Tears of Faith and Love: founded in 1988, FSSP enters 30th year


By New Catholic Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Come sorrowing tears, the offspring of my grief,
Scant not your parent of a needful aid;
In you I rest the hope of wish’d relief,
By you my sinful debts must be defray’d:
Your power prevails, your sacrifice is grateful,
By love obtaining life to men most hateful.


If love, if loss, if fault, if spotted fame,
If danger, death, if wrath, or wreck of weal,
Entitle eyes true heirs to earned blame,
That due remorse in such events conceal:
That want of tears might well enrol my name,
As chiefest saint in kalendar of shame.


At Sorrow’s door I knock’d, they craved my name:
I answer’d, one unworthy to be known.
What one? say they. One worthiest of blame.
But who? a wretch, not God’s, nor yet his own.
A man? Oh no! a beast; much worse. What creature?
A rock. How call’d? the rock of scandal, Peter!


With mildness, Jesu, measure mine offence;
Let true remorse Thy due revenge abate;
Let tears appease when trespass doth increase;
Let pity temper Thy deserved hate;
Let grace forgive, let love forget my fall:
With fear I crave, with hope I humbly call.

Redeem my lapse with ransom of Thy love,
Traverse th’indictment, rigour’s doom suspend;
Let frailty favour, sorrows succour move,
Be Thou Thyself, though changeling I offend.
Tender my suit, cleanse this denied den,
Cancel my debts, sweet Jesu, say Amen!
Saint Robert Southwell
St. Peter’s Complaint

______________________________

The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter proudly display as their symbol not emblems of glory, but tears of heartfelt shame, the tears of their heavenly Patron. As with Peter, the early tears of uncertainty became assurances of triumph – not for the earthly honor of their members, but for Our Lord Jesus Christ and the undying heritage of the Church of Rome, founded upon the blood of Simon son of John.

Congratulations to the Fraternity on this their 29th Anniversary of foundation, as they enter their 30th year of common life for the Church — and a wish of many more decades of fidelity to the Roman See and her doctrine and steadfastness, under the protection of God and of the redeemed tears of Saint Peter.

From Rorate Caeli Website

The Rosary After 800 Years: Why Our Lady’s Apparition to St. Dominic Still Matters

e10d45f8053be3d29b9e7f0ce27566f9 patron saints catholic saints
Written by Michael Matt | Editor, The Remnant

“Moreover, we may well believe that the Queen of Heaven herself has granted an especial efficacy to this mode of supplication, for it was by her command and counsel that the devotion was begun and spread abroad by the holy Patriarch Dominic.”

– Pope Leo XIII, (Octobri Mense Encyclical on the Rosary, 1891) –

Editor’s Note by Michael J. Matt: The following was published in The Remnant back in 1995, before the promulgation of Pope John Paul’s (when he was very elderly and ill) Luminous Mysteries. It is very fashionable these days to argue that Our Lady never actually appeared to St. Dominic in order to commission him with the task of spreading devotion to the most Holy Rosary. This entire incident, supported by at least 15 popes and numerous saints, is nevertheless chalked up as yet another one of the “pious legends of old Christendom” of which our Modernist friends are so fond.

But this “legend” is so well substantiated by popes and saints in history that its authenticity cannot be reasonably questioned without revealing at least a Modernist leaning.

When Our Lady appeared to St. Dominic at Prouilhe in southern France in the 13th century, she was accompanied by three angels, and she asked him: “Dear Dominic, do you know which weapon the Blessed Trinity wants to use to reform the world? I want you to know that, in this kind of warfare, the battering ram has always been the Angelic Psalter which is the foundation stone of the New Testament. Therefore, if you want to reach these hardened souls and win them over to God, preach my Psalter composed of 150 Angelic Salutations and 15 Our Fathers and you will obtain an abundant harvest.”

At this, St. Dominic went out and preached the Rosary, first to the Albigensian heretics and then to all of Europe, in compliance with the instruction he’d received from Our Lady—with fifteen mysteries grouped into five decades each.

Lest there be any doubt of this, here is a photograph of the Basilica of Our lady of the Rosary and the Dominican Monastery of Prouilhe:
20160613 120116
This is one of the most venerated pilgrimage destinations in France, and it is where St. Dominic established the headquarters of his Order of Preachers—the very spot where according to 800-year-old tradition Our Lady appeared to St. Dominic and gave him the devotion of the Holy Rosary.

