It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him, to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese. Therefore, it is his exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese, according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See.
As the document goes on, the only thing firmly stated that needs to be approved by the Apostolic See is permission for priests ordained after July 16, 2021 to say the Latin Mass. When one reads TC its hard not to get the impression that the bishop is in charge of the Latin masses in his diocese. The opening also hints at the fact that power is being returned to the bishops so that they can squash the Latin Masses in their diocese. Pope Francis was under the false impression that the diocesan bishops just wanted to end the Latin masses in their dioceses and now they had permission.
Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
But the purge didn’t happen. Some Latin Masses disappeared but the vast majority of people who attended Latin Mass before TC are still attending. One has to wonder about the truthfulness of these supposed consultations with the diocesan bishops. And indeed, Diane Montagna has all but exploded this claim.
The Ghetto Approach
Looking at this document with hindsight, we can draw some conclusions. Traditionis Custodes was geared toward diocesan Latin Masses and not ex-Ecclesia Dei communities. If you’re attending a bishop-approved TLM in March 2023 you’re attending one of two kinds of TLMs. The first is a TLM celebrated by a priest from an ex-Ecclesia Dei (EED) community such as the FSSP, ICKSP, or one of several other smaller groups. These groups have always had to have permission from the bishop to operate in a diocese whether before or after Summorum Pontificum in 2007. The other bishop-approved TLMs that people attend are those put on by diocesan priests. These are mostly people who took advantage of the generous offer that Summorum Pontificum gave them.
The EED community priests represent a ghetto that was created for traditional Catholics under the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. They pose much less of a threat to Pope Francis and Cardinal Roche than the diocesan priests saying the TLM. Priests from EED communities are meant to be a ghetto in all respects. Their priests go to a different seminary and have an entirely different formation. They also answer to their superior as well as the diocesan bishop. When a bishop gives them a parish, its purpose is known to the diocese. If you want the new rite of Mass, go to a normal church. If you want the extraordinary form, go…over there, to that parish, where those weird intolerant Trads hang out.
Like I said, a ghetto.
Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
Summorum Pontificum largely created the diocesan TLM (despite scattered “indult Masses” in some places). Any priest in the world could say the TLM without consulting his bishop. Many priests began saying it, often alongside the Novus Ordo. These priests didn’t have to belong to a strange order or go to a far away seminary that no one has heard of. These priests were normal Catholics who attended diocesan seminaries and have normal diocesan parishes. They’re part of the every day life of the diocese. For the first time, Tradition was leaving the ghetto and reaching the average Catholic.
Every document regarding TLM suppression from Pope Francis and Cardinal Roche so far has been aimed at the diocesan TLM because it poses a true danger. That “danger” is Tradition being an honored guest instead of a leper to avoid. An honored guest that just might take up permanent residence. Francis and Roche can tolerate the ghetto. With the ghetto the average Catholic knows where to and where not to go. Not so with the diocesan TLM. That’s why it’s such a danger.
Just look at their harsh measures in DC and Arlington – two dioceses with textbook success of the diocesan TLM post-Summorum – and compare that with His Holiness’ seemingly odd carte blanche to the FSSP.
(This explains why they’ve also targeted the “reverent Novus Ordo” and published guidelines against Ad Orientem at the New Mass.)
Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
Of course, this doesn’t mean that ideological bishops like Cardinal Cupich won’t come after the EED, like we saw in Chicago.
Enter the Rescript
Traditionis Custodes largely failed in its mission, which was for the bishops to end the diocesan TLM. Catholic Church hierarchy has two powers; the bishops and the Vatican. The bishops didn’t do their job in suppressing diocesan TLMs so now the Vatican has to crack down. This is why any dispensations have to now be run by Cardinal Roche. There are rumours of another TLM suppression document in the works. If the rumours are true, this document will most likely be published in April or May. We don’t know what it will say but we can count on two things. The first is that the diocesan TLM will be the primary target, not EED communities. The second is that this will be carried out by the Vatican alone. Francis knows that the bishops won’t act unless coerced.
