ChurchMilitant.TV "Mic'd Up" Radio Show

If you like Michael Voris on “The Vortex”, you will probably enjoy ChurchMilitant.TV’s new blogtalk radio show. The show airs live on Wednesday evenings, and then a video version is posted on Thursday. And actually, if you don't like Voris's "style" on the Vortex, you might like him better on the radio show, as he has a more conversational style. 

I watched/listened to parts of the discussion on the October 4/5 episode. You can see it here.

Voris discussed the enigmatic continued support of the Democratic Party by the Black population; it is really difficult to find reasons to help understand why Black voters remain loyal to the Dems. Voris pointed out that especially for Black Christians, it is impossible to ignore what the Dems stand for (by their official party platform, no less), which is one assault against Christ after the other. Black pastors are beginning to exhort Black voters to reconsider; case in point, this video – an excellent summation of the problem by a pastor named E.W. Jackson (see the transcript of this video here).

Voris points out that the Democratic Party hasn’t helped Blacks out at all. He presents some statistics, including these:

In 2008, 25% of Blacks were living in poverty; in 2011, 28%.

In 2008, the unemployment rate (actively looking for work) was 5% overall; it was 9% for  Blacks. In 2011, it was 8.2 overall and 13.6 for blacks.

In 2008, the unemployment rate for young Americans (age 16-24) overall was 16%; for young Blacks it was 25%. In 2011, overall it was 17%; for Blacks – 29%.

It seems clear that social justice and anti-poverty programs are not helping anyone, really, and are helping Blacks less than Whites.

There’s been a 10% increase in the number of blacks on welfare in the last 20 years.

Voris also talked about Mormonism, since Romney was taken to task by Harry Reid; he gave a description of some of the beliefs of Mormonism and pointed out that it is not a Christian religion. Voris also noted that there is no doctrinal statement in Mormonism regarding pro-life issues and many of the other issues which the Catholic Church defines and takes a stand on, so it’s pointless to say that Romney will/should/could follow a “Mormon” approach to the issues of the day.

I was particularly captivated by Voris’s closing comments, which were sparked by a caller who asked whether Obama was consciously trying to undermine the Catholic Church.

Voris said that he doesn’t think Obama’s trying to create a fissure, but that he knows there is one. Think about the Catholics Obama has surrounded himself with:Biden, Pelosi, Sebelius. Then there are the honors he’s been given, for instance by Notre Dame. And remember that Obama got his start in the 1980’s under the “Bernardin machine” which was run by the Catholic social justice/social action crowd.

Voris thinks Obama has been aware of the split. “Maybe he doesn’t see it as a split, maybe he sees traditional Catholics as just some marginal thing…which, frankly, we are,” Voris chuckled. “He recognizes that, sees an opening, and he doesn’t care about Catholic moral teaching. He grew up under the ‘cape’ of social justice Catholics. So he’s fine with ‘Catholics’ like Carolyn Kennedy standing up at the Democratic convention” and saying things that go against Church teaching.

The rest of what I’ve written is a combination of transcription and paraphrase of Voris’s comments:

Probably he’s not the mastermind of his scheme. He has a world view. The Catholics he’s come into contact with have been nurtured and fed on this world view of social justice, and theology doesn’t matter, and man is the center of things, and let’s build a utopia here on earth. Those are the Catholics he’s been around; he doesn’t know any other Catholics, and if he did he would have dismissed them…as would the Catholics he already knew.

I don’t want to ascribe motives to Obama like he’s the antichrist and he’s conscious of it, but he does antichrist things. I believe he is in full possession of the diabolical mind and gives himself over to that and is simply a tool of hell. I don’t think it’s even in his mind to create a schism or division in the church. He’s plugged into a division that’s already been there. He was born in 1961…as you look at his history (his biography, speeches, his involvement in various movements), he’s grown up expecting that the Catholic Church is what so many Catholics have accepted that it is. It’s just a thing that has the trappings of a powerful institution; if you push a liberal agenda, a social justice/social action agenda, then you’re in. Anything else would seem strange [to him]. Because the American Catholic Church has become so Protestantized, Obama doesn’t see what the Catholic Church is. He sees what’s been presented to him of the Catholic Church.

Obama is simply a tool of the diabolical, and the diabolical is interested in creating schism and division and confusion and doubt in the Church – no doubt. So in that sense Obama has seized on the split in the Church and has caused it to widen.

In one sense we can be grateful, because for faithful Catholics and the younger bishops in America, it’s now very visible, it’s out on the table. There’s no wondering. You can see Obama’s disparaging comments and attitude toward Christianity in general and toward Catholicism in particular.

