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.

Lefebvrianism

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)?"

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."

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.

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. 

Blessed Karl of Austria Latin Mass

I was asked by a reader to promote the below event and was happy to oblige.

2nd Annual Blessed Karl of Austria Latin Mass, Veneration of Relic, Luncheon, and Conference

Blessed Karl

Emperor of Austria and Apostolic King of Hungary

Second Annual

Traditional Latin Mass in Honor of Blessed Karl

Veneration of the Relic

Luncheon & Conference

Sunday, 21 April 2013, 1:00 PM

(Holy Rosary & Confessions begin at 12:30 PM)
Veneration of the Relic After Mass

Saint Titus Church

952 Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001

Celebrant:

Fr. Gregory Plow, TOR

Franciscan University of Steubenville

Luncheon & Conference Immediately After Mass
in St. Titus Church Hall

Featured Speakers:

Suzanne Pearson

Founder of the Blessed Karl Shrine

St. Mary's Church, Washington, DC

Topic: Blessed Karl's exile, death, and burial on the Madeira Islands

Raymond de Souza, KM

Director of Evangelization and Apologetics, Diocese of Winona, MN
and EWTN Series Host
Topic: The Dictatorship of Relativism and the Sacred Heart of Jesus

Reservations Required for Luncheon & Conference
Cost: $15/person
Make check payable to: "Knights of Columbus 2161"
and mail to: 2335 Concord Street, Aliquippa PA 15001
Deadline for Paid Reservations: Friday, 12 April 2013

Sponsored By:
Knights of Columbus Woodlawn Council 2161
Traditional Latin Mass Guild

EVERYONE IS WELCOME

 

http://knightsofcolumbuslatinmass.blogspot.com/

Thoughts on the Election of Pope Franics

When His Holiness Pope Francis was elected less than one week ago, I met the news with an uncertain heart.  I had never heard of Cardinal Bergoglio, so I knew nothing about his past, his views, or his orthodoxy.  Because of that, I wasn't elated like I was when Benedict was elected almost eight years ago.  I went home after work (as a governmental employee I am not supposed to use the internet for personal purposes) and researched Cardinal Bergoglio on the internet.  What I found (mainly on Rorate Caeli) plummeted my into the depths of depression.  My friends over on Rorate had little good to say about our new pope.  I began to fear that he would suspend Summorum Pontificum and persecute traditional Catholics like myself.  Fr. Zulhsdorf was mostly silent the first 24 hours or so after Francis' election, so I couldn't go to him for help.  I began to judge his pontificate in the first 8 hours of reign, and even found myself hoping he wouldn't live long enough to do much damage to the Church.  Then I found myself feeling guilty for thinking like this.  I was an errant son showing ill will towards his spiritual father.  I realized that I must show respect, obedience, and love towards our new Holy Father, and give him a chance.  He may not have been the man I would have voted for if I were a Cardinal Elector, but he is the man God has allowed to lead His Church.  May God grant him the wisdom, strength, and courage to lead the Church faithfully.  Let us all pray for our Holy Father Pope Francis.

Papal Resignation

My readers must forgive me (if I still have any) for such long periods between posts.  My wife gave birth to our first born child last month, and between the birth and the pregnancy before I have been quite preoccupied the last several months.  Despite my busy life as a new father, I had to post on this historical day:  a papal resignation.

I sat down this morning to have my breakfast and watch the news only to learn that sometime whilst I slept the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI is resigning the papal office effective February 28, 2013.  While a papal resignation is not unprecedented in the 2,000 history of the Catholic Church, it is certainly not the norm.  It is the norm, however, for a pope to die in office.  This pope will not.  I have to admit that I was shocked, stunned, and even felt a little betrayed.  Why is he doing this?  How can the pope who was such a friend to the traditional cause call it quits?  How could this man, the holder of the highest honor on Earth give it up?  I cannot know the mind of the Holy Father or the specific reasons why he is resigning (besides the advanced age and ill health he has cited as the reason), only God can.  I do not have hopes that history will judge him well (has history judged St. Peter Celestine well?), but I pray God will grant him happy and grace-filled days until he meets his final reward.

The media and liberal "Catholics" will call for the next pope to change the Church's teachings on a myriad of issues such as abortion, male-only priesthood, homosexuality, etc.but rest assured that the Holy Ghost preserves and protects all successors of St. Peter from entering into doctrinal error.  Let us pray for the Holy Father and for the man who will succeed him.

Military Service

I recently received a question from a reader:  "Giving the circumstances that we're living today in the United States, do you believe that a traditionalist catholic monarchist can join the Armed Forces, more precisely the Marine Corps?"  I thought that my response warranted a post due to the complexity of the question.

Firstly, I must remind my readers that I served in the Army National Guard as an Officer Candidate for about a year-and-a-half almost ten years ago (I was injured in the line of duty--non-combat related--and was subsequently given a medical discharge from the service).  When I joined I was a neo-conservative Republican, and did not have my present monarchist views.  It was during my service that I heavily developed my current political views (although I believe I have always been somewhat of a monarchist due to interest in royalty from a young age).  Would I serve in the U.S. military now as a Traditional Catholic monarchist?  Absolutely not.

From a political standpoint, I would have to swear to uphold the constitution of the United States.  That constitution is a republican (read that again--republican with a small "r") constitution.  I do not believe in the efficacy of republics, nor do I believe that this republic should ever have been established.  How could I swear before God (although a recruit does have the option of not invoking God's name in his oath) that I would uphold something in which I do not believe?  The U.S. military has also become the self-appointed world police, meddling in other nations' affairs with or without any legitimate American interest.  We talk a lot about spreading freedom and democracy around the world  (a favorite phrase of neo-conservatives from the Bush era wars).  Would a monarchist really want that?  At least not the American version of "freedom and democracy." 

Looking at the military itself, this nation's military isn't the same military in which I served.  When I was in the Guard the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy was in full force.  Now homosexuals can openly serve without repercussions.  A Traditional Catholic would have to ask himself if he feels comfortable serving in close quarters (i.e. sleeping, showering) with open homosexuals.  I don't think the military is any more filled with gays than the general population, but it is a possibility that a new recruit might serve with a homosexual or two.  Our culture is extremely tolerant of homosexuality, so for young people (even young Catholics) this may not prove a stumbling-block, but it's at least something to think about.

From a moral standpoint, you would be serving to defend the U.S. and its way of life.  What about our nation and our culture is worth killing and dying for?  We are a nation that kills its own unborn children for the crime of being conceived under less-than ideal circumstances (and in many cases just because they are unwanted).  We are a nation that is increasingly perverting the institution of marriage by trying to redefine marriage as a union between any two people, even two homosexuals.  We are a nation that is increasingly losing any sense of right and wrong, good and bad, grace and sin.  I don't see much in our culture that is worth dying for, far less worth killing for. 

The military is ultimately led by our elected president.  Our current president, Barack Obama, is an enemy of God's Holy Catholic Church.  He seeks to put limits on our religious freedom by requiring Catholic institutions to provide contraception and abortofacient drugs to its employees or be fined.  I would not serve under this man.

I am not a priest nor a theologian.  If you are seriously considering joining any branch of the U.S. military I would suggest that you consult with a good priest-confessor and express your questions and concerns about joining the service.  I am not in a position to give you spiritual advice, but I can say that if it were me there is nothing that would compel me to serve in this nation's military again.