Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Chaos and the Visible Church

From Brother Andre, MICM:


“The Church is now in a full-blown civil war over doctrine” screams the headline from the U.K. Catholic Herald. The body of doctrine being fought over is not limited to the hot-button issues surrounding Amoris Laetitia, either. Those issues certainly remain a casus belli — for Cardinal Coccopalmerio has just added his own contribution by way of a 51-page booklet published by the Vatican Press, the curious presser for whose publication was described as “Kafkaesque” by The Tablet’s Christopher Lamb. But in addition to the increasing scandal and division surrounding Amoris, the civil war mentioned by the Catholic Herald’s Dan Hitchens now includes a new front, one formerly thought to have been tightly secured: the male-only sacramental priesthood of Jesus Christ.

The recent promotion of women priests comes not from the National Catholic Reporter or some other organ of progressivist lay opinion, but from La Civiltà Cattolica, every page of which is vetted by the Vatican Secretariat of State. That once great publication has always been a Jesuit production, and it has changed over the years in sync with the evolution of the Society of Jesus, whose Father Antonio Spadaro is its current editor. La Civiltà’s Rev. Giancarlo Pani, S.J., authored the piece dismissing all tradition and the authoritative teaching of Pope John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on Holy Orders. His reasoning? Not exactly rock solid theological criteria: the “developments that the presence of woman in the family and society has undergone in the 21st century.”
Besides La Civiltà Cattolica Jesuits — the Company traditionally conceived as the papal shock troops — the vanguard of the progressivist side in this civil war includes a group of cardinals who thought it good to issue a very unusual vote of confidence for the Roman Pontiff and his Magisterium.
On the other side is that dark and sinister character, the subject of recent conspiracy theories, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke. Mild mannered Midwestern churchman and canonist by day; by night, he turns malevolent co-conspirator with surly Steve Bannon and despotic Donald Trump, or so we are led to believe. It seems that the Washington Post’s Emma-Kate Symons thinks that Cardinal Burke is playing Saruman to Trump’s Sauron, with Bannon being a sort of orc go-between. (Weren’t traditionalists supposed to have a monopoly on nutty conspiracy theories?) This is truly rich fantasy writing worthy of the Southern Poverty Law Center, but its factual claims have been concisely debunked by Christian Browne, writing for OnePeterFive.

Read the whole article.

Sunday, February 12, 2017

St Therese of Lisieux in Russia

Septuagesima Sunday, 2017


The year was 1999, just after the Fall of the Communists.  Russia was still devastated by the sickness of atheism.  Boris Yeltsin was in power.  The Money Power was busy plundering Russia of its resources.  Despair was rife.

Then St Therese visited that unhappy land.


The Kremlin Guard  carries St Therese's relics.






































http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/143555/1746325/1216725933287/relicsinRussia.pdf?token=UOkmf%2BWTKfbFTIDirUYQh       jSklIE%3D

I have always been both charmed and deeply interested in this story mainly because of the timing of the events.  Yeltsin was so eager to play ball with the money changers that in his drunken delirium he turned over major Russian assets to them for pennies on the dollar.  Some of these characters became instant billionaires and with their cohorts accelerated the theft of Russian wealth and resources..

But St Therese is the Patron Saint of Suffering Russia, so designated by Pope Pius XI.  The visit of her relics in 1999 is more than remarkable if we consider that not long after she visited Russia Yeltsin was to relinquish his power to his designated successor, believing that his successor would continue to allow the stripping from Russia of anything of value and keep the Oligarchs happy.  In 2000 that successor was elected, and he moved quickly and unexpectedly to stop the rape of Russia. His name was Vladimir Putin.

Is there a connection between these two interesting events, the visit of St Therese, patron of suffering Russia, and the coming to power of Vladimir Putin?  I do not know, but I believe it to be an intriguing turn of events.

More here: http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/45356/Re:%20Devotion%20to%20Saint%20Therese%20 http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/45356/Re:%20Devotion%20to%20Saint%20Therese%20

Thursday, February 9, 2017

Shamir: Why Europe is to be Muslimized



This post is a bit of a cheat because it is the same one posted a few days ago.  The reason why I am doing this is because after re-reading Mr Shamir's excellent article it dawned upon me that he was writing not so much about Donald Trump as he was explaining why the Muslim "immigration" problem is metastasizing as it is.  Shamir explains this European invasion as a tactic to a greater end game, and he exposes the masterminds behind it.  That is the real story people need desperately to understand.  Hence, this re-boot of the article.

