Sunday, July 27, 2014

World War I - 100 Years Ago

On July 28, 1914 Austrian troops invaded Serbia in response to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  The war would last four years, leaving millions dead and the face of the earth changed both politically and culturally.  The Russian Empire ceased to exist.  The German Empire ceased to exist.  The Austro-Hungarian Empire ceased to exist.  America asserted her power in a punitive manner, crippling the German economy and humiliating the German people.  Would that the great monarchies of 1914 had the foresight to predict what a terrible effect the war would have on the political landscape of the world, not to mention the loss of lives.  Perhaps one day we shall see the great empires resurrected like the phoenix from its own ashes.  One hundred years without these great monarchies is far too long.  One day.

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Woe to He Who Harms the Lord's Anointed


Fr. Kenneth Walker, FSSP (28) was murdered yesterday during an apparent burglary at his parish rectory.  Fr. Joseph Terra, FSSP (56) was critically injured during that same burglary.  It has been reported that Fr. Terra was able to give Fr. Walker Extreme Unction and the Apostolic pardon before he died.

Requiescat in Pace Fr. Walker.

Saturday, March 08, 2014

Archbishop Sample Pontifical Mass Homily

His Excellency Alexander Sample, Archbishop of Portland, Oregon recently celebrated a Pontifical High Mass at the Brigittine Monastery in Amity, Oregon. Below is his homily from that Mass. I especially liked his comment at about 1:40: "Not in the life of the Church past, but even in the life of the Church today...." I think the Holy Father could do well to listen to His Excellency's homily.

Monday, February 17, 2014

The Immemorial Mass: "Just a fashion"?

Rorate Caeli reports that the Holy Father recently stated that he cannot understand why young people turn to the Traditional Latin Mass and that he sees the TLM as  "...a kind of fashion. And if it is a fashion, therefore it is a matter that does not need that much attention. It is just necessary to show some patience and kindness to people who are addicted to a certain fashion."  When I first read this statement I thought to myself:  "Once again this man scares the hell out of me.  What condescension!  What arrogance towards his own people!  Is it just a matter of time before he rescinds Summorum Pontificum?"  Once I had settled down a bit I thought that maybe his lack of attention towards us traditionalists is a good thing.  If he ignores us, maybe he'll just leave us alone to worship as we choose.  That way Summorum Pontificum will remain untouched and the law of the Church.  Fr. Z says not to necessarily believe this recent report as this information is third hand, but if the Holy Father really said these things he ignores stalwart, faithful Catholics at his own peril while ministering to nominal, lukewarm Catholics.  Fr. Z also said that he wouldn't be surprised if the Holy Father abdicates when he turns 80, and even expects that he will do so.  While I think this would cause disruption and a continued bad precedent if he does so, it would mean only three more years of him as pope.  That thought doesn't sadden me.

Monday, February 10, 2014

Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin has been in the news a lot recently mostly due to the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi., but he has garnered a lot of attention the last year or so on his own merits.  He's been called a dictator, a tyrant, and Satan just to name a few.  He's also been referred to as a Tsar by his detractors.  Which leads me to my point:  Would that he declared himself Tsar!  Now some monarchists would be up in arms at this statement, claiming that only the Romanov successors have the legitimate right to the Russian throne, but I am a much more pragmatic monarchist.  If currently non-reigning royal families are unwilling or unable to re-instate dead monarchies, I have no problem with non-royals who might have the political will, popularity, and pure power to declare themselves as legitimate royals by right of conquest.  Is it possible that Putin will declare himself Tsar?  Napoleon did it.  Is it likely?  Only time will tell.

Wednesday, January 22, 2014


Below is from a post by Fr. John Hunwicke's blog.  He has some very good points, especially regarding the relevance of Vatican II in 2014.

"The biography of Archbishop Lefebvre by H E Bishop Tissier de Mallerais seems to me (who have no training in History) to be a finely detailed and balanced account of someone whom the author loved and respected, but with regard to whom he was determined to find out the truth. So one can find in this book a very 'conflicted' person. Sometimes he seems to be leaning over backwards to show proper deference to the Vicar of Christ; on other occasions, he seems almost sedevacantist (ET p 549 "the See of Peter and posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs ..."; et cf ex gr pp 487, 506, 508). I do not see this inconsistency as unforgivable. The Archbishop was reacting to an ecclesial situation which has little parallel in the more recent history of the Church and accordingly has few guidelines provided for it in Canon Law and the Manualists. And the p 549 I cite in my parenthesis follows closely upon the Assisi Event; one can understand why the vision of the Antichrist, sitting where he ought not, should have been particularly in Lefebvre's mind. But he remained firmly and resolutely opposed to the seductions of sedevacantism at a time when a lesser man might have sought its easy and 'logical' solution.