If Francis and Roche succeed in crushing all or most diocesan TLMs, will their next target be the EED communities? I see a few possibilities. The first is that they will be left alone to operate as they always have. While I’d like this to happen I don’t think it will be the case. Another possibility is that the Pope could close their seminaries and end their ordinations. The EED communities would then have to continue with the priests that they have but now their communities have an expiration date as no new priests will be ordained. That’s certainly a possibility but I don’t think it will happen either. What I think will happen is something more sinister. Once 99% of global TLMs are concentrated within the handful or EED groups, Francis and Roche will then proceed to water them down. Concelebrating will become mandatory, the new lectionary will replace the old, the Triduum will be banned and other novelties inserted. When this is done, the end result will be a Mass that differs little from the Novus Ordo.
Should lovers of the TLM be worried? Absolutely not. Francis doesn’t have a lot of capital left. He’s disliked by most of the Church, as Cardinal Pell noted in his memorandum. The recent TLM restrictions have made him look like a tyrant, picking on a little group; especially when the Church has so many other actual problems. He also doesn’t have a lot of time left. He’s aging and is not in the greatest of health. The Latin Mass will survive. What are Catholics called to do in a situation like this? We are called to be Catholic. We are called to prayer and to obey our Lenten fasts (it’s not too late to join the fasting sodality of Trad Lent!). We know that because the last fifteen years has shown us, Tradition can’t be stopped. Francis and Roche can take away the water but not the thirst. The thirst for Our Lord Jesus Christ to be worshipped and adored and given greater glory according to rites of our forefathers.
Allan Ruhl is a YouTube apologist and blogger who lives in Western Canada. He holds a Bachelors of Science in engineering from the University of Alberta. His main interests are Church history and Islamic apologetics. Follow him on Twitter @AllanRuhl.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on DOES JORGE BERGOLIO NEED NEW GLASSES? HE SEEMS TO HAVE DIFFICULTY SEEING HIS TARGET.
It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him, to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese. Therefore, it is his exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese, according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See.
As the document goes on, the only thing firmly stated that needs to be approved by the Apostolic See is permission for priests ordained after July 16, 2021 to say the Latin Mass. When one reads TC its hard not to get the impression that the bishop is in charge of the Latin masses in his diocese. The opening also hints at the fact that power is being returned to the bishops so that they can squash the Latin Masses in their diocese. Pope Francis was under the false impression that the diocesan bishops just wanted to end the Latin masses in their dioceses and now they had permission.
Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
But the purge didn’t happen. Some Latin Masses disappeared but the vast majority of people who attended Latin Mass before TC are still attending. One has to wonder about the truthfulness of these supposed consultations with the diocesan bishops. And indeed, Diane Montagna has all but exploded this claim.
The Ghetto Approach
Looking at this document with hindsight, we can draw some conclusions. Traditionis Custodes was geared toward diocesan Latin Masses and not ex-Ecclesia Dei communities. If you’re attending a bishop-approved TLM in March 2023 you’re attending one of two kinds of TLMs. The first is a TLM celebrated by a priest from an ex-Ecclesia Dei (EED) community such as the FSSP, ICKSP, or one of several other smaller groups. These groups have always had to have permission from the bishop to operate in a diocese whether before or after Summorum Pontificum in 2007. The other bishop-approved TLMs that people attend are those put on by diocesan priests. These are mostly people who took advantage of the generous offer that Summorum Pontificum gave them.
The EED community priests represent a ghetto that was created for traditional Catholics under the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. They pose much less of a threat to Pope Francis and Cardinal Roche than the diocesan priests saying the TLM. Priests from EED communities are meant to be a ghetto in all respects. Their priests go to a different seminary and have an entirely different formation. They also answer to their superior as well as the diocesan bishop. When a bishop gives them a parish, its purpose is known to the diocese. If you want the new rite of Mass, go to a normal church. If you want the extraordinary form, go…over there, to that parish, where those weird intolerant Trads hang out.
Like I said, a ghetto.
Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
Summorum Pontificum largely created the diocesan TLM (despite scattered “indult Masses” in some places). Any priest in the world could say the TLM without consulting his bishop. Many priests began saying it, often alongside the Novus Ordo. These priests didn’t have to belong to a strange order or go to a far away seminary that no one has heard of. These priests were normal Catholics who attended diocesan seminaries and have normal diocesan parishes. They’re part of the every day life of the diocese. For the first time, Tradition was leaving the ghetto and reaching the average Catholic.
Every document regarding TLM suppression from Pope Francis and Cardinal Roche so far has been aimed at the diocesan TLM because it poses a true danger. That “danger” is Tradition being an honored guest instead of a leper to avoid. An honored guest that just might take up permanent residence. Francis and Roche can tolerate the ghetto. With the ghetto the average Catholic knows where to and where not to go. Not so with the diocesan TLM. That’s why it’s such a danger.
Just look at their harsh measures in DC and Arlington – two dioceses with textbook success of the diocesan TLM post-Summorum – and compare that with His Holiness’ seemingly odd carte blanche to the FSSP.
(This explains why they’ve also targeted the “reverent Novus Ordo” and published guidelines against Ad Orientem at the New Mass.)
Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
Of course, this doesn’t mean that ideological bishops like Cardinal Cupich won’t come after the EED, like we saw in Chicago.
Enter the Rescript
Traditionis Custodes largely failed in its mission, which was for the bishops to end the diocesan TLM. Catholic Church hierarchy has two powers; the bishops and the Vatican. The bishops didn’t do their job in suppressing diocesan TLMs so now the Vatican has to crack down. This is why any dispensations have to now be run by Cardinal Roche. There are rumours of another TLM suppression document in the works. If the rumours are true, this document will most likely be published in April or May. We don’t know what it will say but we can count on two things. The first is that the diocesan TLM will be the primary target, not EED communities. The second is that this will be carried out by the Vatican alone. Francis knows that the bishops won’t act unless coerced.
If Francis and Roche succeed in crushing all or most diocesan TLMs, will their next target be the EED communities? I see a few possibilities. The first is that they will be left alone to operate as they always have. While I’d like this to happen I don’t think it will be the case. Another possibility is that the Pope could close their seminaries and end their ordinations. The EED communities would then have to continue with the priests that they have but now their communities have an expiration date as no new priests will be ordained. That’s certainly a possibility but I don’t think it will happen either. What I think will happen is something more sinister. Once 99% of global TLMs are concentrated within the handful or EED groups, Francis and Roche will then proceed to water them down. Concelebrating will become mandatory, the new lectionary will replace the old, the Triduum will be banned and other novelties inserted. When this is done, the end result will be a Mass that differs little from the Novus Ordo.
Should lovers of the TLM be worried? Absolutely not. Francis doesn’t have a lot of capital left. He’s disliked by most of the Church, as Cardinal Pell noted in his memorandum. The recent TLM restrictions have made him look like a tyrant, picking on a little group; especially when the Church has so many other actual problems. He also doesn’t have a lot of time left. He’s aging and is not in the greatest of health. The Latin Mass will survive. What are Catholics called to do in a situation like this? We are called to be Catholic. We are called to prayer and to obey our Lenten fasts (it’s not too late to join the fasting sodality of Trad Lent!). We know that because the last fifteen years has shown us, Tradition can’t be stopped. Francis and Roche can take away the water but not the thirst. The thirst for Our Lord Jesus Christ to be worshipped and adored and given greater glory according to rites of our forefathers.
Allan Ruhl is a YouTube apologist and blogger who lives in Western Canada. He holds a Bachelors of Science in engineering from the University of Alberta. His main interests are Church history and Islamic apologetics. Follow him on Twitter @AllanRuhl.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on WHAT IS THE REAL TARGET OF JORGE BERGOLIO’S ATTACKS ON THE LATIN MASS?
With institutional opinion sliding toward the lab-leak theory of Covid’s origins, those who had previously dismissed it are now playing some interesting games. Their most common excuse is that the lab-leak argument was embraced by conspiracy theorists and racists who believed that the virus was a Chinese weapon and that leading scientists didn’t give it any credence as a result. Sorry, but we were all there, and this claim isn’t true. The most common concern about Covid having come from a Chinese lab was always that the scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology conducting gain-of-function research had been catastrophically reckless.