[Editor: Israel Shamir is a noted Jewish journalist who has converted to Orthodox Christianity]


"I’d suggest a simple explanation. Jews want to import Muslims to fight Christ and the Church."
President Trump had paid a hefty advance to the Jews. He did (almost) all they wanted for their Jewish state: he promised to move the US embassy to the occupied Jerusalem thus legalising their annexation of the holy city; he condoned their illegal settlements, he gave them starred positions in his administration; he told the Palestinians to drop their case in the ICC or else, he even threatened Iran with war. All that in vain. Jewish organisations and Jewish media attack Trump without slightest hesitation and consideration. His first step in curbing the soft invasion wave had been met with uniform Jewish vehemence.
He was called a new Hitler and accused of hatred of Muslims: what else could cause the President to arrest, even for a few months, the brave new migration wave from seven Middle Eastern states? Today he singles out Muslims, tomorrow he will single out Jews, said Jewish newspapers. Migration is the lifeblood of America, and the Muslim refugees are welcome to bring more diversity to the US.
Massive demonstrations, generously paid for by this notable Jewish philanthropist Mr George Soros, shook the States, while judges promptly banned the banning order. They insisted the orders are anti-Muslim, and therefore they are anti-constitutional. Somehow the constitution, they said, promises full equality of immigrants and does not allow to discriminate between a Muslim and a Christian.
This sounds an unlikely interpretation of the US Constitution. The US, and every other state, normally discriminates, or using a less loaded word, selects its potential citizens. The choice of seven states hasn’t been made by Donald Trump but by his saintly predecessor: President Barack Obama, this great friend of Muslims, made the choice personally some years earlier. So Trump had made a most moderate and modest step in the direction of blocking immigration by picking states already selected by the Democratic President.
One could reasonably claim that people of the seven states have a very good reason to hate America, and the reasons were supplied by previous US Presidents.
Libya, the most prosperous North African state until recently, had been ruined by President Obama: NATO invasion had brought Libya down; instead of stopping migration wave Libya had been turned into a jumping board for the Africans on their way North.
Syria is another Obama’s victim: by his insistence that ‘Assad must go’, by massive transfer of weaponry, money and equipment (remember white Toyota pickups?) to the Islamic extremists, he ruined this country.
Iraq has been ruined by President Bush Jr: he invaded the most advanced Sunni state, broke it to pieces and gave the centre of the country to the Isis.
Somalia has been ruined by President Bush Sr: he invaded this unfortunate country in the early nineties, when the USSR collapse allowed him to do so under the UN flag. Since then Somalia has become the supplier of choice of migrants and refugees for Sweden (there they formed the biggest community in Malmo and elsewhere), the US is also keen on getting them.
Yemen has been destroyed by Obama with Mme Clinton playing an important role: she facilitated delivery of weapons to Saudi Arabia in real time as they bombed Yemenis.
Sudan was bombed by President Clinton; afterwards this country had been dismembered and separate South Sudan had been created. Both halves became dysfunctional.
Iran is the odd one in the Magnificent Seven. It has not been invaded, has not been bombed, just threatened with invasion and bombardment for many years since President Carter. This country has no terrorists, it did not fail, its citizens are not running seeking for asylum. It was placed on the list by President Obama, who planned to bomb it, but never got to do it.
While Bush, Clinton and Obama bombed and invaded these countries, the Democratic humanitarians including their Jewish leaders just applauded and asked for more bombs. But they became appalled when Trump promised: no more regime change, end of “invade the world/invite the world” mode. Wikileaks put it well: bomb the Muslims, and you are fine; ban the Muslims, and you are the enemy.
Apparently, the people who instigated the Middle Eastern wars wanted to create a wave of refugees into Europe and North America in order to bring more colour and diversity to these poor monochrome lands. Welfare state, national cohesion, local labour and traditions will disappear, and these countries will undergo a process of homogenisation. Never again the natives will be able to single out Jews, for there will be no natives, just so many persons from all over the world, celebrating Kumbaya.
The Jews will be able to get and keep their privileged positions in Europe as they do in the US. They won’t be alone: by their success, they will establish a pattern to copycat for whoever wants to succeed in the new world, and masses of imitation-Jews will support the policies of real Jews.
Still, Jewish insistence on the Syrian refugees’ acceptance and on Muslim immigration in general is a strange and baffling phenomenon. Hypocrisy is too mild a word to describe that. We may exclude compassion as a cause for it. There are many thousands of natives of Haifa in Israel who suffer in Syria and dream to come back to their towns and villages, but the state of Israel does not allow these Syrian refugees to return for one crime: they aren’t Jews.