He has a view of Catholicism that is similar to a view that many Catholics have. He grew up alongside the Church (young adulthood in Chicago) – what’s he being presented with? The church of Bernardin which ruled the roost, and his surrogates are still in power or at least the long shadow of those people is still in chancery offices.

Obama’s not really trying to cause division; he just sees the Church for what it’s become – on an earthly level, not on a Bride-of-Christ level. And he says this is what it is, so let’s just use it.

A Look into the "Liberal Kathlic" Mind

I had a conversation via Face Book with a woman I know who is a self-described “liberal catholic”…except that now she has tossed aside her faith in favor of homosexual “marriage” and “choice”. Sigh.

It’s been difficult to write this post, because it is just so annoying and disheartening. The arguments that “liberal catholics” use are devoid of logic; instead, they are rife with emotional reactions, half-baked “facts”, overgeneralizations, and ad hominem attacks.

A Catholic deacon, Harold Burke-Sivers, was the keynote speaker at a conference I attended last weekend, and one of the best quotes from his was this, regarding those “liberal catholics” who support sodomy and child murder: “They don’t have an argument.  All they can do is call you names.”

He’s right; it really does boil down to that in more cases than not. Even if they don’t actually call you a name, it’s implied that you are “judgmental” or “mean” if you want to deny anyone the right to engage in the most grievous of sins!

Let me give you a few more examples of “liberal reasoning” direct from the Face Book comments I exchanged with my Face Book friend. Here is her rationale for tossing aside Church teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior:

I have looked around me at people that are beautiful, loving, bright and compassionate, and have touched my soul…I cannot honestly look at these individuals and follow a faith that requires me to label them as "abominations". My Jesus has taught that we are all God's children and loves us in all our differences. This I have learned from my Catholicism… If being a faithful Catholic means calling these amazing individuals "hated" or "despised", then I cannot do so…I could not or would not disparage anyone who is true in their faith, whatever teaching they may follow. I learned in catechism classes (Catholic Sunday school) many years ago, that Jesus will walk our path with us, no matter what and I am counting on that now...

It’s pretty obvious to authentic Catholics that she misunderstands some key Church teaching here:

First, the Church condemns the sin of homosexual behavior – not the person who engages in it.  It is a common ploy of homosexualist lobbyists to misrepresent the Church on this and call the Church a big bully. It’s simply not true.

Second, she’s been indoctrinated with the “we must love one another” mantra of the Church of Nice. I’m not saying that we are not called to “love one another” – of course we are! But the Church of Nice has twisted that phrase into the notion that we must accept and even embrace the sinful behavior of others in order to love them. But that, of course, is not love.  That is being complicit in the sinner’s further descent into sin. The virtue is in admonishing the sinner – letting him know that he is wrong in his overt behavior, and encouraging him to come back into communion with the Church in order to save his soul.

Third, to say “I would not disparage anyone who is true in their faith no matter what teaching they may follow”…well, that’s downright ignorant. Of course, it’s not about “disparaging” the person, but, rather, voicing opposition to erroneous moral reasoning. And you can’t say that everyone is entitled to act on the teachings of their “faith” without running into the problematic fact that some “faiths” wish to kill those who refuse to convert to that faith. This, of course, is why the liberal politicos want freedom of religion to be reduced to “freedom to worship” where one chooses which church to go to on Sunday (or whatever day they choose…).

Finally, Jesus will not “walk our path with us, no matter what”. How could He, if we are obstinate in pursuing sin? He will not walk with us into hell! He wants to rescue us from that place, not accompany us there!

Now look at my FB friend’s reasoning on abortion:

I am not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice. If some think that's a rationalization then so be it. I offer no apologies. God gave us the gift of free will and it is not right for me to judge others.

This is another liberal dodge, of course – “judging others”. To be fair, I think many of the “don’t judge” people are sincere in their intentions…but they are misguided. Certainly we cannot judge others’ motives and thoughts, because we can’t really observe those thoughts; but we can certainly “judge” – or discern – the rightness or wrongness of behavior. It’s done all the time, in courts of law every day. Some people happen to be in prison because they were “judged”. And sometimes, people get really angry when a person is not “judged” in court according to their opinion (case in point: Casey Anthony, whom everyone seemed to be certain killed her daughter, before and after she was found innocent; there’s always that old case of OJ Simpson, too…).

The other arguments my FB friend gives for being “pro-choice” are internally inconsistent. She insists that she believes the fetus is a person, but a woman who might die in childbirth is entitled to kill that person so that she can take care of her “living” children…as if that fetus is NOT living!  She says:

There is no sugar-coating abortion is death and embryos are babies, in my personal opinion. The choice of the matter is the mother's and she must follow her own will. If it is not considered "right" or "moral" for her to decide the life and death of her child, neither is it right for leaders to decide who must be killed or not.

