Highlight: Where Peter Is article on Sedevacantists and the SSPX

https://wherepeteris.com/getting-it-half-right-sedes-and-sspx/

A necessary, enlightening, and quality read for all those in Latin Mass/“Traddie land.”

Pax, Julian.

Wise Words and a Highlight from Bear of the Spirit's Sword Blog Re: Politics

Hello Everyone,

Eventually once you get into this blogging thing a while, combined with social media, you begin to gravitate to certain groups of like-minded bloggers and discover a few interesting friends along the way.

Once before, I've featured a blogger by the pseudoname of Bear, who runs the blog "The Spirit's Sword." Between some contribution and mutual interest in the Latin Mass/Catholic Tradition, along with supporting a fellow Catholic in their endeavours, I've come to be online friends with Bear, and found out he's even a local blogger! Cool.

Turns out that Bear is quite witty and wise about the world, bearing a different mind, one not so easily flabby like jello and subject to the world and its many foolish ideas and philosophies. Recently, Bear commented on his blog about our ongoing politics in Canada regarding the Euthanasia bill. 

Worst part of North American politics, is that it's essentially a two party, A or B, system, where even our "conservative" party at any level does not entirely endorse principles that line with our Catholic Faith.

In conversing with Bear about politics, I essentially asked, what does one do? Pick the lesser evil? Spoil a ballot in protest or do not vote? (an absolute NO! Think about living in a theocracy with militant enforcement like ISIS or Islamic state countries) Waste my vote on a 3rd party that won't be elected?

In reply to the question, Brother Bear (am I not witty? ha ha ha) had these wise words to say, and I firmly request that all of you, even non-Catholics who do lead virtuous lives or have some sense of practicality/political interest, take them to heart. I definitely nodded my head in firm agreement with a sense of awe at the truth of these words, with a nice little nod to C.S. Lewis:

"I have little advice or hope to offer you. We are, as CS Lewis pointed out, a kind of amphibian: we have one foot in the world and another in eternity. Politics is wholly of the world, and partakes of its corruption. The world and its prince are always against us. The Church itself has amply proved we are not to be trusted with power in this world. When we had power we didn't get a heaven on earth, we got the Borgias. 

Power does not merely corrupt, it draws the corrupt, like steel to a magnet. Our parties, be they as pure in intention as possible, will, when they begin to draw near to real power, draw in those who long for power, who are also exactly those who should never be given any. 

No one rooted in the world will wholly be on our side. No one in power will deal with us honestly. Our only duty in using our vote is to try to lessen the evils of the world. Not to embrace the lesser of two evils, for to embrace the lesser evil is to embrace evil, but to try and vote in a way that will lessen the evils the governments of Canada will bring upon us."

Wow. Well said Bear. I hope that the rest of you readers will also see the profound wisdom in Bear's words. 

Pax, Julian. 

P.S. Interested in more of Bear's way with words? Bear has put their word-smithing talents towards some online e-books, one a script about how Shakespeare should truly be taught, in a delightful and humorous manner, and the other a novel that adds Bear's father's war stories/living in the Era of the Great Depression into an interesting narrative. The novels are called "27 and a 1/2 Short Plays about William Shakespeare" and "Ruminations of a Miserable Failure." Click on the web links attached to each book title and download them for your literary pleasure. I highly encourage you to download these e-books and support this fine author (and in turn, his solid Catholic family. Support a Catholic brother!)

Highlight: Fr. Longenecker Shows You How to Identify an Enemy of the Faith: The Radical Traditionalist. AKA Protestant who is "Legally" Catholic

Hello Everyone,

I realize I have been snoozing away at blogging here on Servimus. I've been busy between my other minsitry activities as well as my wedding preparations, with only two short months away. The date is set for May 14, 2016. Please everyone, pray for us both, as the Devil is seriously trying to wreck things for us, now and for our future, and sometimes I feel he is using anything and even anyone in my vicinity as pawns to destroy us.

Anyways, I know a few people do read this blog or check it every so often, so to keep things fresh, I'll feature a "highlight" of one of my favourite blogs, "Standing on my Head" under Fr. Longenecker. This priest thankfully is orthodox, and detest Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalists. This priest is even hated right now by the so-called "true remnant" of the Church because he has respectfully called out the Godless and amoral man that may possibly be the United States' next president, Donald Trump. Unfortunately, in hypocritical and commandment violating action, the RMTs have made Mr. Trump their newest "golden calf" to idol worship, over the Lord Jesus Christ. They think Trump will be some kind of saviour against "those damn Lie-berals" in the church and society, and he's a bully and loudmouth just like them.

Now, what I am featuring is Fr.'s latest article, which is a top ten list of vile and I daresay, Protestant and Satanic behaviours that these RMTs exhibit. Seriously, suck this in and take note, because if you don't know what constitutes an RMT, you will know. With this handy list, you will now know that if you see these actions, who one is.

I'll leave it up to you when you do identify an RMT, if you even dare to try and employ fraternal correction or counsel of these wayward brothers, frequently displaying little to no mercy or reception to spiritual counsel. They abhor mercy and it's current minster of proclamation, Pope Francis. More likely, this list will help you to know who to stay away from, as they are spiritually damaging the souls of the faithful from within the Church (including you.) As arbiters of the Devil's works (unwillingly, or maybe even willingly???) the RMTs rightfully deserve to be isolated and ignored in the Faith when not adhering to the teachings of the Catholic Church and virtue, and if necessary, need to be policed spiritually, and/or civilly/criminally to stop malicious behaviour.

Enjoy from the words of Fr. Dwight Longenecker. Pax, Julian.

Source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/ten-traits-of-catholic-fundamentalism

Ten Traits of Catholic Fundamentalism

March 7, 2016 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker

Within Catholic ultra traditionalist circles a new wave of ugliness has arisen. Numerous traditionalist blogs, websites and publications spew disrespectful hatred towards the Catholic church. They mock the Mass by despising the “Novus Ordo” they denigrate the Holy Father referring to him as “Pope Frank” or “Bergoglio” and refer to their mother the Catholic Church with adolescent disrespect as “FrancisChurch”.

I avoid commenting on the filth because, why wallow in sewage? I’m not going to link to the aggregators and websites in question because if you’re interested all you have to do is snoop around a little and follow a few links. You’ll see how they lie, misrepresent and tear down fellow Catholics, how these self appointed prophets ridicule, gossip and slander their fathers in God, and how these self righteous, pretentious Pharisees vomit their bile on all they meet.