The history of this event is strongly supported by the tradition of the Dominican Order itself, but also Pope Leo XIII—the “Pope of the Rosary”, who wrote 12 encyclicals and 5 apostolic letters on the Rosary—who affirmed over and over again the Dominican origin of the Rosary and in a letter to the Bishop of Carcassonne (1889), admits that he accepts the tradition of Prouille as the place where the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to St. Dominic, revealing this devotion—a tradition supported by at least 15 popes, including the great St. Pius V who codified the Rosary as it had been given to St. Dominic by Our Lady along with the Tridentine Mass after the Council of Trent. It should come as little surprise, then, that Modernists have been trying to crush both the Tridentine Mass and Rosary, ever since.

Here, then, is a more thorough history of the Rosary itself as well as its documented and demonstrated power against evil in the world, both in the past as well as more modern times. MJM

THE HOLY ROSARY:
Ultimate Liturgy

There is no mention whatever of the Rosary in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Not even in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, whose final chapter deals exclusively with our Lady ’s role in the Church. A vague reference in Article 67 to “practices and exercises of devotion towards her” might be assumed to include it, but according to Bishop Rendeiro of Coïmbra, the Bishops who wished to add to the text “the Rosary with meditation on the Mysteries of the life of Christ and the Blessed Virgin” were voted down. Apparently the Council deemed it best to follow the recommendations of the Theological Commission and make no mention of particular devotions, for fear of encouraging manifestations of piety beyond what they termed “the limits of sound and orthodox doctrine.” [1]

Read more here: http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3467-the-rosary-after-800-years-why-our-lady-s-appiration-to-st-dominic-still-matters

The Standard of the Cross

FATHER GEORGE RUTLER

If revisionists would burlesque the past and mute the voice of reason, they should first recognize that the value of life is secured best by the standard of the Cross and not the Crescent.

starsThe current mania for tearing down statues and stifling free speech by cultural ingénues ignorant of history and logic, has reached a stellar absurdity in demands to censure “The Star Spangled Banner” on lame claims that it is racist.  If ignorance is bliss, then those who indulge their revisionism, must be in Nirvana.

Francis Scott Key penned the words in 1814, later set to an English song “To Anacreon in Heaven,” a tune that is a challenge to singers, as even Renéee Fleming confessed after performing it at the 2014 Super Bowl.  It is often mutilated by rock stars calling attention to themselves by “interpreting” it.  Key wrote the words after watching 19 British ships fire more than 1,500 cannon balls, mortar shells and rockets on Baltimore.  Key was a slave-owner, which was, sadly, not in contradiction to common practice.  But he ordered the manumission of his slaves, and in 1820 he embarked on a seven-year effort pleading before the Supreme Court for the liberation of 300 African slaves captured off the ship “Antelope” along the Florida coast.  He also worked with John Quincy Adams in the “Amistad” case to free 53 slaves.

Islam, which means “submission,” has never had abolitionists like the Christians Bartolomé de las Casas and William Wilberforce.

Key’s poem “The Defence of Fort McHenry” which, re-named “The Star-Spangled Banner,” became the national anthem in 1931, was based on verses he composed in 1805 to celebrate the victory over the Muslim slave-trading pirates on the Barbary coast, (“the shores of Tripoli,”).  “And pale beam’d the Crescent, its splendor obscured / By the Light of the star-spangled flag of our nation….And the turban’d heads bow’d to the terrible glare…” John Langdon, was a Founding Father who, as first President pro tempore of the Senate, administered the vice-presidential oath of office to John Adams.  In 1805 as governor of New Hampshire, he set aside a day in thanksgiving “for the termination of our contest with one of the African powers; the liberation of our fellow-citizens from bondage…”

Islam, which means “submission,” has never had abolitionists like the Christians Bartolomé de las Casas and William Wilberforce.  Muhammed was a slave trader, and the Qur’an devotes five times as much space to regulating labor slavery and sex slavery as it does to prayer.  Nearly 200 million slaves, white and black, were sold by Muslim traders over fourteen centuries, and almost all the Africans sold to European traders for export to America were enslaved by Muslims.  Muslim slavers even raided Ireland in 1631.  So many Eastern Europeans were enslaved that the word “slave” itself comes from “Slav.” While lip service is given to abolition in Islamic lands, slavery today is blatant in Sudan, Niger and Mauritania and was not abolished in Saudi Arabia and Yemen until 1962 (under Western pressure).  Where is the indignation of protestors here?  If revisionists would burlesque the past and mute the voice of reason, they should first recognize that the value of life is secured best by the standard of the Cross and not the Crescent.

