In the Three Kingdoms we are able to watch parliamentary proceedings on Television (Proculvision? Teleopsis?). I have just been watching our Islamic members of the Lower House lining up to dissociate themselves, their Religion, and their Culture, without any Ifs or any Buts, but with great conviction and eloquence, from the psychopaths who murdered the Paris Blasphemers (my word, not theirs).
It does them all the more credit because, when the Zionist Regime was making its most recent attack on Gaza, I do not recall there being a long queue of Jewish MPs fervently striving, one after another, jumping up and down like phrenetic jacks-in-a-box, to catch Mr Speaker's eye so that they could dissociate themselves from the actions of the Israeli Government. (The Palestinian deaths, I believe, amounted to something like a thousand, while less than a dozen Israelis were killed by Hamas activity.)
It would be very wrong to smear Jewish MPs; I have particularly in mind the great Sir Gerald Kaufman. His record in 'rights' matters is exemplary and puts pretty well everybody else to shame. I'm sure many other Jewish MPs and members of their Lordships' House, do put a great deal of pressure on Mr Netanyahu, and, possibly, by doing it behind the scenes, have a great effect. Good for them.
But I couldn't help noticing ...
14 January 2015
12 January 2015
Je suis ...
I had lunch in Oxford today with a very dear friend, a brother priest from the Diocese of Chichester. Putting his cards firmly upon the table, he loudly proclaimed Je Suis Chablis.
I do hope that all the hysterical claptrap will now quieten down and slink shamefacedly away, I mean a long way away. And I pray that no more mad and murderous Islamicists will kill any more blasphemous and sacrilegious Secularists for, say, something like the next 85 years. Or vice versa. It's more than I feel I could take.
BTW, lovely article over on Rorate by ... Proust, of all people. I never knew he was One Of Us.
I do hope that all the hysterical claptrap will now quieten down and slink shamefacedly away, I mean a long way away. And I pray that no more mad and murderous Islamicists will kill any more blasphemous and sacrilegious Secularists for, say, something like the next 85 years. Or vice versa. It's more than I feel I could take.
BTW, lovely article over on Rorate by ... Proust, of all people. I never knew he was One Of Us.
11 January 2015
Charlie encore
It just goes on, doesn't it? There is something uncannily like the nonsense that followed the demise of Diana Spencer in this eerie mass hysteria of the mob; the politicians riding on the back of it; the coercion into a prescribed self-identification; the ludicrous apotheosis of the dead. Are there analogies in pre-modern History? How might Horst Wessel fit in? What is really happening? We need an intelligent metanarrative.
versus populum, versus Orientem
Cardinal Burke set a very good example yesterday by celebrating the Mass of Ages facing the people. He did so because he was celebrating in the old Roman Basilica of S Nicolas in the Prison, which is oriented so that Facing The People is Facing East.
Facing East is what the Fathers of East and West thought was not only proper but pretty well essential. But I know of no evidence whatsoever that it mattered to them whether, as they faced East, they were facing towards the people or away from the people. It isn't easy to prove negatives, but my instinct is that all the arguments modern traditionalists have dreamed up for the importance of priest and people all facing in the same direction were unknown in the first millennium. I would be genuinely interested to see if someone could falsify this instinct of mine. One reason I write this blog is so that I can test things out.
Sometimes people talk about "the ritual East". That's a natural thing to do when the church concerned is facing neither East nor West, like quite a lot of Catholic churches built in the last few centuries in constricting urban spaces. I don't mind the phrase except when it is being used by someone who is in a church so oriented, and decently so furnished, that he could very easily face East ... but doing so would mean that he was facing the people ... and the top all-important overriding priority in his mind is that he should at all costs have his back to the people ... even if that means he has to face West!!