Huh?! Then why isn’t it “a matter of choice” for a mom to kill her obnoxious teenager? Why must she “follow her own will” in killing her unborn baby? Killing is killing…isn’t it? Why do we have a legal definition of “murder”? Why don’t we just let everyone “follow their own will”? Obviously these are rhetorical questions.

I asked her directly, “When would it EVER be okay to kill a baby?” Her answer is the epitome of liberal thinking on this topic:

Exactly Jay! When is it? And yet there it is – in some cases I'm sure that it is not necessary and sometimes it is – every situation is individual, circumstances must be weighed differently... please don't think I take this lightly- it is killing…[But] There has to be a choice – the individual's God-given right to say yes or no cannot be taken away. Is it okay to kill a baby--absolutely not! but the decision to do so must be left to the person.

Which person?! I have a feeling the person in the womb would make a decision for life!

And interestingly, she adds this conclusion:

The consequences of those decisions are between the individual and God.

Well…yeah. That’s kinda the point. The Church helps us to understand that the consequence of certain decisions is, basically, hell.

I wouldn’t let up with my own arguments to counter her convoluted reasoning, and I sensed her frustration when she posted this comment:

I don't want to argue with you Jay, that was never my intention, but since it has gone this way – I wonder how you would have reacted if your beautiful daughter was raped by a gang member with AIDS at twelve years old and was pregnant....Would you seriously put her through a pregnancy after such a horrific nightmare? Are you kidding me?!

Umm…yes…I seriously would. I wouldn’t allow her to kill her baby and endanger her own soul! But notice the tactic – typical liberal thinking that makes it “all about me” (or my daughter, or some poor soul who has “no choice” – unless you’re talking about the unborn baby). I put the question to my daughter, who is now almost 19 years old (and was never raped, or pregnant, or anything like that); her response was, “So, have the baby and put it up for adoption. But don’t kill it!”

I hope that my Face Book friend’s final response was an indication that she had been forced to think about whether her reasoning was sound. She concluded the discussion with this:

I never once denied that a baby born or unborn is a person and I know that they have  a soul. I think this has gone on long enough, Jay. I wish you well.

Sigh. I wish she would continue the discussion; I wish she would allow herself to change her thinking and to form her conscience according to the Church’s teaching.

But since she’s not willing to continue, I shall pray! And I’ve found the perfect prayer in my little Blessed Be God prayer book. Feel free to join in…

Prayer for Heretics and Unbelievers

Lord Jesus, most merciful Savior of the world, we humbly beseech Thee, by Thy most Sacred Heart, that all the sheep who stray out of Thy fold, as well as those who are held by the darkness of error, may be converted to Thee, the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls Who livest and reignest with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, forever and ever. Amen.

The Vortex: Authentic Catholics Must Fight Back

Here's the Vortex from Tuesday, "Catholic vs. Katholyc":

Here's the script - I have edited out a few paragraphs just to keep the length down a bit; watch the entire video or read the entire script here.

Yesterday we focused on America of the past and Amerika of the present and increasingly the future. There is a parallel in the Catholic Church as well – what we could call a clash between the Catholic Church and the Katholyc Church.

Unsurprisingly, the competing versions of America and the competing versions of the

Church both became visible in the general consciousness at about the same time: the evil 1960’s.

The forces that caused these ruptures with the past, both socially and religiously, were hard at work for many decades prior – clandestinely operating and out of sight of the average American as well as the average Catholic.

But now – focusing exclusively on the faith – these forces were not unseen by all. Pope

Leo XIII, at the end of the 19th century, was aware of them, and condemned them harshly under the somewhat political label of socialism. And St. Pope Pius X went after them directly with a full frontal assault in a 1907 encyclical – Pascendi Domini Gregis – where he called the tremendous confluence of all these forces that was occurring “Modernism”.

He in fact splendidly captured the essence of the great societal earthquake that was about to strike, and called it the synthesis of ALL heresies.

With the Catholic faith destabilized from within by these forces from the beginning of the 20th century, the ‘60’s were ripe for the official establishment of an unofficial Katholyc Church. These Katholycs set about undoing and reshaping everything they could get their hands on, and as time went by, that proved to be an awful lot.  

They took a page from the playbook of Queen Elizabeth I of England during the Reformation in 16th century England…

…[S]he shrewdly kept everything LOOKING Catholic, but slowly…gradually…almost without notice kept making small changes here and there – until after many years, her subjects blissfully accepted the Church of England over the Church of Rome without noticing hardly any change at all. She kept the outer appearance but gutted the faith: by replacing the Mass, appointing her own bishops, disregarding the Pope, and so forth. Can it not be said that much of this tactic was employed by modernists within the Church starting in the 1960-70s?  