The Revolution, George Soros, and the Assault on the West ~ The Remnant

Friday, September 22, 2017

by  Dr. Boyd D. Cathey

Sometimes I think back four decades to my college years. Between grad schools, I served as assistant to conservative writer and philosopher Russell Kirk in Mecosta, Michigan. Being a Southern boy, the one significant thing I recall about the climate up there was that we had snow on the ground—and lots of it—from around Thanksgiving all the way until April. So, other than my secretarial duties for Dr. Kirk I had I plenty of time to read (the Kirks had no television). And with Russell’s library of over 30,000 books I had a bibliophile’s cornucopia at my fingertips. Not only that, he was one of the most widely read of “teachers” a young grad student could ever have.So, beyond his vast collection of histories and biographies, I was able to read great literature, including some classics of Catholic spirituality. In addition to Jonathan Swift, Sir Walter Scott, Robert Lewis Stevenson, there were the works of G. K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, and of the ancients, Plutarch’s Lives, Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Dante, and most influentially, life-altering writings of the Spanish mystic, St. John of the Cross. I mention these not to boast, but only to say that my year with Dr. Kirk was very fruitful in multiple ways that I only now fully appreciate.

As I reflect and write essays these days, scenes and quotations from many of those classics come back to me, and many times seem to fit and support my narratives. Preparing this essay a quote came to me. It is from Benjamin Disraeli, the great Conservative 19th century British prime minister, prominently featured in Kirk’s signature work, The Conservative Mind (1953). It comes from one of Disraeli’s novels, Coningsby. Here it is: “So you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”Disraeli wrote those words over 170 years ago. But today, as we survey the decaying remnants of a culture that once was proudly the “Christian West,” that is, our inherited European civilization that has been with us and has shaped and annealed us for nearly two millennia—as we behold the no-holds-barred attacks on this legacy, it is apparent that the decay and decrepitude has arrived not by accident, or even by frontal assault. Rather, the great success of the Marxist Revolution has been to subvert and influence, to transform, the culture of the West from within, almost as if clandestinely.

Around the time of the First World War the Italian Communist philosopher, Antonio Gramsci, formulated a theory which included a discussion of what he termed “cultural hegemony.” The brilliant Gramsci, viewing the failure of “war communism” to overthrow the traditional order in Europe by military force, understood that Marxist Revolution could never be successful in its campaign against the historic Christian West through open armed conflict.  Despite the ravages and debilitating effects of 19th century liberalism, an overarching, traditionalist cultural and religious template—a “cultural hegemony”—yet guided much of Western thought, set standards, and governed conduct. That cultural hegemony, Gramsci postulated, must be overturned and replaced. The West could only be conquered if its traditional cultural and religious bases, grounded in an orthodox Christian faith, were transformed. And it was the Catholic Church and its social and political teachings that were the principle roadblock to and enemy of Marxism. Infiltration and subversion of the church, then, Gramsci highlighted as a paramount means of eventually effecting the Revolution. Western culture—Western civilization—was based fundamentally on and in the Faith, on the precious legacy and inheritance from Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome. Sever that connection, pollute and subvert that foundation, and a political and cultural transformation would inevitably follow. In the late 19th century the great Catholic traditionalist writer, Marcelino Menendez y Pelayo, in his Historia de los Heterodoxos, warned Catholic Spain: “España, evangelizadora de la mitad del orbe; España martillo de herejes, luz de Trento, espada de Roma, cuna de San Ignacio…; ésa es nuestra grandeza y nuestra unidad; no tenemos otra.”  “Spain,” he wrote, “evangelizer of half of the world; Spain, hammer of heretics, light of Trent, sword of Rome, cradle of St. Ignatius—this is our greatness and our unity; we have no other.”

Like Menendez y Pelayo, Gramsci understood this maxim, this truth about Europe and the West: if you infect the base of a culture, pervert and eventually alter its fundamental beliefs, its morality, its concept of right and wrong, its ideas about law, its very linguistic meanings—if you accomplish these things, you likewise will alter its politics and its culture. Without the Faith as its “shield and buckler,” Europe, then, was defenseless . . .