Read the whole article

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Israel Shamir assesses Mr Trump

[Editor: Israel Shamir is a noted Jewish journalist who has converted to Orthodox Christianity]


"I’d suggest a simple explanation. Jews want to import Muslims to fight Christ and the Church."
President Trump had paid a hefty advance to the Jews. He did (almost) all they wanted for their Jewish state: he promised to move the US embassy to the occupied Jerusalem thus legalising their annexation of the holy city; he condoned their illegal settlements, he gave them starred positions in his administration; he told the Palestinians to drop their case in the ICC or else, he even threatened Iran with war. All that in vain. Jewish organisations and Jewish media attack Trump without slightest hesitation and consideration. His first step in curbing the soft invasion wave had been met with uniform Jewish vehemence.
He was called a new Hitler and accused of hatred of Muslims: what else could cause the President to arrest, even for a few months, the brave new migration wave from seven Middle Eastern states? Today he singles out Muslims, tomorrow he will single out Jews, said Jewish newspapers. Migration is the lifeblood of America, and the Muslim refugees are welcome to bring more diversity to the US.
Massive demonstrations, generously paid for by this notable Jewish philanthropist Mr George Soros, shook the States, while judges promptly banned the banning order. They insisted the orders are anti-Muslim, and therefore they are anti-constitutional. Somehow the constitution, they said, promises full equality of immigrants and does not allow to discriminate between a Muslim and a Christian.
This sounds an unlikely interpretation of the US Constitution. The US, and every other state, normally discriminates, or using a less loaded word, selects its potential citizens. The choice of seven states hasn’t been made by Donald Trump but by his saintly predecessor: President Barack Obama, this great friend of Muslims, made the choice personally some years earlier. So Trump had made a most moderate and modest step in the direction of blocking immigration by picking states already selected by the Democratic President.
One could reasonably claim that people of the seven states have a very good reason to hate America, and the reasons were supplied by previous US Presidents.
Libya, the most prosperous North African state until recently, had been ruined by President Obama: NATO invasion had brought Libya down; instead of stopping migration wave Libya had been turned into a jumping board for the Africans on their way North.
Syria is another Obama’s victim: by his insistence that ‘Assad must go’, by massive transfer of weaponry, money and equipment (remember white Toyota pickups?) to the Islamic extremists, he ruined this country.
Iraq has been ruined by President Bush Jr: he invaded the most advanced Sunni state, broke it to pieces and gave the centre of the country to the Isis.
Somalia has been ruined by President Bush Sr: he invaded this unfortunate country in the early nineties, when the USSR collapse allowed him to do so under the UN flag. Since then Somalia has become the supplier of choice of migrants and refugees for Sweden (there they formed the biggest community in Malmo and elsewhere), the US is also keen on getting them.
Yemen has been destroyed by Obama with Mme Clinton playing an important role: she facilitated delivery of weapons to Saudi Arabia in real time as they bombed Yemenis.
Sudan was bombed by President Clinton; afterwards this country had been dismembered and separate South Sudan had been created. Both halves became dysfunctional.
Iran is the odd one in the Magnificent Seven. It has not been invaded, has not been bombed, just threatened with invasion and bombardment for many years since President Carter. This country has no terrorists, it did not fail, its citizens are not running seeking for asylum. It was placed on the list by President Obama, who planned to bomb it, but never got to do it.
While Bush, Clinton and Obama bombed and invaded these countries, the Democratic humanitarians including their Jewish leaders just applauded and asked for more bombs. But they became appalled when Trump promised: no more regime change, end of “invade the world/invite the world” mode. Wikileaks put it well: bomb the Muslims, and you are fine; ban the Muslims, and you are the enemy.
Apparently, the people who instigated the Middle Eastern wars wanted to create a wave of refugees into Europe and North America in order to bring more colour and diversity to these poor monochrome lands. Welfare state, national cohesion, local labour and traditions will disappear, and these countries will undergo a process of homogenisation. Never again the natives will be able to single out Jews, for there will be no natives, just so many persons from all over the world, celebrating Kumbaya.
The Jews will be able to get and keep their privileged positions in Europe as they do in the US. They won’t be alone: by their success, they will establish a pattern to copycat for whoever wants to succeed in the new world, and masses of imitation-Jews will support the policies of real Jews.
Still, Jewish insistence on the Syrian refugees’ acceptance and on Muslim immigration in general is a strange and baffling phenomenon. Hypocrisy is too mild a word to describe that. We may exclude compassion as a cause for it. There are many thousands of natives of Haifa in Israel who suffer in Syria and dream to come back to their towns and villages, but the state of Israel does not allow these Syrian refugees to return for one crime: they aren’t Jews.