I should make it clear that what I am talking about is not the horrid corrupt practice of putting a coffee-table as close as possible to the people and then standing facing them, with the altar uncluttered so that they can "see properly". When you celebrate facing East=facing the people in the Roman basilicas, there is very definitely no sense of chummy propinquity. You are under a baldachino; between Altar and Nave there is a confessio keeping the people a great distance away; you are probably up a flight of steps; the big baroque crucifix and candlesticks mean that they can barely see anything. In earlier Christian centuries, there would have been curtains all round (in circuitu) the Altar so that they never saw anything at all!! (Papal benefactors loved to donate the sets of four splendid curtains, and the metal hooks to hold them still survive in some old churches.) That is the nearest Western equivalent I know of celebrating in mystical invisibility behind a Byzantine Icon-screen!
Liberals are infested with their endless petty shibboleths and baseless liturgical fancies and fantasies. We should be careful that we don't have too many of our own quaint little fads.
Facing East is what the Fathers of East and West thought was not only proper but pretty well essential. But I know of no evidence whatsoever that it mattered to them whether, as they faced East, they were facing towards the people or away from the people. It isn't easy to prove negatives, but my instinct is that all the arguments modern traditionalists have dreamed up for the importance of priest and people all facing in the same direction were unknown in the first millennium. I would be genuinely interested to see if someone could falsify this instinct of mine. One reason I write this blog is so that I can test things out.
Sometimes people talk about "the ritual East". That's a natural thing to do when the church concerned is facing neither East nor West, like quite a lot of Catholic churches built in the last few centuries in constricting urban spaces. I don't mind the phrase except when it is being used by someone who is in a church so oriented, and decently so furnished, that he could very easily face East ... but doing so would mean that he was facing the people ... and the top all-important overriding priority in his mind is that he should at all costs have his back to the people ... even if that means he has to face West!!
I should make it clear that what I am talking about is not the horrid corrupt practice of putting a coffee-table as close as possible to the people and then standing facing them, with the altar uncluttered so that they can "see properly". When you celebrate facing East=facing the people in the Roman basilicas, there is very definitely no sense of chummy propinquity. You are under a baldachino; between Altar and Nave there is a confessio keeping the people a great distance away; you are probably up a flight of steps; the big baroque crucifix and candlesticks mean that they can barely see anything. In earlier Christian centuries, there would have been curtains all round (in circuitu) the Altar so that they never saw anything at all!! (Papal benefactors loved to donate the sets of four splendid curtains, and the metal hooks to hold them still survive in some old churches.) That is the nearest Western equivalent I know of celebrating in mystical invisibility behind a Byzantine Icon-screen!
Liberals are infested with their endless petty shibboleths and baseless liturgical fancies and fantasies. We should be careful that we don't have too many of our own quaint little fads.
10 January 2015
Charlie update
The craft of the Evil One is stupefying. Behold the Evil of Secularism and the Evil of Islam in a diabolical synergeia. So this weekend will see a massive celebration in the streets of Paris of Secularism, laicite, and the Revolution. Nothing would surprise me more than to be told that representatives of the French Church had refused to bow low in the temple of Rimmon.
Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat.
Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat.
9 January 2015
Update on killing
I have noticed, on Google, a crossed black ribbon. I may have got this wrong, but I suspect it may be a symbol relating to the tragically murdered French Secularists; a mark of solidarity, perhaps, of grief?
Fair enough. I have given my views on the foulness of taking even one human life. Even a criminal life. Even an unborn life.
Has Google been waggling black ribbons around while thousands of Christians have been murdered in the Middle East and in Africa?
Why not?
What is the going 'Google tariff', I wonder? Is one Secularist life equivalent, perhaps, to 10,000 Christian lives? Would that be near the mark? It would be nice to know. Just how cheap do they hold Christian blood (or, for that matter, Islamic blood) to be in relation to good, pure, Secularist blood?
Fair enough. I have given my views on the foulness of taking even one human life. Even a criminal life. Even an unborn life.
Has Google been waggling black ribbons around while thousands of Christians have been murdered in the Middle East and in Africa?
Why not?