Read more here: The Remnant Newspaper – The Revolution, George Soros, and the Assault on the West

Submit a Post: Steve Brown

Screen Shot 2015-06-29 at 11.55.29 AM

I came across this post by Jeff Pearlman. On his website, he has what he calls The Quaz, which is a Q&A session with various homo sapiens. This one is with John Martignoni who is a Catholic christian and as such should be of interest to this audience. Enjoy!

http://www.jeffpearlman.com/john-martignoni/

RORATE CÆLI: Prophetic Speech of Pope Ven. Pius XII Warns of “a Church which Weakens the Law of God”

Source: RORATE CÆLI: Prophetic Speech of Pope Ven. Pius XII Warns of “a Church which Weakens the Law of God”

 

In this time of new persecutions against Christians by Islamicists, secularists, and sexual anarchists, and of a pope who so openly emboldens and gives comfort to these and other enemies of Holy Mother Church, while shirking his duty to confirm his brethren in the faith, we publish in English translation (below) the prophetic words of the Venerable Pope Pius XII, given on February 20, 1949 to the people of Rome, condemning the persecution of Christians in Eastern Europe by the socialist and communist dictatorships.

Pius XII warns of “a Church which weakens the law of God, adapting it to the taste of human desires, when she should loudly proclaim and defend it” and which would give herself over to “the shifting sands of the opinions of the day.”  He asks: “Would you recognize in such a Church the features of your Mother’s face? Can you imagine a Successor of the first Peter, who would bow to similar demands?” Can anyone now deny that we live in just such a time as this?

 

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS PIUS XII TO THE FAITHFUL

Sunday, February 20, 1949
Romans! Beloved sons and daughters!
Once again, in a grave and dolorous hour, the faithful people of the Eternal City has rushed to its Bishop and Father.
Once again, this superb colonnade seems barely able to embrace with its gigantic arms the crowds, which like waves driven by an irresistible force, have flowed to the threshold of the Vatican Basilica, in order to attend the Mass of Atonement in the central point of the whole Catholic world and to pour out the sentiments with which their souls are overflowing.
Among the unanimous condemnations of the civilized world, the sentence imposed upon an eminent Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church on the banks of the Danube has raised on the banks of the Tiber a cry of indignation worthy of the City.
But the fact that a regime opposed to religion has this time attacked a Prince of the Church, revered by the vast majority of his people, is not an isolated case; it is one of the links in the long chain of persecutions which some dictatorial States have waged against Christian doctrine and life.
A well-known characteristic common to persecutors of all times is that, not content with physically crushing their victims, they want also to make them appear despicable and hateful to their country and to society.
Who does not remember the Roman martyrs, of whom Tacitus speaks (Annals 15:44), immolated under Nero and made to appear as arsonists, abominable criminals, enemies of mankind?
Modern persecutors show themselves to be the docile disciples of that inglorious school. They copy, so to speak, their masters and models, if, indeed, they do not surpass them in cruelty, clever as they are in the art of employing the most recent progress in the technical sciences for the purpose of a domination and enslavement of the people which in the past would not have been conceivable.
Romans! The Church of Christ is following the road traced out for her by the divine Redeemer. She feels herself eternal; she knows that she cannot perish, that the most violent storms will not succeed in submerging her. She begs no favours; the threats and disfavor of earthly authorities do not intimidate her. She does not interfere in problems purely economic or political, nor does she occupy herself with debates on the usefulness or banefulness of one form of government or another. Always eager, in so far as she is able, to be at peace with all (cf. Rom 12:8), she renders unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, but she cannot betray or abandon that which belongs to God.
Now, it is well known what the totalitarian and anti-religious State requires and expects from her [the Church] as the price for her tolerance and her problematic recognition. That is, it would desire:
a Church which remains silent, when she should speak out;
a Church which weakens the law of God, adapting it to the taste of human desires, when she should loudly proclaim and defend it;
a Church which detaches herself from the unwavering foundation upon which Christ built her, in order to repose comfortably on the shifting sands of the opinions of the day or to give herself up to the passing current;
a Church which does not withstand the oppression of conscience and does not protect the legitimate rights and the just liberties of the people;
a Church which, with indecorous servility, remains enclosed within the four walls of the temple, which forgets the divine mandate received from Christ: Go forth to the street corners (Matt 22:9), teach all peoples (Matt 28:19).
Beloved sons and daughters! Spiritual heirs of an innumerable legion of confessors and martyrs!
Is this the Church whom you venerate and love? Would you recognize in such a Church the features of your Mother’s face? Can you imagine a Successor of the first Peter, who would bow to similar demands?
The Pope has the divine promises; even in his human weaknesses, he is invincible and unshakable; he is the messenger of truth and justice, the principle of the unity of the Church; his voice denounces errors, idolatries, superstitions; he condemns iniquities; he makes charity and virtue loved.
Can he [the Pope] then remain silent when in a nation the churches which are united to the center of Christendom, to Rome, are snatched away through violence or cunning; when all the Greek-Catholic bishops are imprisoned because they refuse to apostatize from their faith; when priests and the faithful are persecuted and arrested because they refuse to leave their true Mother Church?
Can the Pope remain silent, when the right to educate their own children is taken away from parents by a minority regime which wants to alienate them from Christ?
Can the Pope remain silent when a State, surpassing the limits of its authority, arrogates to itself the power to abolish dioceses, to depose Bishops, to overturn the ecclesiastical organization, and to reduce it below the minimum requirements for the effectual care of souls?
Can the Pope remain silent when the point is reached of punishing a priest with imprisonment, guilty of refusing to violate the most sacred and inviolable of secrets, the secret of sacramental confession?
Is all this perhaps illegitimate interference in the political powers of the State? Who could honestly affirm anything of the kind? Your exclamations have already given the answer to these and many other similar questions.
May the Lord God reward your fidelity, beloved sons and daughters. May He give you strength in the present and future struggles. May He make you vigilant against the attacks of His and your enemies. May He illumine with His light the minds of those whose eyes are still closed to the truth. May he grant to those hearts, which today are far from him, the grace to sincerely return to that faith and to those fraternal sentiments whose denial threatens the peace of humanity.
And now may Our lavish, paternal, and affectionate Apostolic Blessing descend upon you, the City and the World.