It is pointless to ever argue with these people because they are always right. They have no true repentance in their hearts, but are driven by the worst kind of pride: spiritual pride.

Instead of arguing I would like to point out what is going on. First of all, I think it is unfair to use the term “traditionalist” for these people because it pulls down the many good, sensible and holy Catholics who are traditionalist by nature and by their devotions and worship. These people are my friends and family. I am on their side.

They work hard for the church. They live their faith. They build up their families and their parishes in the faith. These good folks deserve to keep the term “traditionalist” and to honor it with their good, strong, faithful and humble Catholicism.

We should separate the paranoid hate mongers from the rest of the traditionalists. They are not traditionalists. They are Protestant fundamentalists wearing traditionalist Catholic clothes.

I know about Protestant fundamentalism. I was raised and educated among Protestant fundamentalists. Among them were many good and sincere Christian people, but also among them, and driving their religion–was a certain type of religious person whose attitudes mirror exactly the Catholic fundamentalists on the rise today.

Here are ten principles things that connect them:

1. Private Interpretation – Protestant fundamentalists rely on their own private selection and interpretation of the Scriptures. Their interpretation is always the right one. Catholic fundamentalists rely on their own selection and interpretation of church documents. Like the Protestant fundamentalists they know better than the Pope.
2. Cafeteria Christianity – The Protestant fundamentalist picks and chooses which parts of the Bible he wants to adhere to. Catholic fundamentalists do the same. They pick which parts of Catholicism they consider “authentic” and ignore or denigrate the rest.
3. Private Prophets – Protestant fundamentalists alway raise up their own preachers and prophets. Mini demagogues–they cultivate a celebrity status and promote them as infallible mini popes. Catholic fundamentalists fall down before their own prophets and preachers who they also raise to a status of authority that supersedes the bishops and even the Holy Father.
4. Fortress Mentality – Protestant fundamentalism thrives on the fortress mentality. The little group gets together and builds walls and peers over them at al the “sinners” who are outside the enclave. Catholic fundamentalists practice the same ghetto mentality. “We few, we faithful few!” We are the Remnant of faithful ones who remain. Their response to this blog post, for instance, will be to retreat further into their self made holy fortress and throw stones over the parapet at me–not addressing my points, but resorting to name calling.

5. Invincible Self Righteousness – Protestant fundamentalists are totally convinced they are right.  There is no argument or discussion. Catholic fundamentalists are the same. The have their proof texts. They have their watertight world view. No discussion. No dialogue. It’s their way or the highway. Their response to this blog post will prove my point, for the ones to whom I am referring will not engage my points, but dismiss me and my message.

6. Anger and Violence Fundamentalism is always tinged with anger. There’s no sense of humor here. There’s no joy. There’s no laughter. Especially there is no sense of humor about themselves. Fundamentalists are angry and aggressive, and given enough rope they will move from verbal violence to physical violence. The Catholic fundamentalists who bother to read this far and react in anger to this blog post, for example, will prove my point and they will not even be able to see this themselves.

7. Fear and Loathing Protestant fundamentalists are fueled by fear and loathing. Catholic fundamentalists are the same. There is little light, joy, peace and confidence in their lives. Instead life is narrowed down by fear and loathing. Where there is fear there is darkness.
8. Suspicion and Separation Those who are outside the group are the sinners and suspect ones, but those who seem to be inside the group, but do not share the group think are suspected even more. The only ones who are worse than the sinners outside are the sinners inside the fortress. Therefore everyone inside must conform constantly, and anyone who steps outside the rules or exhibits the wrong attitude will soon be shunned, then excluded.
9. Conspiracy Theories – the atmosphere of suspicion and fear inevitably breeds conspiracy theories. The big, dark nefarious secret powers are always thought to be behind the scenes planning some sort of hostile attack on the select few of the faithful.
10. Persecution complex Fundamentalists do just about everything possible to make themselves obnoxious and unlikeable, then when people dislike them or get down on them they love to play the persecuted victim. It is almost as if they are not only looking for persecution, but are anticipating it with a sick kind of thrill.

Why take time to analyze these ten principles? Because what we see in the extreme religious behaviors of fundamentalists is not limited to Protestants or Catholics. It is actually the sick form of any religion. There are fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist Hindus, fundamentalist Jews, fundamentalist Mormons.

You name it. This is the form of religion that is a kind of anti-religion.

Furthermore, as we approach Holy Week, remember that it was this kind of religion which drove the Scribes and Pharisees who eventually scapegoated Jesus and made sure he was killed.

Finally, the analysis is not just a critique of fundamentalists. It should be a sober critique of all Christians because all of us, at one point or another, if we are not careful and prayerful, will fall into these traps to a greater or lesser extent.

I know what I’m talking about because, on my worst days, I see that kind of Catholic looking back at me from the mirror.

Highlight: "Traditional Catholic" Rant of the Day, Courtesy of Terry of Abbey Roads

Hello Everyone,

May the Lord bless you on this, boring old, sickly green, 3rd Sunday in Ordinary Time in the "nervous disorder" ..... (High tradmaster stares angrily at me with his lawyer, and his counsel points to a legal paper .... gulp!) .... AHEM! Sorry, I meant the Septugesima Sunday of the year of 2016. For a minute there, the "Spirit" of Vatican II possessed me, Ha Ha Ha!

Anyways, moving on, it seems that we are all in a state of gloom and despair, my Traddie brethen. Many of you seemingly want to abandon Holy Mother Church because our most "fluffiest pope evuh" to quote Trad Hero Fr. Z, has decided that in his whole mercy thing, to make a change to Church Law. He gave that "nice" executive order to Cardinal Robert Sarah of the Congregation of Divine Worship, that the foot-washing para-liturgy (bull excrement, it's not part of the TRUE liturgy) in the Holy Triduum for the Nervous Disorder, be open to all believers, including, women.

GASP!!!! What diabolical-ness!!!! Women in the Sanctuary again!!! Blech!! As if female altar servers and those extra, unnecessary Communion defilers with soiled and unconsecrated hands were not enough!!!

But fear not, my "Neo-Pelagian" friends!!! For I bring you good cheer!!! A young man, by the name of Terry at the blog "Abbey Roads" has turned totally Trad today!!!! Turns out he is a police officer of the Catholic Church liturgical police force!!! Today he gives us his report while on his usual rounds among his confreres at the March For Life!!! And boy did he rake in those sin tickets!!!!