If this is the the best excuse that former proponents of the wet-market theory can muster, it’s no surprise that they’re now ready to forget Covid’s origins altogether. This weekend, intrepid public-health poobah Dr. Leana Wen went on CNN and offered her thoughts on the matter. “I don’t know if we’re ever going to come to a definitive answer because people are so dug in in how they think about the origin of Covid,” she said. “And so what I’m proposing—I just wrote a Washington Post column about this—is that we can think both [theories] are possible. I’m not saying stop investigating but rather we need to move forward. We need to prevent the next pandemic from happening.” She added, “so let’s improve lab safety.”
It’s not only morally perverse to give China a pass on the death of 7 million people; holding China accountable, and making it pay, is exactly how you “improve lab safety” and “prevent the next pandemic from happening.” So long as China acts as a law unto itself, it will continue its shoddy and dangerous work in violation of international norms—and provide an example for others to follow.
In her Washington Postcolumn, Wen lists recent near bio-disasters in Western countries, times when deadly virus samples were left unattended in the U.S. and the Netherlands. “None of these incidents resulted in mass outbreaks. But they could have,” she writes, “Political leaders should consider that the shoe could have easily been on the other foot.” Yeah, probably not. The Chinese Communist Party has a well-documented history of cutting corners, eschewing safety measures, and using counterfeit technology in its effort to beat the West at low cost. This has meant a series of uniquely perilous and deadly projects, from chemical explosions to unstable insta-cities to crumbling bridges to derailed trains. In 2015, long before most Americans knew Wuhan existed, the Chinese novelist Murong Xuecun wrote of these disasters in the New York Times: “They are a result of the government’s love of mega-projects combined with rash planning, endemic corruption and careless construction, supervision and regulation.”
Listen and Subscribe to the Commentary Podcast
No matter what Tom Friedman and others say about the admirable efficiency of Chinese authoritarianism, strongmen are as likely to make their bullet trains fall off bridges as run on time. And Xuecun’s chief concern was that, as China deepened economic ties with other countries, it would export this carelessness abroad. “Chinese people have paid the heaviest price for this flawed system,” he wrote. “Now that Chinese-style construction and management are going global, what price is the world prepared to pay?” Prepared or not, if the lab-leak theory is correct, we paid.
Leana Wen may be scared to admit it, but the Chinese Communist Party doesn’t value human life as we do. If it did, it wouldn’t put more than a million Uyghurs in internment camps or impose the kind of inhumane pandemic restrictions that reduced citizens of the Xinjiang region to modern-day hunter gatherers. And the Chinese government can’t be forced to share our values. But through sanctions and other punitive measures, the U.S. can incentivize future Chinese safety compliance whether or not President Xi and his footmen see the world as we do.
Or we can go back to the status quo that got us here. As Xuecun wrote in 2015, “The Chinese authorities have learned nothing from these frequent accidents. The only government competence on show is with information control: hiding facts, forbidding media reporting and rapidly closing social media accounts suspected of spreading ‘rumors.’” If we let Beijing off the hook this time, we might as well start stocking up toilet paper for the rerun.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on “WHO IS AFRAID OF THE BIG BAD WOLF?” WOLVES? NOT ME!!! CHINESE COMMUNISTS, YES, ME!!!
I HAVE BEEN disturbed to see in recent years an effort undertaken in certain quarters to create “new” plainsong editions—used in opposition to the official edition—based on only 2-3 manuscripts, rather than taking into account the entire plainsong tradition. Katherine Ellis, the famous Cambridge scholar, recently wrote (vis-à-vis the official edition) as follows: Dom Pothier’s stated aim for the Vatican Edition was “to make, from among variants, a truly rational selection that fully satisfies the rights of archæology, but without underestimating the demands of practice.” I could say a lot more about this topic, but that will have to wait for another day. Let me recommend this recent article by my colleague Matthew Frederes—a husband a father of twelve children!—who adds some thought-provoking points to this conversation, which is sure to continue:
* Do We Need a Beautiful Cento, or an Archaic Reversion?We’re a tiny 501(c)3 public charity. We exist solely by the generosity of small donors. We have no endowment; we have no major donors; we run no advertisements; we have no savings. Please alert others to what we’re trying to accomplish. Also, we beg you to consider donating $5.00 per month, or even $3.00 per month. https://ccwatershed.org/help/ Thank you!