Parolin and the Church of Traitors – What’s Up With Francis-Church?

AUG 30, 2016

by HILARY WHITE

According to Chris Ferrara, Francis’ Prime Minister, Pietro Parolin (another formerly “conservative” weathervane,) has sold out the Catholic Church in China to the communist regime that wants them dead.

Wait, that sentence wasn’t clear. I meant, Parolin has sold out the persecuted Catholics in China to the Chinese government, which is the particular communist regime that wants them dead to which I was referring. These days one has to be specific. There are quite a lot of communist regimes around who want the Catholic Church dead. Including the one in Rome.

But I’d like to expand a little on what Chris has written. Chris has a habit, especially when he’s writing for Fatima Perspectives, of assuming quite a lot of background and historical knowledge of his readers. He mentions in passing, for instance the Vatican’s Secretariat of State having been “elevated to unprecedented prominence by the post-Vatican II reforms masterminded by Cardinal Villot,” that have “endangered the integrity of the Faith in order to serve the worldly dictates of Vatican diplomacy.” Without knowing who Villot was (a notorious Freemason, undersecretary and major moving force for the “progressives” at Vatican II, principal opponent of Archbishop Lefebvre, and Secretary of State for Paul VI) and what Paul VI did to the Curia on his instructions (placed the entire Curia under the thumb of the Secretariat of State, including the Holy Office – later the CDF) it would be difficult to understand the significance. This is one of those bits of historical information that is known mostly only to Trads.

The point for the newer reader to take home, though, is that whatever is going on now in Stato is not new. It isn’t product of any “new direction” or “reform” by Bergoglio, particularly regarding the situation in China. It is just the carrying on of the same plan that has been in place since about 1963, a plan enthusiastically executed under John Paul II and Benedict with those pontiffs’ full knowledge and approbation.

All this stuff stopped being a conspiracy when the conspirators won the Conclave of ’58 and then jumped out of the shadows declaring an unopposed victory in ’65. Once you’ve got that basic idea into your head, everything else stops being “confusing.”

I’m going to repeat that, so we can all remember it: What is happening now with Parolin throwing the Chinese Catholics under the Communist bus is just the carrying on of the Vatican’s policy in China since the early 1960s.