So many liturgical abuses were caught by our dutiful officer!!! Hurrah, finally someone is enforcing Church law and bringing those violators of Christ to justice!!! Now if only he could arrest Justin Trudeau for heresy and declare him excommunicated in a Church court of law, ha ha ha!!!

Anyways, my Traddie brethen, for your hope and joy, here is officer Nelson's report:
http://abbey-roads.blogspot.ca/2016/01/snowy-novus-ordo-mass-on-turnpike.html

So remember my friends, there is always hope. Keep up the good work, only attend the Latin Mass because of examples like above, and we will win in the end, since the rest of the Church embraces sterility and banal on the spot products that pass for "worship."

Pax Tibi Christi, fratres et sorores. Julius Alexandrius Barkinius. Ianuarius viginti quattuor, MMXVI.

Highlight: Elizabeth Scalia, The "Anchorress" Counters the Slanderers and Quasi-Schismatics Who Say Pope Francis is Trad Bashing Again!

Hello Everyone,

If someone you know today is a:

• Radical who Misrepresents Traditionalists everywhere, 
• A Pope Francis hater, (different from being just "uncomfortable" with his mannerisms and choice of language in conveying the message)
• A "quasi-schismatic" (as defined by Dave Armstrong) who has truly abandoned Holy Mother Church in mind, body, and soul, but sticks around for the pomp and circumstance of fancy vestments and Latin Masses, afterwards feeling spiritually superior to the "simple" Novus Ordo Catholic they think is the rest of the Church, or
• Just a negative person, etc.

Then they likely woke up to hear another excellent homily of Pope Francis from the Casa Sancta Marta today about being "spiritually open." In typical spiritual pride, conspiracy alert mode, Francis the modernist bashing mode, etc., they then took to their smartphones and social media, and decided to commit more acts of the Devil (e.g. gossip), or perhaps slander and calumny, because once again, "Francis hates traditional Catholics and is evil and wants to destroy the Church. He hates Jesus and is the meanest pope evuh.... wah wah wah ... blah blah blah .... calumny, detraction, slander ....."

(Ha ha. I took a page out of Fr. Z's book.)

Well, allow me to dispel your unfortunate friend's tirades of hate and anti-Catholicism. If they told you that Francis once again went on a hate tirade to wipe the Church of Traditionalists, and they've vowed to be obstinate in their hatred, they are wrong in action and their interpretation of such a homily. 

Or should I say, allow me to feature someone who is much more versed in depth of the Catholic faith, and a professional author and writer on the TRUE Catholic blog-o-sphere and in Catholic newspapers, Mrs. Elizabeth Scalia of "The Anchoress" blog. Today, she writes on the Conservative Catholic or Christian web portal, Aletelia, to counter the fury caused by the Catholic blog-o-sphere of darkness. 

Being a short opinion article, it shall be posted in full. 

Pax, Julian. 

SOURCE: http://aleteia.org/2016/01/18/nothing-grows-in-no-pope-francis-on-the-idolatry-of-ideas/

Opinion  

Nothing Grows in “No”: Pope Francis on the Idolatry of Ideas. Pope urges resistance to the god of "but we’ve always done it this way.”

Elizabeth Scalia  

• January 18, 2016

   

During his homily at Mass today, Pope Francis said:

“Christians who obstinately maintain ‘it’s always been done this way,’ this is the path, this is the street—they sin: the sin of divination. It’s as if they went about by guessing: ‘What has been said and what doesn’t change is what’s important; what I hear—from myself and my closed heart—more than the Word of the Lord.’ Obstinacy is also the sin of idolatry: the Christian who is obstinate sins! [And damned do they. They commit the most Deadliest Sin: The Sin of Pride, taking after their real "god", Satan himself, who told God the ancient equivalent of a middle-fingered salute, "NON SERVIAM!"]The sin of idolatry. ‘And what is the way, Father?’ Open the heart to the Holy Spirit, discern what is the will of God.”

Around the Internet there have some negative responses to these words, particularly by those who feel like Catholic traditions are under attack, but I can’t help wondering if some aren’t missing the pope’s point which is one I made in my book, Strange Gods: Unmasking the Idols in Everyday Life:

"We cling to ideas long past the point of what is healthy or reasonable, and we set them before us, daring anyone to knock them down. I once heard a new pastor complain about a dreaded first meeting with his pastoral team and liturgy committee. “In every parish,” he sighed, “the first thing they want a priest to do is bow down to the god of ‘but we’ve always done it this way.’” 

When we are too fast to say “no” — especially if we are entrenched in a bunker-mentality that said, “but this is the way we have always done it…” we cannot help but benumb ourselves to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. And that’s all His Holiness is saying. “But this is the way we have always done it…” shuts the door to Joseph accepting a wife carrying a child not his own; “the way we’ve always done it,” would prevent the church from taking careful looks at who it elevates to canonical sainthood; “the way we’ve always done it” prevents Pope Pius X from advocating for the reception of Holy Communion by children; “the way we’ve always done it,” means no female doctors of the church.

Nothing grows in “no.” Especially not a church, or the life of faith. [Including bringing those "simple" Novus Ordo Catholics that collectively are shunned by these Radicals, to the Latin Mass that they value so much.]

Pope Francis words seem less a call for revolution than a frustrated cry of “ephphatha be opened”! He is prompting us to make sure we leave enough room in our lives, and in the life of the church, to give the Holy Spirit — who has a way of using the most confounding events and people to bring about God’s will — the room to move, and flow, and put God’s purposes to action. As the great saint, Philip Neri reminds us [of whom the Oratory of St. Phillip Neri in Toronto holds the Latin Mass], “All of God’s purposes are to the good, although we may not always understand this we can trust in it.”

Highlight: Patheos Blogger Fr. Longenecker on Pope Francis' Latest Speech Against "Fundamentalists" from the Africa Plane Interview

Fr. Longenecker of Patheos, a convert priest from High Anglicanism, who is "Standing on [his] Head," a well balanced one, takes on the Pope's interview from the plane going back to Rome from Africa, when he made the "fundamentalist" comment, which has made numerous Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalists be so blind to not accept this fraternal correction.