It’s instructive to listen to older Catholics – meaning 75 and older – who remember what the Church USED to look like and hear what they have to say about it now.

Many of them will tell you [that] in all but the MOST fundamental ways, it’s hardly recognizable anymore.

Yes, the Pope is still the Pope, but his words are shot down practically before they are done leaving his mouth by this new Katholyc Church establishment and its followers.

Yes, Our Lord is made really present at the consecration at the sacrifice of the Mass…but how many people in the pews actually know that or believe it? Heck, for that matter, how many priests uttering the words actually believe it?

Yes, the priests still have the authority – Our Lord’s own authority – to forgive sins in the sacrament of confession…but how many Catholics today avail themselves of that forgiveness?

The list of differences – some subtle, some not so subtle – between the Catholic Church and the Katholyc Church is so long that it boggles the mind. And it all happened much quicker than anyone could have imagined.

Just as the thought of wholesale murder of tens of millions of pre-born children in the

United States moved from the category of unimaginable to almost a non-issue, so too the changes that happened in the Church from the late 1960’s to 1970’s happened at lightning speed.

And overall, we Catholics are far the more poorer for them. We have been driven from a faith celebrated and even respected by the enemies of Christ to a shrinking, pandering laughingstock – a punch line for late night comedians.

And this is exactly what the Katholyc Church wanted. This was always the goal of the Katholyc-with-a-“K” crowd. They wanted the emphasis shifted from the Divine and spiritual to the earthly and political. And they have succeeded mightily.

 …

Just as with the massive shift from America to Amerika that we have all witnessed in the past 30 years or so, the consequences of that shift have now become visible as well as irreversible: moral decline to near depravity, economic peril on the doorstep, and great anxiety over the political foundations.

Just as they have been culturally, the consequences of the great shift from the Catholic

Church to the Katholyc Church are also blindingly visible. In fact, you’d have to be totally blind or stupid to not see and admit them.

…

Why do we say all of this? Because authentic Catholics need to know this and face the reality. B-U-T, also, ignorant Catholics – ignorant largely through no fault of their own, who were victimized by the subversive elements in the Church – they need to know this as well.

…

It looks very much like the America vs. Amerika conflict…but with one ENORMOUS difference. Amerika will not survive. It was not founded by the Son of God. It did not have the Holy Spirit breathed into it on Easter Sunday night nor any other night. It was given no promise of endurance beyond a constitution that required a morally upright people to uphold. But the constitution of the Church is Jesus Christ Himself, His own Divine Presence: spiritual and ALSO physical.

It is the solemn duty of real Catholics to begin to tear down this fake Katholyc Church that has arisen. It is of diabolical origin because it denies Christ. Its charter is one of damnation not salvation.

It must be fought with every strength that can be mustered in chanceries, parishes, religious houses, seminaries, universities, and even families – perhaps most importantly, families.

Families is the one place that the establishment Katholyc Church does not have actual authority. It has certainly captured the imagination family members, but its grasp is ideological – not one of authority.

Many priests and nuns are captive because of their religious vows. They can be shut down . Shut up and shipped off. And they are. Routinely. But the laity cannot. No such abuse of power can be extended so readily to us.

Catholics must know the faith so they can begin to undo the damage done in their families by the efforts of the Katholyc Church. Have no fear confronting evil – and this

Katholyc Church that shifts the tabernacle off to the side…rarely raises a hand against theological dissidents…fills the minds of children and youth with watered-down or made-up catechesis…this church is evil, despite its claims otherwise.

It is in fact, no Church at all. Our Blessed Lord made one Church. He gave the keys to St. Peter and his successors. Bishops who are not in communion with him – not only open communion, but also in communion of mind and heart – they are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

If you want to know why the conflict America and Amerika ever got to the point it is now, you need look no further than the conflict between the Catholic Church and the Katholyc Church.

The authentic Church’s mission is to not only fight evil but vanquish it. The Catholic

Church is in fact the only institution that cannot be corrupted and overcome by evil.

Without a doubt, many of her members can and have, but She…in Herself…impossible.

She is the bulwark against ev,il and when we see evil advancing in the world, it is for the sole reason that evil is advancing in the establishment and bureaucracy of the Church.

This is precisely what we mean when we speak of the Katholyc Church.

Fight it Catholics; fight it like you’ve have never fought anything else in your lives.

Dedicate yourselves to its overthrow as surely and certainly as it dedicated itself to your confusion all these past years.