The Vatican has been doing everything possible to sell Chinese Catholics to the Chinese communists for decades. It’s not FrancisReform. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s just normal policy.

Chris quotes Parolin:

Now we hear from the current Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, that there is really no difference between the underground bishops and faithful, who refuse to join the schismatic CPA and suffer relentless persecution on that account, and the adherents of the CPA, both clergy and laity, who obey men rather than God by worshipping in accordance with the dictates of a communist and atheist regime that forces women to abort their own children.

As Cardinal Parolin declared in a recent interview with Avvenire, the newspaper of the Italian bishops’ conference: “The claim that there are two different Churches in China does not correspond to historical reality or to the life of faith of Chinese Catholics. There are in fact two communities that are both eager to live in full communion with the Successor of Peter. Each of these carries with it the historical baggage of moments of great testimony and suffering, which tells us something about the complexity and contradictions that exist within this vast country.”

Some years ago, I read a long article by a former Vatican journalist, Wilton Wynn, one of the guys who pioneered the field before there was a press office on Via della Conciliazione. Back in the day, one simply had to know people and talk to them at lunch. Some of Wynn’s connections were people in Casaroli’s Secretariat of State. It’s definitely worth a read.

I wrote a pair of blog posts, “Church of Traitors” and “Church of Traitors II,” about Wynn’s description of the origins of the Vatican’s longstanding policy – called Ostpolitik, basically meaning “appeasement” – with Communist regimes, and particularly in Paul VI’s time with Hungary’s Soviet leadership, Paul’s betrayal of Mindszenty that was the crisis that determined the direction not only of the Church until this day, but of much of the western powers. Basically, the Vatican has been selling out the Communist martyrs for the last 40 + years.

The story, if someone were to take it on as a project, goes back to the vile Freemason Villot, and then moves on to Cardinal Casaroli, Paul VI’s Secretary of State, and on to the JPII years when the Vatican started looking pretty schizophrenic. John Paul II (thanks mostly to George Weigel’s unreadable hagiographic fakery) is widely believed to have been a staunch and historically significant opponent of Communism. This might have been true in Poland, but emphatically didn’t extend to China. In ’80s and ’90s the Old Policy of Stato took the form of Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, John Paul II’s “special envoy” to China.

One of the “fruits” has been the steady withdrawal of the Vatican’s diplomatic support of Taiwan, a nation the Chinese refuse to acknowledge the existence of. Until recently, pretty much the only friends the Taiwanese had against their Communist Goliath neighbours was the US and Rome. I haven’t recently looked up Obama’s policy.

The Vatican’s Chinese Ostpolitik came under fire as late in the Jay-Pee-Too!-Wee-Luv-Yoo period as March, 2005. Sandro Magister wrote, a month before JPII’s death, “A Cardinal’s Flattery Doesn’t Set Any Bishops Free.” Of course, Magister’s mistake was imagining that this had been the goal of the Vatican’s policy in China in the first place.

Off the top of my head two incidents come to mind about one of Cardinal Rog’s trips to China. He gushed about how impressed he had been with the good manners and warmth of the Chinese government officials who showed him such a great time. He commented that on a Friday of his trip, he was astonished when at dinner, one of them mentioned that they were having only fish because, of course, they knew the good Cardinal would want to observe the Friday abstinence. The good Cardinal joked in an interview afterwards that these Communist officials were better informed than he was, since he hadn’t observed the Friday abstinence in decades.

Another memorable moment was the speech he gave in which he asserted that the old idea that there were two “Catholic Churches” in China was a grave error. No! No!, he exclaimed. “There are not two churches in China; but one Church with two faces…”

An apt but perhaps unfortunate choice of idiom. But oh, so very familiar.

One little piece of that trip keeps coming back to mind; that the Chinese government, while Cardinal Rog was being squired around for his carefully staged photo-ops, had ordered six Christian churches bulldozed…

Indeed, the Chinese government was better at sending messages than the Vatican men could have expected. Magister notes in his 2005 piece, “The latest Chinese Catholic bishop to leave prison is John Gao Kexian. He was arrested in 1999, at an undisclosed location. Last August, his family received his lifeless body.” The Chinese commies have a habit of rolling the prisoner’s naked body in a sheet of plastic and depositing it, dumped off the back of a van, on the doorstep of the nearest relatives. They’ve “released” quite a few Catholic bishops this way.