Listen to the better, more rational voices out there people, not those with vendettas against Holy Mother Church, and slick venomous words akin to the Devil's twisting of truths into wicked lies. See here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/12/is-fundamentalism-a-sickness.html

But for those who wants the meat and potatoes version:

".... I agree. Fundamentalism is a sickness, but that depends of your definition of fundamentalism.

I’d say fundamentalism has several characteristics. First is an extreme literalism about religion and religious texts and teachings. This is also combined with legalism–in which adherence to the moral code and strict rules become the be all and end all of the religion. Thirdly, fundamentalism is also marked by a tendency to paranoia, blaming others and eventually scapegoating others. Fourthly, fundamentalism has a fortress mentality in which those on the inside are the true, right and righteous believers. Those on the outside are infidels, apostates, heretics, the damned and the lost. Fifthly, fundamentalism is, as a result of all this, an unhappy, frightened and often angry place to be.

OK. That’s done. Fundamentalism is a sickness...."

See the link for more. Oh, and those Lie-berals a.k.a. "progressives" are not given a free pass. Fr. Longenecker calls out their shenanigans too.

Pax, Julian.

Highlight: Terry at Abbey Roads Strikes Hard!!! The Latin Mass, Cardinal Burke, etc. Are Not THE Sole Solution to Getting Men to Mass

Hello Everyone,

I just caught a great post from awesome blogger Terry Nelson at Abbey Roads. Today, he reflects on his daily morning Novus Ordo Mass as well as his past, and tells the reader about what attracts men to Mass. I repost the following post below, with bolded highlights and my red colour commentary. Pax, Julian.

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Men at church ...

Seemed like old times.

The first parish I ever registered at was St. Olaf in Downtown Minneapolis - that was in the 1980's.  I was able to make it to morning Mass there today - the first Mass at 7 AM.  Fr. Kennedy celebrated the Mass - seemed like old times because he was newly ordained when I first started going there way back when, for adoration on Thursdays.  That was the olden days in the early 1970's - shortly after my conversion, when hardly any church still had exposition all day - which was usually on Fridays - as at Assumption in St. Paul.  Fr. Kennedy always had the reputation of a more 'liberal' priest but I always found him orthodox in homilies and confession.  This morning it could have been the Pope giving the homily ... it was excellent. [Get it you Pharisees? This supposed "liberal" priest may not be that cookie cutter Cardinal Burke priest you want, but when it comes to the essentials of the faith including MASS, he says the black, and does the red. While it's great to bring priests to further orthodoxy with kindness and encouragement, we should shut up if they are "doing their duty" and not scandalizing the faithful.]

Notably, the chapel was fairly full for such an early Mass, mostly businessmen in their 30's or 40's, a few older guys, and what seemed to be downtowners - people who live someplace downtown.  Like I said - there were mostly men.  Everyone knelt for the Eucharistic prayer and at the Agnus Dei.  After communion I don't know what happened.   I mention this because there is a lot of talk that men don't go to Mass.  Just because men were at Mass this morning - and most likely every morning noon and evening at St. Olaf, doesn't mean that observation is wrong of course - but it does indicate to me that men really do go to Mass.

Mass this morning was not effeminate.  Fr. Kennedy is a 'manly man' and a serious minded priest and Mass was celebrated according to the rubrics.  The men at early Mass seemed like manly men as well.  I wasn't on watch there, but I took in the crowd.  I prayed and participated in Mass - I simply noticed who was there, what was going on, aware of my surroundings - not looking for errors or lack of formality.

St. Olaf

Here's the deal.

I think.

Men go to Mass when they believe, when their faith is living, when Mass is straight forward - and straight plays a big part in that - like honesty.

It seemed like old times to me - the daily Mass goers downtown have a living faith - they are not there because of an obligation, nor does their faith depend on the person of the priest - downtown churches get a variety of substitutes during the week.  Downtown parishes host a huge diversity of persons.  It's a microcosm of the Church I think.  It's as different from my rich parish in South Minneapolis, as my parish is to the FSSP parish in North Minneapolis, or the traditionalist 'Remnant' parish in South St. Paul.

There is a distinct freedom of spirit in a living body. 

Love casts out all fear.

Years ago when I got caught up in the fear mongering which trails ultra conservative trad-minded Catholics, I ran into a priest at a store I worked at and he asked, "What the hell happened to you?"  He asked in passing because he was in a hurry to get out of the store we were in, and I laughed and said, "What?"  I just thought he meant I'd gotten a bit older or something.  But now I know what he meant.  He assumed I'd gone 'back' - that I was one of those people who wanted everything to go back to tradition.  I never had.  But I worked in a milieu he associated with the St. Agnes cult he had warned me years ago to avoid.  And there I was.

I haven't seen him since, but I'd like him to know nothing happened to me.  I'm just fine.  I never rejected Vatican II or the Ordinary Form of Mass.  This morning reminded me of all that.

I kind of think most men don't go to Mass because they don't like church-lady-talk, Mass chat, coffee and donuts gossip.  They're not into the Fellini ecclesiastical fashion show of vestments, and grand style.  Some may like it - some may not. [Get it guys and gals? We don't want stupid cutesy social hours or crap on the altar, that belittles the Holy Mass. Listen, a parish social every month or so is not bad for getting to know your parishioners and see old friends, and it's great to BOOST community, but that should not be a primary focus with a falsely misleading label of "evangelization" slapped on it. Other Christian churches have those too, and they attract more converts and ex-Catholics, so something is there beyond the socials. 

At the same time, those of you who love liturgy and the Latin Mass too much, you think that ALL people will go nuts over the smells and bells, and cappa magna worn by prelates like Cardinal Burke et al? No. You have missed the point, as described above. It's the NO NONESENSE, clear teaching of the faith as part of the Liturgy that attracts people to Mass, especially men, NOT SOLELY the things they see or the prelates wear. Most people don't give two cares about the cappa magnas and stuff. They are not liturgy freaks like some of you. Get thisin your mind: FEW PEOPLE CARE ABOUT VESTMENTS, SPECIFIC PATTERNS, CAPPA MAGNAs, ETC. 

Now, this doesn't mean that we should have those ugly spaceship/barn churches with vestments and banners that look like they were designed by middle school children, and were maybe fine in our school years. We should at least have proper gear and wares and such that respect the liturgy at its basest level.

