Council, something impossible not long ago. The next step for them may be an attempt to “save” the Council and the last one, hopefully, will be to recognize that this crisis comes from the Council and therefore to correct the errors of the Council.

Behind the question of denouncing and rectifying the Council lies the question of the infallibility of the Pope. One of the major obstacles to questioning the Council is the problem of the Magisterium of the Church. They cannot accept that the Popes and the Council were wrong. How is it possible that the Church could be led astray in such a nearly universal way? The question is not new for us since it was raised from the beginning of the crisis, but the question seems to be new to them.

Before the First Vatican Council, Cardinal Newman expressed his apprehension about the declaration of the Pontifical infallibility. He did not doubt the truth of the dogma, that the Pope is the Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, he had no doubt that the Pope is infallible in certain conditions, but was concerned of the consequences if it was misunderstood. Today, could we say that he was a prophet? The infallibility of the Pope is not correctly understood and is used as a tool to obtain full compliance and submission on matters that do not fall under the conditions of the Church’s infallibility. The Second Vatican Council was a pastoral one, and not a dogmatic one. The Popes themselves made it clear that they did not have the intention to teach doctrine. There is no doubt that Vatican II was not an infallible teaching of the Church. It was made, however, a “super dogma”, a law that overruled all the past teaching.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Muslims/Nazi's alive and well in Bosnia

Members of the Bosnian Army's Handzar Division
After the defeat of the Axis in WWII, the British colonial government exiled the Muslim Brotherhood out of Egypt, and to Saudi Arabia.

"To keep them employed they were given jobs as religious education instructors," Loftus said.

Saudi Arabia, then as now, practices a radical of islam called Wahhabi.

"Saudi Wahhabism is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity," Loftus said. "It's an extreme and perverted form of religion that was condemned as a heresy by Islam more than 60 times before the 1900s."

"Here is this corrupt cult and all of a sudden the school teachers are Nazis. Here a fusion is born between the two. Schools of hatred were built all over Saudi Arabia," Loftus said.

A well known pupil of these schools is Osama bin Laden, Loftus said. Bin Laden and other graduates of the schools were inducted into an underground neo-Nazi Wahhabi army for Saudi Arabia.

Just as Russia was using Communist Arabs during the cold war, we would use Arab Nazis as a counterweight to oppose them," Loftus said. "When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 the Arab (neo) Nazis were let out of the closet.

"Because of the combination of Wahhabi fanaticism and Nazi ideology, waves of people came pouring into Afghanistan to kill the Communists," Loftus said. The Soviets were defeated and the United States left. And, according to Loftus, Osama bin Laden took control and his entire army of neo-Nazi theological cultists were left there alive in the field.

Bin Laden drew up a list of those who he knew he could rely on and called this list 'the base.' Loftus said the Arabic translation of 'the base' is 'al Qaida.'

"Al Qaida is the direct lineal descendant of the Arab Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood," he said. "We let the Muslim Brotherhood, now known as Al Qaida, to roam free upon the world. Many human beings have paid for that mistake.

(Source- From a speech by John Loftus, to mark Holocaust Remembrance Day, April 18)

Al-Qaeda/Nazi connection? What a surprise

Al-Qaeda is a direct descendant of the Moslem-Nazi Alliance

Tunisia is in a state of political shambles. Egypt doesn't know if the army is siding with the protestors against the Cairo police or if it's staying loyal to President Mubarak. Thousands are protesting in Jordan. There's talk of riots to soon break out in Yemen.

And what's the common thread? Something that the average American is quickly becoming familiar with -- The Muslim Brotherhood.

Seen above is a certain Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and close personal friend to Adolf Hitler, inspecting the all-moslem Nazi Handzar SS Division, which he was instrumental in founding.

Founding of the Muslim Brotherhood

In the 1920s, an Egyptian school teacher, Hassan al-Banna, gathered discontent Muslims to found the Muslim Brotherhood.

According to John Loftus, a former prosecutor with the US Justice Department, "Al-Banna formed this nationalist group called the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Banna was a devout admirer of Adolf Hitler and wrote to him frequently."

Loftus adds that Al-Banna was so persistent in his "admiration of the new Nazi Party that in the 1930s Al-Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood became a secret arm of Nazi Intelligence. With the goal of the Third Reich to develop the Muslim Brotherhood as an army inside Egypt."