Fight it with prayer. Fight it with the Rosary. Fight it by supporting the handful of young bishops in their fifties who seem to be emerging and being guided by a take no prisoners, say-it-like-it is approach.

Bishops like:

Kevin Sample in Marquette, Michigan

Salvatore Cordileone in San Francisco

James Conley in Lincoln, Nebraska

Daniel Flores in Brownsville, Texas

Samuel Aquila in Denver, Colorado

Kevin Rhoades in Fort Wayne – South Bend, Indiana

Robert Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin

Thomas Paprocki in Springfield, Illinois.

The battle is engaged. For whatever inscrutable reason, Our Blessed Lord has allowed the evils which befell the Church to occur. Now He is summoning forth a generation of saints – of followers to whom He is handing the simplest path to sanctity that any generation of Catholics may have ever had.

As He told Francis of Assisi to “go and build up My Church”…so He tells us. Drive out the moneychangers and restore His house to a house of prayer.

Vortex: Amerika the Ugly

The Vortex episodes for Monday and Tuesday were a one-two punch, focusing on “Amerika” and the “Katholyc Church” – in other words, focusing on the false America and the false Church that are trying mightily to take over the moral good and supplant it with moral evil.

Here’s the Vortex from Monday, with the script below (I'll post on the "Katholyc" Vortex later today, but you can watch the video and read the script for it here):

This could be the last presidential election held in America. Notice the spelling there –

A-M-E-R-I-C-A.

That’s because if Obama winds this election .. it will pretty much seal the deal that

America has been transformed into A-M-E-R-I-K-A .. or at least transformed ENOUGH that America will simply be fading away.

What’s the difference between Amerika and America?

Well… Amerika is a socialist, welfare-driven, child-murdering, contracepting, same-sex marriage supporting state either indifferent to or even hostile to God in general and Catholicism in particular. Think of it as a culture of MTV on steroids.

America is the past. Amerika is the future, and the only good thing that can be said of

Amerika is that its days as world leader will come to an end in short order after the transformation is complete.

Now, that might be a shocking and sad thing to hear, but we can’t be terribly upset by it, for a couple of reasons.

First, many good solid people who believe in much of what America has stood for in the

past are like people who are just now getting word that their favorite uncle died last year. For them, the death is new; but in reality their feelings are only just now catching up to a reality that has already been in existence for a while.

So while sadness and even shock may rule the day, it’s a little misplaced when you consider the objective facts.

America – the America of my father for example, who is 83 – hasn’t existed for decades.

It didn’t happen overnight. But it has happened without a doubt. When he and I are talking, he often says, “This isn’t the same country I grew up in.” He’s right. He was born the day the stock market crashed in 1929. In the 1930s up to the 1960s, when my father was a young man, America was a country with certain problems – like racism – that nevertheless had the moral foundation to overcome those problems sooner or later.

Then the 1960s hit and things began to change. It was the transition decade when

America first saw Amerika begin to emerge. And since then, the lights have turned up on Amerika, and faded on America.

The 1960’s saw the sexual revolution and contraception become and remain a norm.

The 1970’s saw abortion become and remain a norm.

The 1980’s saw the beginning of the breakdown of the family as widespread divorce became and remained a norm.

The 1990’s saw the first major advancement of militant homosexuality become and remain a norm.

The 2000’s and forward have seen the coming together of all these evils into one gigantic force that the full weight of the government has now been thrown behind to encourage and support in all its various forms.

And this evil behemoth has become sufficiently powerful to now directly challenge religion in general and Catholicism most especially.

We have reached this pass specifically because the underlying principles the country was founded on accepted a Protestant version of Christianity where each man is able to interpret and reach his own conclusions about theology and morality. Some call it “freedom of religion”.

Freedom of religion is the right to be free from coercion by the state when exercising worship and belief in the Almighty. But in the United States, it has been lived out as the right to believe whatever one wants. That’s a radically different notion and in it – always present – were the seeds of America transforming into Amerika.

To illustrate the point: we see how an incorrect understanding of religion can result in societal breakdown. As we roll back through the ills associated with each decade, we can see various religious bodies – most of them Protestant – accepted each of these evils to one degree or another in their theology.

Nearly all Protestant denominations accepted and still do accept contraception – despite the fact that before 1929, the year my father was born, not one of them did. Then came abortion, and more liberal protestant denominations were among the first to embrace child-killing – and still do – and this includes quite a few normally socially conservative black congregations.

The same with divorce and re-marriage in the 1980’s. Same sex marriage supporters have a point when they say, “Don’t blame us for the breakdown of the family – divorce has done more damage than we could ever do.”