Magister continues:

“There are now 6 Chinese bishops in prison. 13 others are under house arrest. 19 priests have been imprisoned or have disappeared, and three more have been condemned to the concentration camps. All of them are members of the clandestine Church, which refuses to be part of the “patriotic” Church controlled by the communist regime.”

The cardinal is Roger Etchegaray, from France, president emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, and for many years the pope’s personal envoy to the world’s hotspots. On four occasions – in 1980, 1996, 2000, and 2003 – Etchegaray traveled to China, sometimes with the consensus of John Paul II. In the book he has just published, he gives an account of “what I have seen and heard” during his trips. 

Evidently he saw and heard little, and that poorly. The China that he recounts – Etchegaray writes at the beginning of his book – is only the “little patch of sky” that “a frog from the bottom of a well” can see. 

But then why did he not set this “little patch” beside the facts that his hosts carefully concealed from him, but which he could have learned from other sources, and if not at the time, then later? Why didn’t he dismantle the deception that these visits were composed of?

He didn’t do it. And with this Cardinal Etchegaray added his name to the disreputable list of illustrious pilgrims – from the world of politics and culture – who in past decades have visited the USSR, Cuba, China, and other such destinations, punctually making reports enthusiastic, naive, or in any case far from reality.

Why didn’t he dismantle the deception?

Oo! Oo! I know! I know! Pick me!

Some day, if you’ve a mind to read a little history, a book worth getting from a second hand bookseller is “Political Pilgrims” about the long history of western pinkos traveling to worship Marxism in those countries where it is fully practiced.

Source: Parolin and the Church of Traitors – What’s Up With Francis-Church?

RORATE CÆLI: The Prophetic Words of Pope St. Pius X

Excerpts from:

Notre Charge Apostolique

“Our Apostolic Mandate”

Given by Pope Pius X to the French BishopsAugust 15, 1910

 

“We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men to become brothers and comrades at last in the ‘Kingdom of God’. We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind.

“And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.

“We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Savior. To such an extent that they speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a familiarity supremely disrespectful, and that — their ideal being akin to that of the Revolution — they fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution blasphemous comparisons for which the excuse cannot be made that they are due to some confused and over-hasty composition.

“We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience.

“Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one’s personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism.

“As for you, Venerable Brethren, carry on diligently with the work of the Saviour of men by emulating His gentleness and His strength. Minister to every misery; let no sorrow escape your pastoral solicitude; let no lament find you indifferent. But, on the other hand, preach fearlessly their duties to the powerful and to the lowly; it is your function to form the conscience of the people and of the public authorities. The social question will be much nearer a solution when all those concerned, less demanding as regards their respective rights, shall fulfill their duties more exactingly.”

Source: RORATE CÆLI: The Prophetic Words of Pope St. Pius X

Triumphalism Defeats Heresy | liturgy guy

JUL 27 Posted by liturgy guy

In the Piazza del Gesù in Rome stands the mother church for the Society of Jesus, the Church of the Gesù. Inside one finds artist Pierre Le Gros’ classic marble relief, Religion Overthrowing Heresy and Hatred (pictured above). Long recognized by art historians as an archetypal image of the Church Triumphant, the Web Gallery of Art notes:

In Le Gros’ work, Religion hurls down thunderbolts upon an old woman representing Hatred while a male figure of Heresy writhes vanquished beneath; to reinforce the point, a putto cheerfully tears pages out of a volume by the Swiss reformer Zwingli, and a tome beneath the figure of Heresy bears Luther’s name prominently on its spine.

In a similar vein as Le Gros’ masterpiece stands Pope Gregory XVI’s 1832 encyclical, Mirari Vos, On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism. Written during a time of great political and ecclesial tumult, and by a pope only in the second year of his pontificate, Mirari Vos employs the full authority of the papacy to boldly combat error. The language is direct and triumphalist in tone, differing significantly from what we have seen so often in recent years. Pope Gregory is also succinct in stating his purpose. At a mere 24 paragraphs total, Mirari Vos is most effective in part because of its brevity.

Regarding Indifferentism:

Continue reading here: Triumphalism Defeats Heresy | liturgy guy

The Remnant Newspaper – On the “Rite of Saint Peter”–The Glorious Roman Rite (most beautiful thing this side of heaven)

Written by  Robert Higdon

INTRODUCTION

There were 54 Rites of Mass composed by the apostles according to the language and custom of the countries they evangelized. In this essay all comments are centered on the Roman Rite.