While initial growth of the Muslim Brotherhood was moderate, the organization's membership rolls - coinciding with rising anti-Semitism in Europe -- by August 1938 had swelled to more than two hundred thousand members. By the end of World War II the Muslim Brotherhood had around half a million members.

Al-Banna idealized death also preached a love of death.

"To a nation that perfects the industry of death and which knows how to die nobly, God gives proud life in this world and eternal grace in the life to come" and "We are not afraid of death, we desire it... Let us die in redemption for Muslims," Al-Banna once wrote.

Does any of that sound familiar present day? Does "We love death more than you love life" ring a bell?

Direct contact with the Nazis

Another great admirer of Hitler was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, "went to Germany during the war and helped recruit an international SS division of Arab Nazis. They based it in Croatia and called it the Handzar Muslim Division, but it was to become the core of Hitler's new army of Arab fascists that would conquer the Arabian Peninsula and, from there, on to Africa--grand drea

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

To all good Catholics, who read my posts

Dear Brother,and Sisters in Jesus Christ.
I hope we all will be praying that our Pope Benedict XVI will once and for all explain away all of the misconceptions by the Bishops in the world. It is they, after all, who are responsible for the souls entrusted to them in the parishes, and to see to it, that the Pastors echo their teachings, and the Priests teach the congregations correctly. VTII Council was not designed to do away with the teachings that the Catholic Church had praticed for over 2000 years. The truths of the Church,
remain the same, and the VTII Council, has not changed that. The attempts by some Bishops, to Protestanize our faith, as a way of increasing attendance, has turned the Celebration of the mass, into a Heretic circus. Apostasy, has been reigning within our Church since VTII, and it is time that it is dealt with by our leaders, and set our Church back on the road to Jesus.
The Apostasy in the mass, has been insidious, but like a cancer, has taken hold of our Church, and spread to the point of our church slowly dying.
I am, like every one of us, JUST A SINNER, trying to do as much as I can for our Lord, to be considered a faithful servant. I pray that in all that I do, every day,
is the will of our Lord and Master, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is time for all that feel as I do, to speak out, or lose our Church to Apostasy.
Always in Jesus,
Itzik

A Letter to Michael Voris from a returning war Vet.