The main point is this: BALANCE. Not too disgusting, and not too much femininely designed gear and events at Mass an in the Church, but not the other extreme of pompousness and everything dressed up like the Palace in Versailles. Neither extreme attracts people, especially men to the Church.]

In my neighborhood, a lot of guys stopped going to church because of the bishop scandal - which included gay priests and teen boys, adulterous priests and parish secretaries and or female penitents, as well as billions of dollars of payouts in legal funds.  That erodes trust - one guy down the street will probably never step in a Catholic church again.  I also don't think most guys are all that interested in talk show apologists, dressed up in safari outfits, or talking like post-game wrap-up commentators. [Now this is interesting. Part of what has gotten people back to a sense of the Church and Mass, that is, those who are "on fire" for their faith, IS professional apologists, such as Keating and his Catholic Answers, and these speakers such as Scott Hahn, Jimmy Akin, Matthew Kelly (who is Australian, and the one I am assuming Terry is pointing out,) Tim Staples, etc. I think that Terry is partially wrong in his assessment. He might be right in that it's not bringing in the Masses, but to me these speakers have contributed to helping establish the "New Evangelization" generation base that now is starting to do ministry in the Church. CONVERSION EN MASSE???? No, that's what I agree on with Terry. I do not agree with his statement flat out and it needs qualifiers or re-wording.] Going after men doesn't need to involve chest bumps and back slapping stereotypical imitations of successful mainstream media pop-culture marketing.  I don't think you have to try to sell men on masculinity with another spokesman in lace and red satin talking about how feminized men have become. [Here I think Terry is tackling the two extremes of Bishop Robert Barron and definitely Cardinal Raymond Burke, who in the blogosphere is famous (or notorious???) for that interview about the man crisis in the Church. With +Barron, the focus is on products, popular advertisments, videos, etc. He is in no way doing the bro-fist or the chest bumps or trying to speak like a teenager, but I get Terry's point. 

As for ++Burke, Terry is 200% correct. The way that the Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalists worship the lace and cappa magna loving prelate who does Pontifical Masses, is sickening. Isn't there a passage in Scripture about NOT worshiping Princes in the Church or society??? Furthermore, it is clear in ++Burke's interviews and the sides he has taken not only on Church issues, but on other personal "Trad Issues," (e.g. Catholics suing Catholics, Men in the Church,) that they are the Radically Traditionalist side in favour of that, with no proper evaluation and balanced analysis of all sides and information on those matters. ++Burke sadly is doing no favour to Traditionalists, and clearly his reputation for what he is doing has earned him a ticket out of the Vatican's inner circle, and he will NEVER become Pope as long as he lives with the Post-Vatican II generation of current Cardinals (I am confident in that.) If anything, yes he ++Burke has been blunt on the issues at hand, but he has done so in a way that he will never gain the trust of the regular Catholic populace and his fellow clergymen, and even more so he is creating an atmosphere of distrust of the Papacy, one whereby those who are "orthodox" may be spiritually tempted in their admiration of the Cardinal (despite HIS blunt upholding of Catholic doctrine, which we can give HIM the benefit of the doubt) to rebel against Holy Mother Church and self-schism one's self to Hell lest they die. Also, like the issue of the fancy lace and clothes issue above .... people have been trained in Modern Catholic society to scoff at that stuff. Benedict got away with it being the Pope, but with Francis in charge, it's back to normal. Again ... most NORMAL people, NOT those in love with the Latin Mass, do NOT CARE about fancy vestments. The association of that with a "disappointed" , Francis-clashing prelate, gives a BAD reputation, and most Catholics will NOT be motivated by ++Burke to think positively of the Church, or of even the Novus Ordo Mass. Nevermind the Latin Mass, which he does frequently, so the TLM gets even more unfair knocks thrown its way.]

I might be wrong - but I don't think evangelization is the same thing as marketing. 

This anti-Pope thing is so not going to attract more men to Mass either.  Talking about the pope and the church in political terms doesn't work.  I think most ordinary guys think this pope is great.  I know non-religious people do.  I'm no expert - just speculating here. [Men are just plain sick of politics interfering with the Church, from the top above, even down to the local parish level. I currently have fully disassociated with one parish, and mostly with another, because of this garbage. However the RMTs also ruin things by lashing out against Francis, when he is clearly NOT committing heresy. If people cannot even respect their highest leader, the one who is supposed to be the Vicar of Christ on Earth with HIS divine authority in matters of faith and morals, then why bother even being a part of the Church? They can get all that in their own religion or local community Christian church of whatever denomination.]

I don't know.  Like I said, I'm probably wrong. [No Terry, You are quite right about all this. It's the sick RMTs that do not get it. You have gladly spoken on behalf of the normal, Catholic man. It was raw, true, and from the heart and proudly expressed the TRUTH of the matter.]

It was good to experience downtown again - I miss it in a way.  I realized something did happen to me - in some ways, I am different today.

BTW - I never resign St. Olaf's, just stopped going downtown, and they stopped sending me newsletters.  I was actually 'involved' with the parish - unusual for me because I don't usually get involved with church people.  The people I knew weren't there this morning, and so I expect everyone has moved on or away.  Nothing stays the same.  You can't go back.

I'm just a single Catholic man.

This may be the appropriate to replace a comment from an earlier post discussing Pope Francis.  Today I realized not everyone has a negative opinion of him - thanks be to God.

Yesterday I wrote: I must be an idiot - I just don't see Francis abandoning Catholic teaching. I see him as consistent with his predecessors - a lot more frank and talkative, to be sure, but I do not feel my faith is in the balance because of him. Actually when he calls out Pharisees and the hypocrites I've taken it to heart - I totally accuse myself. If it wasn't so indiscreet to do it, I would proclaim my sins online - just to prove it. Rather than feel put down by the Pope, I feel his call to repentance and reconciliation - to drink deeply at the font of Mercy. I'm not just saying that either.

"If a good man reproves me, it is kindness."

My first waking thought every day is prayer - it is hours later that I even check online - my spiritual life comes first.  Neither do I check what the pope has said every day.  It isn't my first priority. I avoid those who 'report' on what he said, or how he said it. I believe only what is confirmed by Vatican authority, and if I don't understand it, it isn't for me.

I understand that a priest or director may have need to know what he said, what he meant, to refute what gossip media reports, so I pray for priests.