What is the going 'Google tariff', I wonder? Is one Secularist life equivalent, perhaps, to 10,000 Christian lives? Would that be near the mark? It would be nice to know. Just how cheap do they hold Christian blood (or, for that matter, Islamic blood) to be in relation to good, pure, Secularist blood?
KILLING
I fully share the view of the Magisterium that Capital Punishment, though not formally excluded, is, in normal circumstances, an unnecessary and undesirable feature of modern societies. Earlier, and Christian, societies in which it did exist very probably needed it because they were unprotected by the sophisticated coercive agencies possessed by modern states. I could stomach either one of these unpleasant alternatives, but I profoundly dislike the idea of being burdened with both.
Even if such state killing is allowed, I regard as totally and thoroughly abhorrent the thought of private individuals without juridical status taking it upon themselves to "execute" those of whom they disapprove. Whoever they are; whatever they have done.
Consequently, I am horrified almost beyond belief by the events in France. Our hearts go out to the people of Paris; we saw the horrors of terrorism in our own Capital when the London Underground was bombed and, before that, during the Irish troubles. And we remember with gratitude the deep sympathy and sense of solidarity which swept through France when British Regiments, bandsmen and horses included, were bombed in Hyde Park and Regents Park.
This does not mean that I feel obliged to join in all the current rhetoric, or to proclaim, in solidarity, Je suis Charlie. Among those who have been so wickedly attacked there appear to have been some very hate-ridden and corrupted minds, whose venom was not confined to ridiculing Islam. Je ne suis pas Charlie.
One can find on the Internet a front cover of the periodical concerned in which the Holy and Blessed and Glorious and Undivided Trinity is blasphemed by means of an obscene cartoon of a very explicitly sodomitical nature. It surprises me that images of such indecency were allowed to be publicly displayed for sale in a civilised city. One can also find a cartoon of Pope Benedict holding a mole inside his unbuttoned cassock and saying Ca me change des enfants de choeur. "Freedom of expression"? Would indecent cartoons defaming prominent pro-homosexual activists go unnoticed by the French equivalent of Mr Plod? And what about the constant attempts in more than one country to prevent pro-life activists from showing, in public, pictures of aborted foetuses? "Freedom of expression"? What world do some of these people live in?
But in one respect I do reluctantly admire these victims of terrorism. In Britain, we have nasty and unwholesome people who feel free to blaspheme our Holy Faith. But they are careful not to take on Islamic militants. Like all seasoned bullies, they have an acute and skilled eye for the soft target. Like all practised bullies, they are very careful not to tangle with the truly Hard Men.
At least the minds of those dead Parisian cartoonists were not devoid of the simple human virtue of courage. Unlike their British counterparts, they were prepared to take the risk of putting their own survival where their mouths and their pens were. In this, if in nothing else, they were not unmanly. Being prepared to die for ones beliefs is not nothing, whatever those beliefs are. God bless them, and may they know the mercies of Christ.
Even if such state killing is allowed, I regard as totally and thoroughly abhorrent the thought of private individuals without juridical status taking it upon themselves to "execute" those of whom they disapprove. Whoever they are; whatever they have done.
Consequently, I am horrified almost beyond belief by the events in France. Our hearts go out to the people of Paris; we saw the horrors of terrorism in our own Capital when the London Underground was bombed and, before that, during the Irish troubles. And we remember with gratitude the deep sympathy and sense of solidarity which swept through France when British Regiments, bandsmen and horses included, were bombed in Hyde Park and Regents Park.
This does not mean that I feel obliged to join in all the current rhetoric, or to proclaim, in solidarity, Je suis Charlie. Among those who have been so wickedly attacked there appear to have been some very hate-ridden and corrupted minds, whose venom was not confined to ridiculing Islam. Je ne suis pas Charlie.