And when the 1990’s – dubbed the Gay 90s – hit, it was Protestant theologians out front and center deconstructing sacred scripture and making up lies that Sodom was destroyed not for homosexuality, but for not being hospitable.

Of course, it was these Protestant distortions that numerous Catholics accepted as they too walked away from the faith or tried to construct a new one – making it up as they went along, and accommodating evil while still claiming the mantle of Catholic.

And nothing – or painfully little – was ever done to stop them by bishops and religious superiors, as many of them were just as complicit in these evils themselves through either cowardice or cooperation. These bishops and other Catholic leaders and luminaries like theologians and university presidents and professors all threw the faith overboard and became Protestants in practice themselves.

It was the worldview of Protestant theology – complete with its distorted notion of religious freedom – from which all these choices sprang that has been responsible for the America transforming into Amerika.

The second reason we can’t be terribly sad or shocked about this transformation from a

Catholic perspective is pretty simple. While Protestant America still lived according to a CATHOLIC code of morality – a code by the way that the Catholic Church still teaches that no Protestant denomination does – there was still hope. Despite vast theological differences, Protestants and Catholics lived the heritage of Catholic morality: no abortion, no contraception, no divorce and re-marriage, no acceptance of homosexuality, and so forth.

It was this moral code that held the country together and made America, America. Once this began to be transformed, America began its transformation into Amerika. And now the transformation is almost complete.

This transformation will cause Amerika to cease be a world leader. It will take some time because of the residue of our wealth and power and prestige and military. But all this will fade, and from an authentically Catholic perspective, this can only be seen as a good thing.

Amerika – what she has become – is a purveyor of moral filth in the form of pornography and child-murder, a promoter of perverted sexual lusts and desires, home to an entertainment industry which glorifies adultery and fornication; and Amerika spreads these evils and perversities around the globe because of her immense standing among the nations.

Amerika is Ancient Rome. As we hear in the Apocalypse of St. John:

“Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen: and is become the habitation of devils and the hold of every unclean spirit and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird: Because all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication: and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her; And the merchants of the earth have been made rich by the power of her delicacies. And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins and that you receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven: and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities.” Apoc. 18: 2-5.

This election is not the struggle. It’s what comes AFTER the election where the struggle begins for the Body of Christ.  

It’s time to cling to the Faith.

Feast of the Guardian Angels

The third lesson from Matins in the Divine Office for the Feast of the Guardian Angels:

From the Sermons of St Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux. On Ps. xc

He hath given His Angels charge over thee. A wonderful graciousness, and a wonderful outpouring of love. For who hath given charge? And what charge? Unto whom? And over whom?  

Let us carefully consider, my brethren, let us carefully hold in mind this great charge. For who hath given this charge? To Whom belong the Angels? Whose commandments do they obey, and Whose will do they do? He hath given His Angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways, and that not carelessly, for they shall bear thee up in their hands.  

The Highest Majesty, therefore, hath given charge unto Angels, even His Angels. Unto these beings so excellently exalted, so blessed, so near to Himself, even as His own household, unto these hath He given charge over thee. Who art thou? What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that Thou visitest him? (Ps. viii. 5) Even as though man were not rottenness, and the son of man, a worm. (Job. xxv. 6.) But what charge hath He given them over thee? To keep thee in all thy ways.

Thanks to ChurchMilitant.TV for this little video on Guardian Angels.

The Year of Faith and Vatican II

My email update from VIS (Vatican Information Service) today contained this announcement (my emphases throughout):

STUDYING VATICAN COUNCIL II FROM THE ARCHIVES

Vatican City, 2 October 2012 (VIS) - A conference was held in the Holy See Press Office this morning to present an International Academic Conference: "Vatican Council II in the Light of the Archives of the Council Fathers, on the Fiftieth Anniversary of its Opening (1962-2012)". The event has been organised by the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences in collaboration with the "Vatican Council II" Centre for Research and Study of the Pontifical Lateran University, and will take place from 3 to 5 October.

Participating in this morning's presentation were Fr. Bernard Ardura O. Praem., president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, and Philippe Chenaux, director of the "Vatican Council II" Centre for Research and Study of the Pontifical Lateran University and a member of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences.

Fr. Ardura explained how a global project has been organised in view of the anniversary of Vatican Council II, involving an examination of the personal archives of the Council Fathers, the aim being to produce original and academically valid research and to favour an increasingly deep understanding of an event "which has profoundly marked the life of the Church over the last half century".

“Profoundly marked” is right! And of course some argue it’s for better, and some for worse. I think it’s difficult to argue with the correlation between the changes that occurred practically overnight in the Church – regarding the Mass as well as certain areas of Catholic moral teaching – and the rapid decline of vocations, the grand exodus of the “faithful” from the Church, and the sad dilution of our Catholic identity in the last 50 years.