Read the whole article

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

The SPLC strikes again

Some edifying words from the Southern Poverty Law Center as related by Thomas DiLorenzo:

The president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which I like to more accurately call the Soviet Poverty Lie Center, recently declared that “Black Lives Matter is not a Hate Group.”  OK, case closed.
The Lie Center must have a very, very high bar to jump over in order to be labeled a “hate group.”  A few days ago at a Black Lives Matter riot/rally in Seattle a designated speaker wearing a Black Lives Matter jacket, identified as “a teacher,” said the following:
“We need to start killing people.   Killing the White House.  Burn it!”
“White people, give [us] your F-ing money, your F-ing house, your F-ing property, we need it F-ing now!  Reparations!”
“And we need to start killing people . . . to start killing the White House.”
“Pay the F up!” white people!
These are the same people who carry signs saying “Love Trumps Hate.”

Read the whole article

Friday, January 27, 2017

Pushing the faithful to its limits

I warn you, Holy Father, with all due respect, that if you keep pushing the faithful to the point of despair there will be a reaction.  Your attempts to mold the Catholic Church into something that suits your prejudices, your abysmal taste, your autocratic tendencies and your strange view of "mercy" are going to lead to a backlash.  The Catholic faithful are moving closer and closer to deep resentment and a great anger.

from the 1931 film, "Frankenstein"

When we Catholics pray for you we pray that you will come to your senses and bring peace to the Church.  Thus far, God in His wisdom has not answered these prayers.  That these prayers will be answered eventually we have no doubt. So we wait.

It is no longer possible to give you the benefit of the doubt.  Every day it seems you wish to go out of your way to demonize, demoralize and mock twenty centuries of Catholic teaching and Catholic culture.  Every day the Church, already at the edge of the abyss, is being pushed closer to that edge by one outrageous statement, or hateful action, after another.  You act like the head of the KGB, silently destroying your enemies and making sure that nothing but opprobrium sticks to the men and women whom you seek to humiliate.  Not a lot of mercy being shown in that instance, is there?

Speaking bluntly, we have had some terrible Popes in the past but you are, if not the worst, certainly in the top ten Disastrous Popes in History.  It breaks one's heart to have to say things like this to the Vicar of Christ on earth.  But when a Vicar of Christ directly contradicts the teachings of Christ then the faithful have a duty to speak.

Nations given to pure evil have been bombing and destroying innocents in places like Syria, but you, Francis, are more interested in the chimera of man-made climate change.  You say that you pray for these people.  That's great.  How about some eyeball-to-eyeball meetings with these evil men stating your displeasure?  Instead of frowning upon altar boys who show you respect how about frowning upon the face of swine like Obama?

Souls are falling into Hell like snowflakes under your watch, but you concentrate on trivialities. Stupefyingly ignorant Catholics who have no notion whatsoever about what their Church teaches get no help from you. They get only banalities, cliches and empty sloganeering.