One can find on the Internet a front cover of the periodical concerned in which the Holy and Blessed and Glorious and Undivided Trinity is blasphemed by means of an obscene cartoon of a very explicitly sodomitical nature. It surprises me that images of such indecency were allowed to be publicly displayed for sale in a civilised city. One can also find a cartoon of Pope Benedict holding a mole inside his unbuttoned cassock and saying Ca me change des enfants de choeur. "Freedom of expression"? Would indecent cartoons defaming prominent pro-homosexual activists go unnoticed by the French equivalent of Mr Plod? And what about the constant attempts in more than one country to prevent pro-life activists from showing, in public, pictures of aborted foetuses? "Freedom of expression"? What world do some of these people live in?
But in one respect I do reluctantly admire these victims of terrorism. In Britain, we have nasty and unwholesome people who feel free to blaspheme our Holy Faith. But they are careful not to take on Islamic militants. Like all seasoned bullies, they have an acute and skilled eye for the soft target. Like all practised bullies, they are very careful not to tangle with the truly Hard Men.
At least the minds of those dead Parisian cartoonists were not devoid of the simple human virtue of courage. Unlike their British counterparts, they were prepared to take the risk of putting their own survival where their mouths and their pens were. In this, if in nothing else, they were not unmanly. Being prepared to die for ones beliefs is not nothing, whatever those beliefs are. God bless them, and may they know the mercies of Christ.
5 January 2015
Pope or Tradition?
There is an apocryphal tale that B Pius IX once said Io sono la Tradizzione. I thought of that the other day when I read a report that Cardinal Marx had said that, for him, "it is incomprehensible how the Synod Fathers are more bound to Tradition than to the Pope".
Really? Talk about letting Cats out of Bags!
I would like to be quite clear about this. I belong to Christ's Church Catholic as defined by Pastor aeternus of Vatican I (Joseph Ratzinger summarised it so lucidly) in which the Pope is not an absolute monarch but is the Guardian of the Sacred Tradition received from the Apostles. I have no desire to belong to somebody else's "Catholic Church" in which Tradition and Pope are seen as competing alternatives, and in which safe and wise Corporation Men who know what's good for their health prioritise Pope above Tradition. Not even if that "Church" is led by such luminaries as Marx and Kasper.
Later this month, we shall observe the Church Unity Octave, sometimes known nowadays as the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. I do not know how seriously the Marxes and the Kaspers nowadays take Christian Unity. If Cardinal Marx's enthusiasm for the 500th Anniversary of the Lutheran Reformation is a good basis for guesswork, 'Ecumenism' is, for many such, going to mean cosying up to liberal Protestantism with its multiple apostasies. But, in my own experience of Orthodox Christians, the message that full communion with the See of Rome actually means Sacred Tradition being replaced by the Absolute Power of whoever happens currently to be the Roman Pontiff ... or, even worse, by sectional interests able to get their hands on the levers of power and to manipulate the Papacy so as to promote their own innovatory agendas ... is precisely the sort of message that would confirm their very worst suspicions about the errors of "Papalism".
Four years ago, I and others, not without some sacrifice, joyfully accepted the gracious invitation of Benedict XVI to enter into full communion. I, for one, did not do so in order to stand idly by with a polite smile upon my silly face while some unscrupulous Northern European ecclesiastics plot to demolish the Church's teaching and discipline about Marriage and Sexuality, and to do so by means of a confected hyperpapalism which as far as I can see contradicts the defined doctrine of Vatican I, and thus seems to me clearly a heresy.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote: "After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything ... especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council ... In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith ... The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition."
And this is what Vatican I had defined: "The Holy Spirit was not promised to Peter's successors so that by its revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but, so that, by its assistance, they might devoutly guard and faithfully set forth the revelation handed down through the Apostles, i.e. the deposit of Faith".
B John Henry Newman, Patron of our Ordinariate, brilliantly characterised the charisma, the genius, of the Roman Church as its capacity to act as a remora, a breakwater, a hindrance, a stopper against innovation. That's what the Pope's job is.
Really? Talk about letting Cats out of Bags!