However, the result remains that there is an incoherence of Ecclesiology at the heart of Lefebvre's construct. A real pope's actual wishes are disregarded; a situation not easily balanced by the Society's fierce loyalty to popes and bishops whose voices are muted by death. Conciliarism was defeated finally by making it a canonical offence to appeal from a living Pope to a hypothetical Council; appealing from a living Pope to his predecessors is not without its awkwardness.

But perhaps we should attempt a broader canvas. The history of earlier centuries does provide examples of behaviour, not much less uncanonical than Lefebvre's, which was subsequently validated by History. The Avignon exile and the Great Schism of the West afford a veritable laboratory of confused crises in which tidy solutions were beyond the grasp of good men and eventually order was restored by untidy expedients. These were not neat solutions; but perhaps a possibility for untidiness is sometimes the only sort of solution available to Christians in via. One thinks also of what happened in Czechoslovakia during the Cold War; what has happened in China during the last two decades. There is every reason to feel that the ecclesiological problems in the position of SSPX would disappear as SSPX lived in the fullest communion with the Petrine See.

Three final factors which in my view point towards the propriety of a generous approach to the SSPX, and a gracious receptivity on the part of the Society, and towards a cessation of any tendency to persecute institutes or individuals in the Catholic Church for a crime of Cryptolefebvrianism.

Many wonder what good the Ecumenical Movement has done. It hasn't even had the result of preventing ecclesial bodies from introducing new divisive measures, such as women's ordination. But this very ineffectiveness surely points to the one great big message we could and should all learn from the Ecumenical Movement: that the longer a division lasts, the more deep-rooted becomes the habit of separation and, in practical and human terms, the more unlikely it becomes that a reconciliation can ever happen.

Secondly: Summorum pontificum confirmed juridically that the Latin Church had lived for some four decades under the dominion of a lie. The Vetus Ordo had not been lawfully prohibited. Much persecution of devout priests and layfolk that took place during those decades is therefore now seen to have been vis sine lege. For this so long to have been so true with regard to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which lies at the heart of the Church's life, argues a profound illness deep within the Latin Church. And the Big Lie was reinforced by multitudes of Little Lies ... that the Council mandated reordered Sanctuaries ... that the Council mandated exclusive use of the vernacular ... The de facto situation created by the Big Lie and the Little Lies combined ought not to be regarded as normative. Its questionable parentage must give it a degree of provisionality, even (perhaps especially) to those who find it comfortable to live with. The onslaught upon the Franciscans of the Immaculate suggests that there are those, high in the Church's administration, who have still internalised neither the juridical findings of Summorum pontificum nor its pastoral call for harmony.

Thirdly: Conciliar hermeneutics have moved on. I do not only refer to the teaching of Benedict XVI about 'Continuity' and 'Rupture' (although I think this is important and I was disappointed that spokesmen of the SSPX were more concerned to evade this discussion than to grab it and run with it). I mean also the much greater willingness among many to take a longer view of the Council. The more distant an object is down the lines of perspective, the smaller it appears to the eye (do you even know when the Council of Vienne was?). Benedict XVI echoed Newman's celebrated remarks about what unpleasant events councils have generally been and how harmful; and theologians are much less nervous now about admitting the existence even of textual problems within Vatican II itself. Arguably, Councils are best kept up the sleeve of the Sovereign Pontiff. Our present Holy Father had not been long on the Throne of S Peter when he commented on the facile optimism of Vatican II and opined that we are not so naive today (does this make him a Cryptolefebvrian?). At the heart of this question is a really very obvious and simple truth: the Council earnestly and laudably desired to engage with the mundus hodiernus, the mundus huius temporis, and with nostra aetas; but we are not now still in the mundus or aetas of the 1960s. The Council of Vienne, like Vatican II a largely practical Council, happened 700 years ago, but it took much less time than that for it to recede so far as to disappear off the Church's horizons; and it is a long time since anybody was required to eat humble pie with regard to its Conciliar documents, the "Spirit of Vienne", and "the entire post-Viennian Magisterium". Time itself possesses a quasi-Magisterial status, and I think enough time has elapsed since Vatican II to enable us to ... No: I will most certainly not say 'to renounce it'. After all, when Philip IV collected money for a crusade within six years and then simply embezzled that money together with the wealth he had looted from the Templars, I do not know that the Holy See thought it appropriate to annul the proceedings of Vienne. No; it is time simply to move on from the 1960s to the mundus hodiernus and the nostra aetas of 2014. When an elderly ball has been kicked around for long enough, sensible schoolboys leave it to settle quietly into the nutrients at the bottom of the ditch, unobserved except by the water voles, and agree to move on together to newer games. Whatever was of permanent value in Vienne ... and Vatican II ... has merged and disappeared gradually into what one might call the Church's general background noise (dogmatic decrees and anathemas of dogmatic councils are, of course, a different matter). What was unhelpful in the Conciliar texts or their consequences ... and when the Templars were led out to be burned, they probably thought that was unhelpful ... Time has purged away; or will purge.