When you meet God at the time of your death, how will you answer for your actions and inactions?  I scarcely think God will be impressed by how many meetings you have had with second-rate Hollywood actors or third-rate Hollywood directors.  It is doubtful that He will be impressed by your giving audiences to every blasphemer, sex deviate, atheist or child killer who begs an audience with you.  But God will most definitely be interested in the way you allowed the sacrileges and profanations of the Holy Eucharist to continue under your watch. True, you are not the only Pope who looked the way while the Eucharist was profaned.  John Paul II had much to answer for in that regard. Benedict could have stopped these sacrileges with the stroke of a pen (and diligent follow up) but he chose not to.  You could stop these desecrations with a stroke of the pen but you haven't; indeed, you have made it worse, first by letting Hosts get flung around by any Tom, Dick or Harriet at those awful papal rock concerts and second by your plans to allow adulterers and sodomites to receive Holy Communion while in the state of mortal sin.  Please know that you will have to answer for this when you have your meeting with Our Lord. Please ponder this.

Your driving Catholics to despair carries a price tag, one too horrible to contemplate.  You are still alive and in relatively good health.  There is still time for you to change course.  But if you keep inflicting upon Catholics dreadful and arrogant men like Blase Cupich, or keep encouraging repellent Modernists like the execrable Cardinal Kasper you may find that you have angered the Faithful to the point of carrying flaming torches to the door of the Vatican.  I warn you, this is not so far-fetched as it may seem.  Even loyal Catholics have a breaking point.  If you keep pushing them to that point do not be surprised if you see those flaming torches coming your way.

You are not dead yet, Francis.  God has not called you yet.  You still have time to change.  You can still undo some of the terrible damage you have done to Christ's Church.

It is your choice.

from "Frankenstein" (1931)

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Solzhenitsyn: The Der Spiegel Interview

Ten years ago, at age 88, Aleksander Solzhenitsyin granted an interview to the German publication Der Spiegel.  In re-reading this interview after all these years it became clear that his insights into the mind of the Russian people are vital, and need to be understood.  With Russia now being the punching bag of the Western powers-that-be we felt it essential to bring back this interview to the public.

It was always difficult to understand the Russian mind.  Here Solzhenitsyn unravels it for us:


SPIEGEL: Alexander Isayevich, when we came in we found you at work. It seems that even at the age of 88 you still feel this need to work, even though your health doesn’t allow you to walk around your home. What do you derive your strength from?
Solzhenitsyn: I have always had that inner drive, since my birth. And I have always devoted myself gladly to work -- to work and to the struggle.
SPIEGEL: There are four tables in this space alone. In your new book "My American Years," which will be published in Germany this fall, you recollect that you used to write even while walking in the forest.
Solzhenitsyn: When I was in the gulag I would sometimes even write on stone walls. I used to write on scraps of paper, then I memorized the contents and destroyed the scraps.
SPIEGEL: And your strength did not leave you even in moments of enormous desperation?
Solzhenitsyn: Yes. I would often think: Whatever the outcome is going to be, let it be. And then things would turn out all right. It looks like some good came out of it.
SPIEGEL: I am not sure you were of the same opinion when in February 1945 the military secret service arrested Captain Solzhenitsyn in Eastern Prussia. Because, in his letters from the front, Solzhenitsyn was unflattering about Josef Stalin, and the sentence for that was eight years in the prison camps.
Solzhenitsyn: It was south of Wormditt. We had just broken out of a German encirclement and were marching to Königsberg (now Kaliningrad) when I was arrested. I was always optimistic. And I held to and was guided by my views.
SPIEGEL: What views?
Solzhenitsyn: Of course, my views developed in the course of time. But I have always believed in what I did and never acted against my conscience.
SPIEGEL: Thirteen years ago when you returned from exile, you were disappointed to see the new Russia. You turned down a prize proposed by Gorbachev, and you also refused to accept an award Yeltsin wanted to give you. Yet now you have accepted the State Prize which was awarded to you by Putin, the former head of the FSB intelligence agency, whose predecessor the KGB persecuted and denounced you so cruelly. How does this all fit together?
Solzhenitsyn: The prize in 1990 was proposed not by Gorbachev, but by the Council of Ministers of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, then a part of the USSR. The prize was to be for "The Gulag Archipelago." I declined the proposal, since I could not accept an award for a book written in the blood of millions.