I would like to be quite clear about this. I belong to Christ's Church Catholic as defined by Pastor aeternus of Vatican I (Joseph Ratzinger summarised it so lucidly) in which the Pope is not an absolute monarch but is the Guardian of the Sacred Tradition received from the Apostles. I have no desire to belong to somebody else's "Catholic Church" in which Tradition and Pope are seen as competing alternatives, and in which safe and wise Corporation Men who know what's good for their health prioritise Pope above Tradition. Not even if that "Church" is led by such luminaries as Marx and Kasper.
Later this month, we shall observe the Church Unity Octave, sometimes known nowadays as the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. I do not know how seriously the Marxes and the Kaspers nowadays take Christian Unity. If Cardinal Marx's enthusiasm for the 500th Anniversary of the Lutheran Reformation is a good basis for guesswork, 'Ecumenism' is, for many such, going to mean cosying up to liberal Protestantism with its multiple apostasies. But, in my own experience of Orthodox Christians, the message that full communion with the See of Rome actually means Sacred Tradition being replaced by the Absolute Power of whoever happens currently to be the Roman Pontiff ... or, even worse, by sectional interests able to get their hands on the levers of power and to manipulate the Papacy so as to promote their own innovatory agendas ... is precisely the sort of message that would confirm their very worst suspicions about the errors of "Papalism".
Four years ago, I and others, not without some sacrifice, joyfully accepted the gracious invitation of Benedict XVI to enter into full communion. I, for one, did not do so in order to stand idly by with a polite smile upon my silly face while some unscrupulous Northern European ecclesiastics plot to demolish the Church's teaching and discipline about Marriage and Sexuality, and to do so by means of a confected hyperpapalism which as far as I can see contradicts the defined doctrine of Vatican I, and thus seems to me clearly a heresy.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote: "After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything ... especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council ... In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith ... The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition."
And this is what Vatican I had defined: "The Holy Spirit was not promised to Peter's successors so that by its revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but, so that, by its assistance, they might devoutly guard and faithfully set forth the revelation handed down through the Apostles, i.e. the deposit of Faith".
B John Henry Newman, Patron of our Ordinariate, brilliantly characterised the charisma, the genius, of the Roman Church as its capacity to act as a remora, a breakwater, a hindrance, a stopper against innovation. That's what the Pope's job is.
3 January 2015
Hats
It will be interesting to see if dear Archbishop Forte (who so entertainingly bungled the plotted liberal take-over of the Synod) or Archbishop Fernandez (a protege of the the Holy Father's, who explained the Pope's words about frank discussion as meaning "we needn't be afraid of Mueller coming after us") gets promotion in the coming days. Not a 'snowball's chance', I would say.
Personally, I'm putting all my shirts on Cardinals' hats for Mgr Newton, our Ordinary, and Bishop Egan, in whose diocese I geographically reside ... a very fine pair of prelates, quibus nulli meliores.
Personally, I'm putting all my shirts on Cardinals' hats for Mgr Newton, our Ordinary, and Bishop Egan, in whose diocese I geographically reside ... a very fine pair of prelates, quibus nulli meliores.
Learning from Luther
Cardinal Marx believes in learning from Luther. Today, Rorate publishes a nice early engraving of Lutherans receiving Holy Communion into their mouths, and kneeling.
Nuff' said.
Nuff' said.
2 January 2015
John Lamont's article ...
... on Rorate, headed Attacks on Thomism, is really a very good piece on Neomodernism. I warmly commend it, with a warning that it is quite long; and I would remind you that in 2008 Fr Aidan Nichols wrote a book (Reason with Piety) about Fr Garrigou-Lagrange; whom Lamont defends.
There is just one correction I would like to offer. Lamont, in my view, does S John XXIII an injustice. He cites the speech which the Holy Pontiff made at the opening of Vatican II. But he quotes it in an inaccurate English translation, which culpably omits four crucial words. That translation was widely disseminated by Abbott's English translation of the Conciliar documents [Pages 710 and following, especially 715], and became the basis upon which one Peter Hebblethwaite spun an entire narrative of falsehood. This passage as translated has, indeed, done a great deal of harm; but the harm is attributable to others, not to the pope.