Why cannot Roman dicasteries, and the SSPX, be content with that? Could each of them not name new questions of today which are much more pressing than the Suppression of the Templars, whether President Hollande should lead a new crusade to liberate the Holy Land, or even whether in the Latin Church the Pipe Organ should be held in high esteem (Sacrosanctum Concilium 120)?"

Monday, December 02, 2013

I'm Scared

I'm scared of Pope Francis.  When he was first elected I was scared of him because I knew nothing about him and was afraid of what might be in store for the Church under this new pope.  Now that I know more about who he was as Jorge Cardinal Borgoglio and who he is as Pope Francis, I continue to be scared.  The man seems hell-bent on eschewing all the physical trappings of a pontificate with his lack of papal dress (no mozzetta and simple steel cross, black shoes, and ugly, ugly new ferula).  He also seems hell-bent on creating a poor Church where priests walk around in sack cloth and all the Church's money is given to the poor (if the Vatican itself were sold for $10 billion and that money used to make 10 billion baloney sandwiches, what happens when those 10 billion baloney sandwiches are eaten?).  He's stated that he "has no problem" with traditionalists or the traditional Latin Mass, but not having a problem with the Extraordinary Form is a far cry from appreciating the timelessness and beauty of that same Mass.  A constant stream of off-the-cuff remarks seem to come from the man which must be put into context by Vatican officials to make them compatible with Catholic doctrine (e.g. his remarks about homosexuals--"Who am I to judge?").  He seeks to democratize the Church by giving more power to regional bishops conferences (as if the bishops haven't done enough damage the past fifty years!).

Just recently in his own hometown of Buenos Aires pro-abortion and lesbian activists burned him in effigy.  A group of men created a human barricade to protect the cathedral from the activists.  Below is a video of how the activists responded.  Warning:  the video depicts the women topless and performing simulated lesbian sex acts to harass the men.

And we Catholics shouldn't "obsess" about abortion and homosexuality?  Does the man not know what we're up against?  I am a loyal son of Rome, but our present pope scares the hell out of me at times.  I hate to say it, but in the words of one Catholic commenting on a blog about Francis "At least he's 76, not 56."

Monday, July 22, 2013

A Future King

Congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of their first child, a boy!  I am thrilled that their baby boy is healthy and that the United Kingdom will have a king (and besides this short reference I will make no references to the silly change in the rules of succession allowing the first born child regardless of gender to be heir).  May the royal parents enjoy every moment of their son's life and may they raise him to be a moral and wise ruler.

Monday, July 15, 2013

Gay Marriage in the UK

The House of Lords voted today to legalize gay marriage in England and Wales.  While I am extremely disappointed with the vote, I am not at all surprised.  Gay marriage and the homosexual agenda will become the norm across the Western world.   Homosexuals have become the new norm, with traditionalists like myself becoming the oddity, slowly to be pushed to the peripheries before being outright persecuted.  While I could go on at length about our spiral into the moral abyss, I wanted to write briefly about the political implications in England.

The bill will be sent to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II for her royal assent.  Nothing makes me think that she won't give her consent, even if I tend to think she personally would oppose homosexual marriage.  She could in theory not give her royal assent, but that would likely cause a constitutional crisis I don't think she's willing to make (I don't see the British monarchy operating like Henri of Luxembourg handled a law to legalize euthanasia in his country or like Baudouin of Belgium handled a law to legalize abortion in his).  So what is she to do?  She could abdicate in favor of her son the Prince of Wales, but again I don't think she'd do that.  The most likely case is that if she opposes homosexual marriage she will violate her conscience to keep her crown.  A great argument against elected bodies such as the British Parliament.  A monarch should never have to violate his conscience in matters political; he makes politics, he is not manipulated by them.