Personally, I just keep thinking that finally I have a pope, a father who understands me - who understands the outsider - the freak. I don't have to try to fit in with any faction because he welcomes the stranger. [BAM!!!! Pope Francis' mission IS Working!!!! The Church is for everyone, you purist prudes! Christ's Church is Catholic, meaning universal, that includes the freaks! No we don't condone their sins, but we bring them in to give them a greater light in their lives!!! ] 

If I feel like that think, of all the people who feel excluded from the Church now feel. Think of all the ordinary people who don't identify with the liturgical class wars and politics. There is hope after all for all the prodigals - while our elder brothers grumble because they have always been good and never wasted their lives on prostitutes.

I can't make excuses for the pope or church people - so that is not my intention here.  

I've been steeped in sin since birth - so I dare not try to instruct anyone.  Pay no attention to me.

I've always taken my cues from the Church - especially the Pope - be it Francis, Benedict, JPI and II, Paul VI and so on.

It's none of my business who is or who is not in church, any more than it is my business or under my control, who goes to communion or who does not go to communion.

I only have to make sure I go to Mass and I'm able to receive.

Highlight: Arnobius of Sicca Has His Head on Straight about the France Terrorist Attacks!

Hello Everyone,

Time to display something somewhat more better on Servimus. Better in that it isn't an in your face grave warning with demonic warning stuff in it, though my warning from my last post was necessary and a help to the Latin Mass Society of Canada.

Allow me the pleasure to highlight a posting from Arnobius of Sicca, who best speaks about the proper Catholic conduct to approaching the terrorist attacks on France, instead of the bloodthirsty ramblings of Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalists who want to justify mass genocide on the Muslims, just like ISIS.

As usual, I will boldface important points of note. The font was pasted in plain text and put in my usual "quoting" font of "courier," as straight cut and paste blocked some of the writing above.

Pax, Julian.


Saturday, November 14, 2015

If We Compromise Our Own Morality, We Become Like Them

The terrorists attacks in Paris were a terrible thing. That is undeniable. It also seems we cannot put off the task of opposing ISIS any longer. It seems nobody is debating these things. Even the Holy Father has condemned these attacks. [So stop calling the Holy father a pacifist and a weakling or heretic, or implying such if not directly written. The "Piecemeal World War III" comment IS his condemnation and his call to face this moral evil.]So we’re all on the same page that what we are discussing. But I am seeing some of my fellow Catholics say things that seem to indicate that they think that the fact that these terrorists have done evil means we can do anything we want to them and it will be justified. [a.k.a. "Justifiable killing."] We must realize that any military response to these terrorists requires us to behave according to our moral beliefs about war. That’s common sense. If we decide “anything goes,” then we really have nothing to say to the terrorists who already use “anything goes” as their tactic. 

The Catholic Church has a lot to say on the topic of Just War:

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: (2243; 1897)
— the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
— all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
— there must be serious prospects of success;
— the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 556.

The Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church, says something very similar:

500. A war of aggression is intrinsically immoral. In the tragic case where such a war breaks out, leaders of the State that has been attacked have the right and the duty to organize a defence even using the force of arms. To be licit, the use of force must correspond to certain strict conditions: “the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the ‘just war’ doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good”.

If this responsibility justifies the possession of sufficient means to exercise this right to defence, States still have the obligation to do everything possible “to ensure that the conditions of peace exist, not only within their own territory but throughout the world”. It is important to remember that “it is one thing to wage a war of self-defence; it is quite another to seek to impose domination on another nation. The possession of war potential does not justify the use of force for political or military objectives. Nor does the mere fact that war has unfortunately broken out mean that all is fair between the warring parties”.1052

Catholic Church, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2014).

As I see it, the damage caused by ISIS is certain, lasting and grave. Other means of preventing the evil do have been shown to be ineffective. The only debatable issue seems to be over whether we can have serious prospects of success (as opposed to a quagmire). If we’re going to do this, we need to be committed to doing it right, as opposed to leaving a land in ruins only to have to do it all over again in 10 years time.

But, even though we have what looks like a just cause for a war, in my opinion, we are not permitted to conduct that war in a way which produces evils worse than whatever is to be eliminated. We are not permitted to sow indiscriminate destruction with the intent of wiping out all the terrorist leaders and fighters. While accidental killing of the civilian may be unavoidable, we must conduct ourselves in such a way as to avoid it as much as possible. If it ever becomes the goal of the attack, or happens because we are indiscriminate on our part in carrying out the attack, the action is not justified, but is evil instead.

That means we have the responsibility to undertake any military action in such a way that we do not act to punish the innocent along with the guilty. While it seems to me, we have the just cause for starting a war, our obligation continues in our conduct at war and how we handle the post-war. We’re not free to turn these places into a wasteland or a nuclear slag pit and then go on our way, leaving the survivors to dig their own way out. We’re not free to target all Muslims or all Arabs for the sins of some. Our strategy has to have a just purpose for war, a just behavior in war and a just conclusion at the end of the war.

So let us be aware of this obligation as we speak out about this vile act of terrorism and call for our leaders to act. Let us make sure that our actions reflect our beliefs and do not assume that we are now free to use any and all means in response.

___________________________

For the reader’s consideration, here is what St. Thomas Aquinas has had to say about Just War:

First Article
Whether it is Always Sinful to wage War?
We proceed thus to the First Article:—

Objection 1. It seems that it is always sinful to wage war. Because punishment is not inflicted except for sin. Now those who wage war are threatened by Our Lord with punishment, according to Matth. 26:52: All that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Therefore all wars are unlawful.
Obj. 2. Further, Whatever is contrary to a Divine precept is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept, for it is written (Matth. 5:39): But I say to you not to resist evil; and (Rom. 12:19Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)): Not revenging yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give place unto wrath. Therefore war is always sinful.
Obj. 3. Further, Nothing, except sin, is contrary to an act of virtue. But war is contrary to peace. Therefore war is always a sin.
Obj. 4. Further, The exercise of a lawful thing is itself lawful, as is evident in scientific exercises. But warlike exercises which take place in tournaments are forbidden by the Church, since those who are slain in these trials are deprived of ecclesiastical burial. Therefore it seems that war is a sin in itself.

On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion (cf. Ep. ad Marccl., cxxxviii.): If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: ‘Do violence to no man; … and be content with your pay.’* If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering.

I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rom. 13:4Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)): He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)): Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii.): The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (Q. X., super Jos.): A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom.*): True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandisement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good. For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii.): The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and suchlike things, all these are rightly condemned in war.