I have read most of the Vatican II documents, and I did that early on in my Catholic “journey”. I’ve gone back and reviewed some of them, but this review has been in light of my understanding of “modernism”; it seems to me that, once you identify some core concepts of modernism, you can’t help but notice the modernistic thread that runs throughout the Council documents. Frankly, I find it difficult to identify anything truly good and beneficial and to the Church which has come out of Vatican II. That lack may be a fault of the documents or a fault of their interpretation and implementation. (see "How Modernism Undermines Catholic Identity")

The article also notes:

"Following the path laid down by Blessed Pope John XXIII in his opening address to the Council, all available archive material must be submitted to careful historical scrutiny, in order to ensure that people do not, as the Pope himself said, 'act as if they had nothing to learn from history, which is a teacher of life'. The consultation and publication of diaries, memories and correspondence of important figures who participated in Vatican Council II has already contributed to the development of an hermeneutic of the Council; ... that 'hermeneutic of reform in continuity' identified by Benedict XVI as the way to ensure authentic ecclesial interpretation.

…

Fr. Ardura explained that "the intention of the Pontifical Committee is to promote, in the light of the Holy Father's Magisterium and following a strict historical-critical methodology divorced from any ideology, a pondered and academically grounded historiographical re-reading of what was undeniably 'the great event' of Vatican Council II".

…The first of [the conference speakers] will be Cardinal Angelo Scola, archbishop of Milan, Italy, who will focus on the months between the announcement and the opening of the Council because, Fr. Ardura said, “the preparatory period offers many keys to understanding the subsequent development of the Council”. The other opening speaker will be Professor Philippe Chenaux himself, who will discuss historiography with relation to Vatican Council II. In order to recall the ecumenical dimension, “strongly underlined” by Blessed John XXIII, one representative from the Patriarchate of Moscow and one from the Protestant churches will also attend the conference.

…

…Philippe Chenaux explained that "the attempt to write a history of Vatican Council II involves not only research into the sources, ... but also interpretation, the so-called conciliar 'hermeneutic'. In other words, the historians who devised this project of the history of Vatican II have 'excogitated' the Council, whence have emerged two interpretative criteria which guided their work: the Council as 'event' and the Council as 'rupture'".

"The fundamental challenge for historians of the Council is, then, how to reconcile these two opposing readings of Vatican II and its decisions. This does not mean writing a 'counter history' of Vatican Council II. Rather, more modestly, it means resuming historical research on the basis of the widest possible documentation and with no ideological bias. It means avoiding the manipulation of conciliar history for ends other than the history itself, in order to achieve a more balanced and shared understanding of the event and its decisions…

I must admit I have looked with a skeptical eye at the hoopla surrounding the “Year of Faith” with its emphasis on “understanding” the Vatican II documents. Sure, I think that would be a good thing, but I have my doubts as to the intellectual honesty of such an investigation of the documents. For one thing, there is clearly an agenda in what Michael Voris has been calling “the Establishment Church”, and that agenda would not be at all amenable to a fresh look at what the VII docs really say.

Second, there is that problem with modernism. In my humble opinion, modernism truly does permeate the Vatican II documents, and that’s a problem. How do we go from a couple of pre-Vatican II popes decrying the influence of modernism, and going so far as to require an oath against modernism – to what amounts to an embracing of some harmful tenets of that philosophy? Where’s the continuity in that?

Just some thoughts, as we are poised to enter the “Year of Faith”…May God grant us all wisdom and understanding, and the courage to right any wrongs that emerge in our fresh investigation of the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

Leo XIII's Prayer to St. Joseph

In 1889, Pope Leo XIII promulgated the encyclical Quamquam Pluries, in which he discussed the power of prayer to the saints (especially the Blessed Virgin Mary) during “periods of stress and trial” in the world.  He also discussed devotion to St. Joseph, and presented a prayer to St. Joseph to be said after the Rosary during the month of October.