LETTER TO MICHAEL VORIS
IN DEFENCE OF CATHOLIC TRADITION
25 January 2011
Dear Mr. Voris
I would like to take the time to thank you for your most important work in defense
of our faith. I have recently returned from my third (combat tour) in Afghanistan
and now living in (the northern NJ area) where I am employed as a Sergeant for (a
large urban Police Department). Over the last few years I have had the opportunity
to study our faith in depth and be mentored by an array of traditionally minded and
Holy Priests from many orders and parishes. Coming from a Catholic family and a
traditional ethnic parish I was very fortunate to have a solid base that has allowed
me to find my way back to the one true Church.
As you well know the history, philosophy, tradition and culture of Catholicism is
one of the most exciting things on earth when presented in its proper form. Having
been a member of a small select military unit I can tell you that my peers, even the
staunchest protestants and pagans, become extremely interested and curious when
presented with traditional orthodox Catholicism. Many, even the Catholics I know,
have no idea what the Church and the Catholic faith REALLY is. I have for some
time been looking for a way to present it to them that would really peak their
interest and curiosity. As you know, and as GK Chesterton writes, to be presented
with the true faith is all that is needed and logic will do the rest.
I have found realcatholictv and St Michaels Media extremely helpful and have
been able to spread your excellent lectures throughout my military and law
enforcement community. Having said that, I would also like to discuss with you
some areas of concerns. Like you discuss in many of your lectures there is no
doubt that a counter Catholic element operating within the Church coupled with
the most despicable of cowardly and heretical Bishops have had a devastating
effect on the faith. As you acknowledge, Vatican II has been at the root of this
rupture and has given the liberals and heretics their mandate under their most ever
common war cry "the spirit of Vatican II". I believe part of this is a
misinterpretation of the council documents, which their ambiguity allows for if not
encourages. But most troubling is some of the documents themselves, especially as
they relate to collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty. Having studied the
encyclicals of Saintly Popes such as Leo XIII, Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius
XII, there is no doubt that many of the Post-Conciliar Popes are somewhat in
1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
conflict with and at times directly contradict their predecessors in these important
areas.
I am very thankful for all the positive things that Pope Benedict has done and
attempted to do during his pontificate. I continue to support and pray for him. But I
cannot help but see many inconstancies and slight touches of a dangerous element
of modernism in some of the positions he has taken. He is a great supporter of the
Traditional Mass but will not say one publically. He makes an example of giving
communion kneeling and on the tongue but allows other Priests at his Mass to
continue to distribute the Eucharist in the hand. He Allows Altar girls at some of
his Mass's and was recently photographed giving the Queen of Spain Communion
standing and in the hand. He is supposedly attempting the reform of the reform but
allows such outlandish and heretical orders such as the Neo-Catechumenists to
flourish. The latest inconsistency is his proposed trip to Assisi in October, which
for any true Catholic, can been seen as nothing less than scandalous. I know the
great challenges the Pope faces and I applaud the courage he has shown and I will
continue to pray for him but souls are at stake and I feel he needs to do much more.
Facts are facts and I feel the best way to support him is with truth.
Also of concern is the question of the liturgy. I do not dispute the validity of the
Novus Ordo Missal but as you probably well know it is none the less a
protestanized version of the Catholic Mass easily open to abuse and dangerous to
the Faith. You of course know the history and details behind all this so there is no
need to expound upon this subject. To me it is about the theology behind the two
Mass's and one does not have to be a Church Theologian to see the stark
difference. The new English liturgy is an improvement but the celebrant still faces
the people and the beautiful truly Catholic offertory prayers of the old missal are
still missing. When it comes to our Faith I am not interested in half measures.
Other then the question of the vernacular I feel the new liturgy does not go as far as
it should in providing for the MOST fitting of sacrifices for our divine King.
I now possess a constant thirst for the truth and defense of our faith and the more I
read. The more time I give to the study of past and current events within the
Church the more I cannot help but admire the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
and the Priests of SSPX. Although I attend Mass at the Chapels of The Fraternity
of St Peter, the Society of Christ the King, and my local parish, which offers the
traditional Mass, all of whom are greatly contributing to the hopeful restoration, I
cannot help but feel the greatest admiration for SSPX. They refuse to be relegated
to a side show within the Church and give a sense of truth and stability in a time of
constant inconsistency. Most importantly they back up their concerns and positions
by relying strictly on the 2000 year magisterium of the Church and the teachings of
the Popes prior to the Council. Like Saint Pius X, they combat such modernist
2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
views such as indifferentism and relativism by promoting Thomas Aquinas and
Thomism, as did Leo XIII. I believe that history has well proven that SSPX has
been the catalyst for the revival of the traditional Mass and a closer look at how
Vatican II effects the orthodoxy of our faith. To date the clearest account of the
real issues we face and the most profound book I have ever read on the subject is
"Open Letter to Confused Catholics" By Archbishop Lefebvre. The Bishop and
SSPX in the past and to this day continue to suffer persecution and are often
misunderstood. There are so many truly heretical and dangerous sects within the
church but it seems they are the only ones suppressed. In spite of this they have not
wavered and I believe that Pope Benedict himself is using the Society to help in the
reform of the modern Church.
I ask you to please continue your great work which is much needed. I also ask that
you please look closely at the true root of the problem. As Saint Pius X stressed in
his great encyclical Pascendi, modernism is the synthesis of all heresy's and by far
the most dangerous. By mixing truth with error it attacks the very root of the tree
by denying immutable truth exists. Please continue to support our Holy Father with
your clear and resonating message but also continue to challenge what is not of our
faith and support those like SSPX who, although vastly unpopular, refuse to
compromise on important issues of our faith and demand clarity. The traditional
Society's like the Fraternity of Saint Peter, are a great source of comfort for many
of the faithful. Like SSPX, they provide good and Holy Priests and present the
liturgy in its greatest form, but at the same time they are not able or willing to
challenging the serious issues still occurring in the Church. Nor do they have
Bishops of their own to support the future of these movements in favor of
Tradition.
To me it is simply astounding that you can attend two different Catholic Church's
in the same town and witness two different religions being presented. How are we
to convince our friends and family of where they need to be with examples like this
being permitted by the Bishops and in the end by the Vatican itself? In my unit,
which deals with the choices of life and death on a daily basis, all that does or does
not happen is the responsibility of the leader in charge. There are no excuses and in
the end the responsibility is all on the leader. The Crusaders and Martyrs literally
died for the faith why should we expect less from our current leaders in this time of
great crisis in the Church.
I will continue to spread your great work and message and willing to assist you in
any way I can.
A Cruce Salus
Francesco Nicholas Gaetano Rossi