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on BEWARE OF CONTEMPORARY EFFORTS TO CREATE “NEW” PLAINSONG CHANT EDITIONS TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE OFFICIAL EDITION
Among priests there was no devotion in religion, among ministers there was no sound faith, in works no mercy, in manners no discipline. The beards of men were corrupted, women coloured their faces, eyes were altered from what God’s hand had made, hair was coloured to deceive. For the deception of the hearts of the simple there were cunning frauds and subtle meanings for circumventing the brethren. They joined in the bond of marriage with unbelievers, they prostituted the members of Christ to the Gentiles. They would swear not only rashly, but more so to perjure, they would despise those set over them while swelling with pride, they would speak evil of one another with envenomed lips, and dispute with one another with stubborn hatred. Many bishops, they who should give both exhortation and example to others, despising their divine office, became agents of worldly business. Foresaking their thrones, deserting their people, they wandered around foreign provinces, hunting in the markets for profitable merchandise. While in the Church brethren were starving they sought out hoards of silver. They seized estates by crafty deceit, they increased their gains by multiplying usuries. What do such as we not deserve to suffer for sins of this kind, when even already the Divine rebuke has forewarned us, and said, ‘If they shall forsake my law and do not walk in my judgments, if they shall profane my decrees and not observe my commandments, I will visit their offenses with a rod, and their sins with scourges?’”
Non in sacerdotibus religio devota, non in ministris fides integra, non in operibus misericordia, non in moribus disciplina. Corrupta barba in viris, in feminis forma fucata, adulterati post Dei manus oculi, capilli mendacio colorati. Ad decipienda corda simplicium callidae fraudes, circumveniendis fratribus subdolae voluntates. Jungere cum infidelibus vinculum matrimonii, prostituere gentilibus membra Christi. Non jurare tantum temere, sed adhuc etiam pejerare: praepositos superbo tumore contemnere; venenato sibi ore maledicere, odiis pertinacibus invicem dissidere. Episcopi plurimi, quos et hortamento esse oportet caeteris et exemplo, divina procuratione contempta, procuratores rerum saecularium fieri, derelicta cathedra, plebe deserta, per alienas provincias oberrantes, negotiationis quaestuosae nundinas aucupari, esurientibus in Ecclesia fratribus, habere argentum largiter. A velle, fundos insidiosis fraudibus rapere, usuris multiplicantibus foenus augere. Quid non perpeti tales pro peccatis ejusmodi mereremur, cum jam pridem praemonuerit ac dixerit censura divina: Si dereliquerint legem meam et in judiciis meis non ambulaverint, si justificationes meas profanaverint et praecepta mea non observaverint, visitabo in virga facinora eorum et in flagellis delicta eorum.
—St. Cyprian of Carthage (ca. 210-14–258), On the Lapsed, PL 4, 469 ff.
Compliments of Andrew Greenwell
All reactions:
6Theresa Moore, Tom Pauken and 4 others
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on A MESSAGE T0 CERTAIN TRAITOROUS HIGH-RANKING CLERICS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
Political Catholicism is hard in theory, but it’s easy in practice. It promises that we can fundamentally trasform the modern world by conforming to it as closely as possible. All it demands of us is “collective action,” which seems to mean “doing nothing at all.”
The alternative, which is laid out by Gregory and Alcuin—call it Evangelical Catholicism—is easy in theory but hard in practice. It requires us to be in the world (the real world, with people and trees and cars and whatnot), but never of the world. We’re supposed to abjure wealth, fame, and power in favor of prayer and fasting, simplicity and service.
If I couldn’t be a Catholic, I would join the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Why, you ask? Because of its founder, Tsar Boris I, also known as St. Boris the Baptizer.