Reply Obj. 1. As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii.): To take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority. On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to take the sword, but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment. And yet even those who make sinful use of the sword are not always slain with the sword, yet they always perish with their own sword, because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword.

Reply Obj. 2. Suchlike precepts, as Augustine observes (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i.), should always be borne in readiness of mind, so that we be ready to obey them, and, if necessary, to refrain from resistance or self-defence. Nevertheless it is necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for the common good, or for the good of those with whom he is fighting. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Marcellin.): Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy.

Reply Obj. 3. Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord came not to send upon earth (Matth. 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix.): We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.

Reply Obj. 4. Manly exercises in warlike feats of arms are not all forbidden, but those which are inordinate and perilous, and end in slaying or plundering. In olden times warlike exercises presented no such danger, and hence they were called exercises of arms or bloodless wars, as Jerome states in an epistle (cf. Veget.,—De Re Milit. i.).

(STh., II-II q.40 a.1) 

 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, n.d.).

Triple Highlight: Terry Nelson, Mark Shea, and Catholic Culture Hit It on the Head!!! Re +Daneels Conspiracy and Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalism!!!

Hello Everyone.

So it looks like Pope Francis' visit to the USA, as well as some stupid documentary where a cardinal in the Church "plotted" with others to sway the conclaves of 2005 and 2013, has made the Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalists froth at the mouth like crazy.

Thankfully, to protect the Catholic faithful from being swayed by detraction and slander of the Holy Father, as well as from acts of the Devil, a number of bloggers have risen to the Church's defense against, sadly, the slings and arrows from their own disgruntled members.

First up is one of my favourite bloggers, Terry Nelson, an outstanding young man who blogs at Abbey Roads. This young buck, like me, hates radical traditionalism and sees the damage it is causing the Catholic Church, especially in the wake of the Francis Pontificate. Adding to his credibility, is that he is a chaste man, who carries the cross of Same-Sex Attraction, yet he is faithful to Holy Mother Church, an important stance to take especially with the whole Synods of the Family occurring. He`s even not afraid to take to task other SSA individuals, whose approaches to being gay and Catholic, steer somewhat in a darker direction, despite appearances of being ``chaste.``

In the comment box of one of his posts, "Papal visit - it's not over till the fat lady sings ... and I'm sure she will," Mr. Nelson comments on how he is keeping his soul pure by avoiding certain blogs. He states his reasoning why:

"Terry Nelson4:24 PM
These are a few blogs I consider poisonous gossip-mongers:

Vox Cantoris
Pat Archbold
Carol McKinley
Ann Barnhardt
and a few others they link to.

Other blogs by people with admitted mental health issues or who give indications of it, I simply avoid.

This type of conspiracy chatter and traditionalist extremism has plagued me my entire adult life - since my return to the sacraments. This constant vitriol and suspicion and requirement to check the papers of all who profess to be Catholic. The constant repetition of false visionaries and reinterpretation of Fatima and pulling out ancient encyclicals to bang over people's heads. Today Medugorje is very near to be being discredited, The Locutions to the World lady is backtracking and saying the time of collapse has been put back. The fake prophets are falling - yet doomsayers are repeating their warnings. Even the politicians who promise an end to abortion if we elect them - and when we do - nothing happens - let it all fall to pieces.

Who cares if the economy collapses? Who cares about predicting the future? Why do we waste our time worrying about the Synod? Defaming people who went to see the pope or did the readings? Pray - yes - but working ourselves up over this stuff? To what end?

How can we keep doing this? Why? Just to taunt and drive OCD people nuts? To heap guilt upon the guilty? To shame the shameful? 

I don't get it.

LarryD once said my blog is littered with road kill - I laughed so hard because it's true. My entire life is too.

Nutcases have come and gone. Doomsayers predicting the Ball of Redemption - aged, infirm, some dead now - I hope they saw it before they died - just like Joey Lomangino and Padre Pio before they died, huh? Who taught people to believe this crap? To talk this crap? 

The Pope spoke about salvation. The Pope came preaching Jesus Christ. The Pope came to teach us about mercy. I need mercy. I need salvation. My fear and trembling is before God - not the Catholic blogosphere.

Sorry - I'm tired of it."

Well Said Terry. He's also not the only one, who is fed up with this nonsense which is damaging souls. Another commentator by the name of "Joshua" also comments, with this zinger in the comment:

".... One identity I do own is Catholic, which is why I can't read any of the blogs Terry mentioned. (Terry, I think you left off one. Starts with R, ends with orare Caeli :) ) They attack the Church. They attack her priests and bishops. They don't critique in charity--they attack. Just like a man can commit adultery in his heart without ever touching anyone other than his wife, you can do the same with schism (which is really just ecclesiastical adultery). They make me angry, so I don't read them. (Also, there is absolutely nothing to learn from them that can't be learned elsewhere, assuming it's worth learning.) .... "

Wow .... Joshua really has a great point about sinning via spiritual adultery and schism. Sins apply in more than just one specific context, and we don't need flesh acts to commit them. 

So in that post, Terry quotes from another fighter against RMTs and also, those "conservatives" who are falsely pro-life and anti-social justice, Mark Shea. The post of Shea's he quotes from concerns the release of a book chronicling the life of some cardinal named Danneels. So the short story is him, and a bunch of cardinals, including the oh so anti-doctrine front man of the 2014 synod, Cardinal Walter Kasper, were meeting together to try and influence the Synod to get Francis in, and therefore Pope Francis I`s election was invalid and Super Trad Hero, Pope Benedict XVI, is reigning pope and will come back and save the Church from the total ruin it is becoming!!!!

Well all I got to say ... is THEY ARE DARN TOOTING WRONG!!!

Mark has this to say on his blog, "Catholic and Enjoying it!" about the stupid Daneels conspiracy plot to overthrow the Papacy via rigging the conclaves, ironically involving Pope Benedict XVI himself as part of his reply to these conspiracy theorists: 

``... Here’s the thing: Benedict has already schooled the Conspiracy Theorists on this:

“There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry,” Benedict, 86, who now has the title “pope emeritus,” said in a letter to the Italian website Vatican Insider published on Wednesday.

“The only condition for the validity of my resignation is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculation regarding its validity is simply absurd,” he wrote in answer to a request by the website for comment on recent Italian media reports.