Reflections on the Homily by Benedict XVI

Saturday, February 05, 2011
The Church: communion of all places and times.
Communion and collegiality must first and foremost
link bishops to Christ through the Apostles
The Pastor should not be like chaff driven by the wind, a servant of the spirit of the time. Being intrepid, having the courage to oppose the trends of the time, is essential to the task of the Pastor. He must not be chaff, but ... he must be like a tree that has deep roots, upon which it is solid and well grounded. This has nothing to do with the rigidity or inflexibility. Only where there is stability there is also growth. Cardinal Newman, whose path was marked by three conversions, says that living means transforming oneself. But his three conversions and the transformations that took place in them are, however, one consistent journey: the journey of obedience to the truth, to God, the true journey of continuity which in this way brings about progress. ...

"[The second pillar of the life of the Church is called communion by Saint Luke.] ...
Our communion is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Jn 1:1-4). God made himself visible and tangible for us and so has created a real communion with himself. We enter into communion through this belief and live together with those whom have been touched by Him. With them and through them, we too, in a certain way, see and touch the God who became close to us. Thus the horizontal and vertical are here inextricably intertwined with each other. By being in communion with the Apostles, by standing with them in faith, we ourselves are in contact with the living God. Dear friends, the purpose of the ministry of Bishops is that this chain of communion be not interrupted. This is the essence of apostolic succession: to preserve communion with those who have met the Lord in a visible and tangible way, and so keep Heaven open, God's presence among us. Only through communion with the Successors of the Apostles are we also in contact with the incarnate God. But the reverse is also true: only through communion with God, only through communion with Jesus Christ this chain of witnesses, stays together. One is never a Bishops on his own, says Vatican II, but always only in the College of Bishops. Therefore he cannot lock himself up in the time of his generation. The intertwining of all generations, the living Church of every age belongs to collegiality. You, dear Brothers, have the mission of preserving this Catholic communion. You know that the Lord appointed Saint Peter and his successors to be the centre of that community, the guarantors of being in the totality of apostolic communion and His faith. Offer your help so the joy of the great unity of the Church, the communion of all the places and times, so the community of faith that embraces the heavens and the earth will remain alive".
Benedict XVI
Homily
February 5, 2011

Friday, February 4, 2011

From the French no less!

February 3, 2011

French High Court Affirms Traditional Marriage
By Lauren Funk


PARIS, February 3 (C-FAM) A ruling in the homeland of “√©galit√©” last week found the French prohibition of same-sex marriage is in accord with the French constitution, effectively ruling that there is nothing unequal about upholding the definition of marriage as between man and woman.

The demand for “equality” is the hallmark of most national and international campaigns for homosexual rights, particularly those concerned with same-sex marriage. Discussions at the UN regarding sexual orientation are rife with references to equality and non-discrimination.

The French Constitutional Council is the nation’s highest authority on the constitution, and while it normally advises the government on the constitutionality of elections and laws, it also has authority to rule on constitutionality of individual cases brought to it by French citizens. This fall, the Council accepted the case of a lesbian couple that challenged the constitutionality of the French Civil Code (which identifies marriage between man and woman), claiming the exclusion of same-sex marriage violated a citizen’s right to lead a “normal family life” and the principle of equality before the law.

The Council ruled last Friday that because of the difference of situations between same-sex and heterosexual couples, the difference in treatment in family laws is justified and not in violation of the principle of equality. As for the right to a normal family life, the court found that the pacte civil de solidarit√©, a form of civil union that accords a plethora of legal, fiscal, and official benefits, is sufficient for a “normal family life.”

The Council refrained from commenting on same-sex marriage itself, stating it is a matter of politics, not law, to decide such an issue. The opposition government, France’s Socialist Party, has already promised to call for a vote on same-sex marriage in Parliament this summer.