The crucial words omitted are eodem sensu eademque sententia.
There is just one correction I would like to offer. Lamont, in my view, does S John XXIII an injustice. He cites the speech which the Holy Pontiff made at the opening of Vatican II. But he quotes it in an inaccurate English translation, which culpably omits four crucial words. That translation was widely disseminated by Abbott's English translation of the Conciliar documents [Pages 710 and following, especially 715], and became the basis upon which one Peter Hebblethwaite spun an entire narrative of falsehood. This passage as translated has, indeed, done a great deal of harm; but the harm is attributable to others, not to the pope.
The crucial words omitted are eodem sensu eademque sententia.
1 January 2015
Happy New Year of Consecrated Life, Happy New Year of Joy
This year of 2015, our most beloved Holy Father has called upon consecrated religious to Wake Up The World with their love and their joy. This is a worthwhile project which will benefit all of us, and, indeed, sanctify those outside the Household of the Faith. Consecrated Religious are a prolepsis tou Eskhatou, an anticipation of the End and of the Kingdom; they show us the joy which the Lord is so surely bringing. Marana tha; veni, Domine, ne tardaveris.
It is invidious to pick out particular communities and individual charisms. But I cannot fail to mention two communities of which I have some experience; each of them is a young and vibrant community with a joyously Marian charism. Ave Mater Sanctae Laetitiae.
The Redemptorist Fathers and Brothers on the ancient, remote, monastic island of Papa Stronsay.
I have witnessed their joyful and sacrificial life of Prayer and Work; their Calendar hangs in front of me as I write (showing them as they prepare a winter shelter for their very healthy and soundly Tridentine geese). I am sure I was not the only one to remember them during those terrible December storms in the Northern Ocean. And we don't forget Fr Michael Mary and his brethren in their flourishing Mission down there in New Zealand! Storm-free, Father, I hope! Much love.
The Franciscans of the Immaculate. I pray for them; for the brothers and for the sisters; especially for the contemplative sisters at Lanhearne in Cornwall (I daily carry with me, in imitation of the practice of Blessed John Henry Newman, the Miraculous Medal which Reverend Mother Rosa gave me). I pray for those who are still together within the structures of the order; and for those who have been driven from the stability of their communities to seek and hear God's call in new paths. And I pray for Bishops who guide them and provide a refuge for their joyful service and their witness to joy. God bless them all, tous xenous kai tous xenodokhountas, and may He touch with His joy the hearts of their enemies.
God keep them all and give them joy. May He send them fresh vocations. God grant that the World may recognise in their faces the joy of Christ.
It is invidious to pick out particular communities and individual charisms. But I cannot fail to mention two communities of which I have some experience; each of them is a young and vibrant community with a joyously Marian charism. Ave Mater Sanctae Laetitiae.
The Redemptorist Fathers and Brothers on the ancient, remote, monastic island of Papa Stronsay.
I have witnessed their joyful and sacrificial life of Prayer and Work; their Calendar hangs in front of me as I write (showing them as they prepare a winter shelter for their very healthy and soundly Tridentine geese). I am sure I was not the only one to remember them during those terrible December storms in the Northern Ocean. And we don't forget Fr Michael Mary and his brethren in their flourishing Mission down there in New Zealand! Storm-free, Father, I hope! Much love.
The Franciscans of the Immaculate. I pray for them; for the brothers and for the sisters; especially for the contemplative sisters at Lanhearne in Cornwall (I daily carry with me, in imitation of the practice of Blessed John Henry Newman, the Miraculous Medal which Reverend Mother Rosa gave me). I pray for those who are still together within the structures of the order; and for those who have been driven from the stability of their communities to seek and hear God's call in new paths. And I pray for Bishops who guide them and provide a refuge for their joyful service and their witness to joy. God bless them all, tous xenous kai tous xenodokhountas, and may He touch with His joy the hearts of their enemies.
God keep them all and give them joy. May He send them fresh vocations. God grant that the World may recognise in their faces the joy of Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