The Holy Father gives the following explanation for the need for special prayers for the world at that time (and he could be speaking of our current world situation!):

 …Now, Venerable Brethren, you know the times in which we live; they are scarcely less deplorable for the Christian religion than the worst days, which in time past were most full of misery to the Church. We see faith, the root of all the Christian virtues, lessening in many souls; we see charity growing cold; the young generation daily growing in depravity of morals and views; the Church of Jesus Christ attacked on every side by open force or by craft; a relentless war waged against the Sovereign Pontiff; and the very foundations of religion undermined with a boldness which waxes daily in intensity. These things are, indeed, so much a matter of notoriety that it is needless for Us to expatiate on the depths to which society has sunk in these days, or on the designs which now agitate the minds of men. In circumstances so unhappy and troublous, human remedies are insufficient, and it becomes necessary, as a sole resource, to beg for assistance from the Divine power. (1)

…

… At this proximity of the month of October, which We have already consecrated to the Virgin Mary, under the title of Our Lady of the Rosary, We earnestly exhort the faithful to perform the exercises of this month with, if possible, even more piety and constancy than heretofore. We know that there is sure help in the maternal goodness of the Virgin, and We are very certain that We shall never vainly place Our trust in her. If, on innumerable occasions, she has displayed her power in aid of the Christian world, why should We doubt that she will now renew the assistance of her power and favor, if humble and constant prayers are offered up on all sides to her? …

But We entertain another object, which, according to your wont, Venerable Brethren, you will advance with fervor. …We judge it of deep utility for the Christian people, continually to invoke with great piety and trust, together with the Virgin-Mother of God, her chaste Spouse, the Blessed Joseph; and We regard it as most certain that this will be most pleasing to the Virgin herself… And as, moreover, it is of high importance that the devotion to St. Joseph should engraft itself upon the daily pious practices of Catholics, We desire that the Christian people should be urged to it above all by Our words and authority. (2)

The special motives for which St. Joseph has been proclaimed Patron of the Church, and from which the Church looks for singular benefit from his patronage and protection, are that Joseph was the spouse of Mary and that he was reputed the Father of Jesus Christ. From these sources have sprung his dignity, his holiness, his glory. In truth, the dignity of the Mother of God is so lofty that naught created can rank above it. But as Joseph has been united to the Blessed Virgin by the ties of marriage, it may not be doubted that he approached nearer than any to the eminent dignity by which the Mother of God surpasses so nobly all created natures. For marriage is the most intimate of all unions which from its essence imparts a community of gifts between those that by it are joined together. Thus in giving Joseph the Blessed Virgin as spouse, God appointed him to be not only her life's companion, the witness of her maidenhood, the protector of her honor, but also, by virtue of the conjugal tie, a participator in her sublime dignity.

…And for such reasons the Blessed Patriarch looks upon the multitude of Christians who make up the Church as confided specially to his trust—this limitless family spread over the earth, over which, because he is the spouse of Mary and the Father of Jesus Christ he holds, as it were, a paternal authority. It is, then, natural and worthy that as the Blessed Joseph ministered to all the needs of the family at Nazareth and girt it about with his protection, he should now cover with the cloak of his heavenly patronage and defend the Church of Jesus Christ.  (3)

…

This is the reason why—trusting much to your zeal and episcopal authority, Venerable Brethren, and not doubting that the good and pious faithful will run beyond the mere letter of the law—We prescribe that during the whole month of October, at the recitation of the Rosary, for which We have already legislated, a prayer to St. Joseph be added, the formula of which will be sent with this letter, and that this custom should be repeated every year. To those who recite this prayer, We grant for each time an indulgence of seven years and seven Lents… (6)

It strikes me that praying this prayer in October is particularly poignant and necessary for our nation, as we face the possible re-election of the most notorious pro-abortion president in history in November. Seems to me that it will take an act of God to put a stop to the Obama administration's evil designs.  

Calling on St. Joseph, along with the Blessed Virgin Mary, makes perfect sense!  

And of course, it was Pope Leo XIII who wrote and instituted the praying of the St. Michael prayer after low Mass (go here for other Leonine prayers, including the longer version of the St. Michael prayer); certainly it would be appropriate to be begging for the Archangel’s aid as well, as we count down to election day in November.

Here’s the prayer to St. Joseph:

To you, O Blessed Joseph, we come in our trials, and having asked the
help of your most holy spouse, we confidently ask your patronage
also. Through that sacred bond of charity which united you to the
Immaculate Virgin Mother of God and through the fatherly love with
which you embraced the Child Jesus, we humbly beg you to look
graciously upon the beloved inheritance which Jesus Christ purchased
by his blood, and to aid us in our necessities with your power and
strength.

O most provident guardian of the Holy Family, defend the chosen
children of Jesus Christ. Most beloved father, dispel the evil of
falsehood and sin. Our most mighty protector, graciously assist us
from heaven in our struggle with the powers of darkness. And just as
you once saved the Child Jesus from mortal danger, so now defend
God's Holy Church from the snares of her enemies and from all
adversity. Shield each one of us by your constant protection, so
that, supported by your example and your help, we may be able to live
a virtuous life, to die a holy death, and to obtain eternal happiness
in heaven. Amen.