Boris was born in 827 A.D., the great-great-grandson of Khan Krum the Fearsome. He was himself baptized in 864, with the Byzantine emperor Michael III (“the Drunkard”) standing as his godfather. His reasons for choosing the Orthodox Church over the Catholic Church were nakedly political—as shown by the his conversion to Catholicism in 866, and his reversion to Orthodoxy in 870.
Still, whatever Boris’s beliefs, they were sincere. Immediately after his conversion he set about Christianizing his country, triggering a revolt by pagan boyars (aristocrats), which nearly cost him his throne. Still, he worked tirelessly to convert his subjects. He consulted with churchman all over Europe on how best to reconcile the Faith with the customs of his fierce, freedom-loving people.
In 889, Boris finished his work. He rewarded himself by abdictating in favor of his eldest son, Vladimir, and retiring to a monastery. Unfortunately, the new king was in league with the boyars. Shortly after taking the throne, Vladimir apostatized. He and the boyars began working to crush the young Church and bring back the old gods. I’ll let Norwich take it from here:
In an explosion of rage still almost audible down the centuries, the old King burst out of his monastery, seized back the government, deposed and blinded Vladimir and, summoning a great conference from every corner of his kingdom, bade the assembled delegates acclaim his younger son Symeon as their ruler. Unhesitatingly they did so, whereupon he returned to his cloister never to leave it again.
In 2002, a poll conducted by Bulgarian National Television named Symeon the Great and his father, Boris the Baptizer, among the ten greatest-ever Bulgarians. Vladimir the Apostate did not make the list, but then neither did Krum the Fearsome.
Since the day I first readthe story of St. Tsar Boris, I have been a devoted member of his cultus. I love him; I honor him; I beg for his intercession. So, hopefully you won’t think I’m badmouthing him, dear reader, when I point out that he doesn’t quite fit Aquinas ideal of the Christian prince.
Bear this in mind when you read Sohrab Ahmari’s essay “Apostolic Empire” in the latest issue of First Things. And read it you should! It is an important contribution to the debate over “Political Catholicism” (or integralism, or whatever you want to call it).
Technically, the essay is a review of The Church of Apostles and Martyrs by Henri Daniel-Rops, which has just been republished by Cluny Media. Mr. Ahmari clearly sees Daniel-Rops as a kind of forerunner to the Political Catholic movement:
“The Revolution of the Cross,” as the author calls the rise of Christianity, pitted a new doctrine against the ideology of an established imperial order. Sadistic madmen like Nero aside, some pagan rulers recognized this fundamental opposition and proved to be the most ferocious and systematic of the early Church’s persecutors. And yet, just as there was a providential synthesis between Greek philosophy and Judeo-Christian revelation in the realm of ideas, so there was a natural kinship between the legal and political practice of Rome and that of the nascent Church. The result was that, notwithstanding the violence meted out by Rome to Christians, the Church came to assume Roman political forms.
For Daniel-Rops, the essence of this unlikely congruity is universalism, beginning with Rome’s drive to subject all nations to its own governing rationality. The Romans built reliable roads linking their vast domains. And down these roads they spread the same legally ordered way of being in the world, whether their subject peoples liked it or not.
I won’t dispute Mr. Ahmari’s reading of Church history. (Marc Barnes did that already, and did it better than I could.) But I would like to make two quick points, both of which are so obvious we might easily overlook them. First, just because something happened, that doesn’t mean it should have. Second, just because it happened once, that doesn’t mean it should happen again.
Broadly speaking, it’s true that the Church became enmeshed with the State over the first four centuries of the Christian era. And, broadly speaking, that’s a good thing. I’m not going to spout any liberal niceties about freedom of religion or the virtue of tolerance. There is no such freedom; there is no such virtue. They do not exist. But there are genuinely Christian reasons to push back on Mr. Ahmari’s position.
Because Church history is not a monolith. There isn’t the “Christian position” on the one hand and the “pagan position” on the other. It may shock you to learn that, historically Christians were known to disagree among themselves, on any number of issues—even politics!