What’s hilarious is that the Always Obviously Wrong Charism of Discernment of the Reactionaries manages to ignore the plainly truthful Benedict while somehow managing to make the person they themselves declare to be a Deceiver the fount of all truth–and all on the say-so of two guys hawking a book. The spectacular ability of Reactionaries to be wrong about everything, and to believe whatever their itching ears want to hear, is just breathtaking.

And it’s amazingly postmodern. What matters is not facts, but how it hits Francis Haters in the feels. Facts are unimportant. What matters is truthiness.

Sorry guys. Francis really is the Pope. Deal with it.``

Not to mention that he added an update to the post, which includes analysis from a canon lawyer with the chutzpah to put his name out there and blog, who is often sought by Trad blogs for his analysis on Canon Law, Ed. Peters.  

Finally, to truly cast the final nail on the coffin of the conspiracy theory of rigging the 2013 Conclave and Pope Francis being ``invalidly elected,`` Catholic Culture, a balanced orthodox blog with useful Catholic resources and balanced news and reporting, covered the whole issue of the supposedly rigged conclave thanks to that biography, and blew it out of the park with proper deductive reasoning and logic:

``On the other hand, there are compelling reasons to dismiss the claims of conspiracy:

• Even if the authors of the Danneels biography were quoted accurately, they had an obvious incentive to exaggerate the power of the St. Gallen group, to create publicity for their book. A story about a secret cabal is more likely to sell briskly than the life story of a retired cardinal.
• If the St. Gallen group did make an effort to control the conclave of 2005, they failed miserably. The conclave almost immediately turned to Cardinal Ratzinger: the man whose influence the group was allegedly fighting to curtail.
• Cardinal Martini was widely seen as the leader of the liberal group that might have sought for an alternative to Cardinal Ratzinger. But Vatican insiders know that Cardinal Martini was not at all favorably disposed toward his fellow Jesuit, Cardinal Bergoglio, and would never have supported his election.
• Since the St. Gallen group stopped meeting in 2006, it was not likely to be an important factor in the conclave of 2013, which elected Pope Francis. By that time Cardinal Martini was dead, and other members—Cardinals Silvestrini and Murphy-O’Connor—were too old to participate in the conclave.
• In the days leading up to the 2013 conclave, virtually no one expected the election of Cardinal Bergoglio. If a group of cardinals had been working for years to generate enthusiasm about his candidacy, they must have been singularly inept .``

And I`d say that between these wonderful bloggers and their defense, not much more needs to be said, other than that with each strike from these RMTs, credibility is diminished as to the value of their words, ramblings of internal discord being expressed publicly, and further damages the good name of the Pope, the Church, Catholicism, and good movements of the Reform of the Reform such as the revitalization of the Latin Mass. 

Finis.  

Highlight: Important words from Catholic Evangelist Paul Sullivan from Yesterday

Hello Everyone,

I'd like to highlight Paul Sullivan's latest posting on his website, https://evango.net/. Paul is highly respected in his home Archdiocese of Toronto and heads his own speaking/evangelization apostolate. He is frequently called upon to speak at our local Catholic conferences held twice annually by Serviam Ministries (formerly Catholic Chapter House).

This latest post is particularly interesting as it taps into the same vein as C.S. Lewis' famous book, the Screwtape Letters. In the post, Patrick has hit it right on the head with regard to how the Devil uses prayer and worship, especially for those of you who stress liturgy (e.g. the Latin Mass) to actually do his bidding, and even lead to spiritual sloth. Let's read Patrick's latest post in full, shall we, with some of my highlighting?:

Taken from https://evango.net/2015/06/a-demons-letter-on-prayer/:

A Demon’s Letter On Prayer

June 2, 2015/in Articles, Vignettes /by psullivan

What follows is from the Tapeworm Letters, a series of spiritual advice from one demon to another on how to corrupt, well…

…you.

In this letter, Tapeworm advises another demon on how to keep you from praying.

Enjoy!

in Christ,
patrick

I have received your complaints and I must say that I am more disappointed than usual. If you are serious that you think your target’s new found interest in communicating with the enemy can derail our position, than you are more of a novice at this than I had originally estimated. Look, it is all quite easy to deal with.

Begin to suggest to that miserable worm that to talk to the enemy at all takes precision. Whisper into his ear that unless he prays at the right time and with the right posture and with the right words and with the right intentions and with the right focus; and of course all within the right location then he should not bother to pray at all. And while this is quite a ridiculous suggestion I admit, you will be surprised (because you are such an amateur no doubt) that your target gives up long before he has begun.

And if by some strange act of persistence he opens his mouth still, it is not at all difficult to get him to cut off communication in order to begin again. And why is that? Because if you haven’t noticed, human beings have many flaws. One of those flaws is that they like to believe that they are or can be perfect.

In fact, our intelligence division has let us know that this silliness in them has even been encouraged by the enemy in one of his oldest communications with them. Something about ‘be perfect as…’ well who cares, you get the point.

So if he actually says something so grotesque as ‘hail…anything’, in a most gentle voice remind him that he really has to mean it for it all to ‘count.’ And when the fool begins again, soothe him with that same hideous voice of yours and let him know that his mind was most definitely drifting away to some far off place and not here ‘in the moment’ where he must be for prayer to be anything.

Don’t you see; or are you as much a fool as he is? Through such suggestions he will come to view communication with the enemy as more like a handwritten letter than that terribly primitive telephone. Instead of just picking up the line to call the enemy and speaking as little or as much as he must, as quickly or as slowly as he needs, we force these daft creatures to focus on whether or not they crossed their ‘t’s properly!

Our campaign on this particular point has been so successful that with very few exceptions, almost all of the enemy’s followers do not communicate with him at all. Can you even understand how big this is? We have cut them off from the very thing they need to win the war. Without praying they cannot see the bigger picture; they cannot receive consolation; they cannot focus.

And you know what happens when you stop communicating with someone don’t you? Of course you don’t; amateur that you are. Our targets stop believing that there is anyone there to pick up the phone anyway. This is so painful I love it! Follow the logic if you can. They don’t call the enemy so they come to believe that he isn’t there to answer. Oh, how I detest their small minds. Remember this: the less they pray, the less they believe.

So I hope you got all of that. If he starts to pray, point out the imperfections and then over time let his pathetic reasoning over take him.

This really is too simple. So get it right.

in all disgust,

tapeworm

Pax, Julian.