Regardless of the parliament’s vote, there is a distinct possibility that activist groups will take the case to the European Court of Human Rights, in the hopes that the Court will challenge France’s decision. This past Tuesday, a UK-based advocacy group launched a campaign to get the European Court of Human Rights to overturn the UK’s ban on same sex marriage. A similar legal campaign may not be far off for France, since the case is “ripe for review by the Strasburg court,” according to Roger Kiska, Legal Counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund. However, he foresees no chance of the European Court of Human Rights being able to successfully challenge the Council’s decision.

According to Kiska, a same-sex marriage case was brought before the court already, which resulted in a ruling that it is “within a state’s margin of appreciation to decide upon its own family laws.” The French Council’s decision that the difference in treatment in family laws is justified falls within the “margin of appreciation” outlined in the European court’s ruling, and thus the Court should be unable to challenge France’s decision. With this in mind, and hopeful that the French Parliament will uphold traditional marriage when it inevitably comes to a vote, Kiska seems to be optimistic about the future of marriage legislation in this powerful European nation.

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Keep praying, and take action!

Senate bill could lead to overturn of Roe v. Wade
The possibility is real! Contact your senator today!
February 3, 2011


Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) is sponsoring the "Life at Conception Act" (S.91), which will define personhood from the moment of conception. Sen. Wicker has 13 co-sponsors thus far.

In Harry Blackmun's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, he wrote that "if personhood is established, the appellant's case (i.e., 'Roe'), of course collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] amendment."

Under S.91, a "human person" and a "human being" includes every individual "at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the moment of fertilization, cloning and other moment at which an individual...comes into being."

If this bill is enacted into law, it thus will not only provide protection for unborn babies, it will follow the path Justice Blackmun laid out 38 years ago for overturning Roe v. Wade, an act of judicial activism that has led to the deaths of 53 million infants before they have drawn their first breath.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) has introduced a parallel bill in the House (H.R.374) which currently has 53 co-sponsors.


(Call your Senators, and Congressmen, and urge them to sign on to this most important bill, I wonder what happened to the USCCB? Did they give up?)

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Down with the Health-care bill.

Court: No severability, no ObamaCare
Charlie Butts and Chris Woodward - OneNewsNow - 2/1/2011 7:40:00 AM

Supporters of ObamaCare might consider it just a bump in the road -- critics, however, likely view it as more of a huge pothole.


Another federal judge has said no to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ObamaCare"), declaring the individual mandate contained within it unconstitutional. In Pensacola yesterday, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled not only that it is wrong to require people to buy healthcare insurance, but also that that provision makes the entire law unconstitutional.

Jordan Sekulow is with the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), which filed an amicus brief in the Florida lawsuit representing 63 members of Congress and more than 70,000 Americans. "We [at the ACLJ] believe...that this is the most significant victory yet for those of us who are challenging ObamaCare," Sekulow states.

Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute contends Judge Vinson was right Monday when he struck down not just the individual mandate, but the entire law. He explains that the healthcare reform law lacks a severability clause.

"A severability clause is something that says that where one part of a contract or law is unconstitutional, the framers of it intend that the rest of it continue in force -- even if that provision is removed or struck down -- because they consider what's left over to be worth keeping," says Bader. "The healthcare law lacks anything like that."

Obamacare did originally have the clause, but Congress removed it before the bill was passed.

Several related cases are winding through appeals courts that likely will end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Sekulow predicts should the high court take on the cases, the vote would be close.

"...We know that the court has four very committed liberals who, I think, no doubt would probably hold this move by the federal government and the individual mandate constitutional," he opines. "But there [also] are four very conservative justices.

"And then [Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony] Kennedy, I think, will be the swing vote. But he leans very conservative, especially when it comes to the Commerce Clause."

If Sekulow's analysis is correct, the individual mandate -- and perhaps the entire healthcare reform law -- would be struck down.

The case could be sent to the nation's high court by this summer.

The whole problem with the Healthcare bill, is the way it was rushed through, and the action taken by the Demo-craps, Nancy Pewlousy, and Dingy Harry Reed. Because of that, they will cause the good in the bill, to be thrown out with the Bad. And in the end , they will still be forced to open up debate, and examine each item step by step.


My comments
Because of Obuma's need to flex his ego, and being so stupid and force the issue, he will wind up with Egg on his face, instead of the cheers he was looking for .That's OK Mr President, you can take another vacation, and get ready for another country to spit in the face of the United States of America, and bow down to their leader. Following in the foot-prints of his hero, President
Carter.