In 1998, it was the county’s low point, with people in misery; this was the year when I published the book "Russia in Collapse." Yeltsin decreed I be honored the highest state order. I replied that I was unable to receive an award from a government that had led Russia into such dire straits.
The current State Prize is awarded not by the president personally, but by a community of top experts. The Council on Science that nominated me for the award and the Council on Culture that supported the idea include some of the most highly respected people of the country, all of them authorities in their respective disciplines. The president, as head of state, awards the laureates on the national holiday. In accepting the award I expressed the hope that the bitter Russian experience, which I have been studying and describing all my life, will be for us a lesson that keeps us from new disastrous breakdowns.
Vladimir Putin -- yes, he was an officer of the intelligence services, but he was not a KGB investigator, nor was he the head of a camp in the gulag. As for service in foreign intelligence, that is not a negative in any country -- sometimes it even draws praise. George Bush Sr. was not much criticized for being the ex-head of the CIA, for example.
SPIEGEL: All your life you have called on the authorities to repent for the millions of victims of the gulag and communist terror. Was this call really heard?
Solzhenitsyn: I have grown used to the fact that, throughout the world, public repentance is the most unacceptable option for the modern politician.
SPIEGEL: The current Russian president says the collapse of the Soviet Union was the largest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. He says it is high time to stop this masochistic brooding over the past, especially since there are attempts "from outside," as he puts it, to provoke an unjustified remorse among Russians. Does this not just help those who want people to forget everything that took place during the county’s Soviet past?
Solzhenitsyn: Well, there is growing concern all over the world as to how the United States will handle its new role as the world’s only superpower, which it became as a result of geopolitical changes. As for “brooding over the past," alas, that conflation of "Soviet" and "Russian," against which I spoke so often in the 1970s, has not passed away either in the West, or in the ex-socialist countries, or in the former Soviet republics. The elder political generation in communist countries was not ready for repentance, while the new generation is only too happy to voice grievances and level accusations, with present-day Moscow a convenient target. They behave as if they heroically liberated themselves and lead a new life now, while Moscow has remained communist. Nevertheless, I dare hope that this unhealthy phase will soon be over, that all the peoples who have lived through communism will understand that communism is to blame for the bitter pages of their history.

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

A sane look at North Korea (for a change)

William Lind offers some desperately needed clear thinking on North Korea.


As North Korea inches its way toward possessing an ICBM than can hit the United States with a nuclear warhead–both of dubious reliability–we can expect a Korean “crisis” to grow. In fact, there need be no crisis. A deal with North Korea is not difficult to envision, and America now has a president who is good at making deals.
The conventional wisdom presents North Korea as a rogue state ruled by a madman, Kim Jong Un. He, and it, are irrational, dangerous, and impossible to predict. Sanctions having failed, we must pile up more sanctions. There is no alternative to growing hostility between North Korea and the U.S., a course which is likely at some point to lead to war. In the meantime, we must keep thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea, a country far stronger than North Korea.
But there is another way to look at the situation, one that sees continuity rather than irrationality in North Korean policy. For centuries, Korea, then one country, was known as the “Hermit Kingdom”. Like Japan under the last Shogunate, Korea was closed to foreigners, trade, and all outside contact. Its government, a monarchy, was centralized, powerful, and all-controlling. An “ideology” of sorts, Confucianism, was the only tolerated way of thinking. The king was regarded as semi-divine.
From this perspective, today’s North Korea is merely an extension of historic Korea. The Kims are a new dynasty, behaving very much like the old dynasty. North Korea’s legitimacy is rooted in this continuity; it is South Korea, not North Korea, that is a historic anomaly.
North Korea’s stress on military power, including obtaining nuclear weapons and delivery systems, is defensive, not offensive, in motivation. If you want to wall yourself off from the rest of the world, you had better be strong militarily. Otherwise, you can expect a visit from Commodore Perry’s Black Ships.
Read the whole article.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...