Why select the Roman Rite to comment on, if it is just one among many? Is it because it is said in Latin? No, in fact, the original language that it was written in was Syro-Chaldaic, composed by St. Peter in Antioch. It was the language used by the people of Judea at the time of Christ. It is divine providence that chose Latin, soon to be ‘non-vernacular’, as the language of the Church. This ‘dead language’ for the Church was to be a sign of Her unity in ‘Her Liturgy’ and to protect the meaning of ‘Her dogmas’ (for the meanings of words in any vernacular language tend to change over time – in a dead language the meanings of words never change).

The importance of the Latin Roman Rite is that it is the Rite of some 95 percent of all Catholics. It is the Latin Roman Rite that St. Paul spread throughout his missionary expeditions.

 It is the Latin Roman Rite St. Francis Xavier spread Throughout Asia. It is the Latin Roman Rite the Conquistadors spread throughout South America with Our Lady of Guadalupe’s help. It is the Latin Roman Rite that was first said on the shores of America at that location, which is now called St. Augustine in Florida, long before the Pilgrims landed. Obviously, Our Blessed Lord got in the Liturgical boat of St. Peter; it is the Latin Roman Rite God chose to evangelize world-wide!

Before proceeding, permit me to define the words Tradition and Custom which are used frequently in this document:

Webster defines Tradition: “The handing down of beliefs or customs; an instituted pattern of action (as a religious practice).”

Webster defines Custom: “Long established practice considered as unwritten law. Usage or practice common to many.”

Also Cannon Law 27 (new version) explains that custom is the best interpreter of laws.

So when we look at liturgical law according to canonical tradition, in order to understand the law correctly, it must be understood according to the tradition that has established the liturgical custom. As the ancient Father, St. John Chrysostom says: “Is it tradition? Ask no more.”

TRADITION OF THE FIRST MASS

The comments in this section are based on the book: “How Christ Said the First Mass” by Father James L Meagher, D.D. Pope Leo XIII declared him a Doctor of Divinity. He was President of the Christian Press Association Publishing Company in New York which published the book in 1906. The book (440 pages – complete with references and a detailed index) is currently available from Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.

The author goes into great detail to show how the Roman Rite of Mass, in particular, is patterned after the Liturgy of the traditional Jewish Passover Feast. Nearly every detail of the Mass has its counterpart in the Passover Liturgy. From the procession, prayers at the foot of the altar (the same psalms quoted), the Confiteor, and even the Canon are strikingly similar. He points out that God himself gave detailed instructions to Moses and Aaron how the Passover feast was to be conducted.

God also detailed the Liturgical garments in a “striking minuteness, he laid down material, color, shape and ornament of vestments worn in public worship, and forbade them at any other time”. The Church today uses the same type liturgical vestments made of linen, and the same liturgical colors, red, white, green and violet. The Church only added the color black to express sorrow. To illustrate the Divine concern about vestments he points out that they are mentioned 167 times in the Old Testament, and 59 times in the New Testament.

Now let us review some pertinent quotes to illustrate the similarity of the Passover and the Roman Rite Liturgy as sung by Christ at the first Mass:

·         “The synagogue services were not only sung by the Rabbi and his ministers, but the people also took part in the congregational singing. There was a night foretold by Israel’s great prophet, Isaiah, when the Lord Messiah would come and sing the Passover service. Numberless proofs force us to believe that the Last Supper was a pontifical High Mass sung by the Lord, his apostles and the people taking part in the congregational singing.”

·         “Christ was therefore a priest according to the order of Melchisedech when he offered bread and wine at the Last Supper, and a priest according to the order of Aaron when he brought the lamb of Passover to the Temple to be sacrificed.”

·         “The liturgy of the Passover, formed of Prayers, Psalms, chants, anthems, directions, rubrics, etc.. were the foundations on which the apostles, apostolic men and great saints formed the fifty-four different Liturgies of the Mass. The most famous, the Roman Rite, established by Peter in the Eternal City, and with little change comes down to us under the name of the Latin or Roman Mass.” . . .

Read more here: The Remnant Newspaper – On the “Rite of Saint Peter”–The Glorious Roman Rite (most beautiful thing this side of heaven)