Throughout that history, we often find two slightly different approaches to Christianization. One is the political method. This is when the government not only promotes but enforces the Christian faith. The other is the evangelical method, which stresses the need for a free and informed decision to embrace Christianity.
Mr. Ahmari clearly prefers the political method; hence his reference to the need for governments to “spread the same legally ordered way of being in the world, whether their subject peoples liked it or not.” So did St. Boris, Theodosius I, and Charlamagne (at least at first). In general, the political leaders of premodern Europe preferred the political method. And, for obvious reasons, they usually got their way. That’s why the word “Christianization” evokes visions of forced baptisms, holy wars, filial blindings, etc.
Very often, however, the saints were stridently opposed to the political method. Some simply found it unethical. They would agree with St. Gregory the Great, that “humility and kindness, teaching and persuasion, are the means by which to gather in the foes of the Christian faith.” But sometimes their concerns were purely practical.
For example, in 772, Charlemagne implemented a policy of forcibly baptizing the Saxons. When the Saxons resisted, he sent his army into Saxony to burn their crops. This continued for years and years, with the Franks slowly starving the Germans for refusing to accept Christ.
Charlemagne’s chief advisor, St. Alcuin of York, openly and loudly dissented from his master’s policy. “Let people newly brought to Christ be nourished in a mild manner, as infants are given milk,” he said, “for instruct them brutally and the risk then, their minds being weak, is that they vomit everything up.”
As Tom Holland recounts in Dominion, Charlemagne and Alcuin liked to argue about religion or politics while enjoying a hot bath together. And, in the course of one such soak, Alcuin won Charlemagne over. Eventually, the king rescinded his policy of forced conversion in Saxony.
To be clear, neither Alcuin nor Gregory believed the Germans had a “right” to be pagan. They did not. They weren’t proto-liberals. They simply disagreed with the principle of forced Christianization, on both ethical and practical grounds.
Those seem to me like solid grounds, too. Yet I’m sure Mr. Ahmari would point out that, at the end of the day, forced conversions worked. Europe wasChristianized, after all. And while he may not support the starving of obstinate Germans, he would take this as proof that the State is capable of bringing us closer to Christ—whether we like it or not.
I won’t dispute that, either. I’ll just point out that that post-Christian America is a different sort of place than pre-Christian Europe.
Like the Church, pagan Europe was deeply religious and extremely hierarchical. That’s true of the barbarians even more than the Romans (another “unlikely congruity,” maybe). What’s more, religion was not seen as a matter of personal preference, but of public policy. The barbarians usually saw their ruler as a sort of high priest. The Romans often saw theirs as a sort of god.
Anyway, peasants weren’t in the habit of forming their own views on the supernatural. If the chief told them to worship Odin, they worshiped Odin. If he told them to worship Jesus, they worshiped Jesus.
That’s why the early Christians were always preaching in royal courts. It’s not because they enjoyed moving in high society. It’s not because the Apostles perceived some mystical affinity between Catholic and Roman “universalisms.” It was just easier to convert the local poohbah, and then let him convert everyone else.
You’ve probably noticed already, dear reader, but we don’t live in that kind of society anymore. As moral and spiritual authority go, our rulers have a negative balance. We don’t look to the State for religious leadership. Just the opposite. That’s why “political Catholicism” failed the only time it was ever really tried: in Spain, from 1936 until 1975.
Now, let’s be clear: it is good that Franco won the Spanish Civil War. Only a communist or a coward would say otherwise. The Second Republic was a Soviet puppet-state committed to wiping out the Catholic Church in Spain. They butchered priests, monks, nuns, and laymen all over the country. Hollywood and academia love to glamorize those Americans (like Hemingway) who volunteered in the Republican Army, and that’s despicable. It’s evil. Whether or not Franco was the “good guy,” the Republicans were definitely the bad guys.
Still, at the end of the day, Franco failed. It didn’t matter how many privileges he piled on the Church, or how many laws he passed reinforcing Christian moral norms. As soon as the Caudillo died in 1975, Spain was swept into the modern world. Today, fewer than one in ten Spaniards attend weekly Mass. Even the Scots are more regular kirk-goers, and they haven’t had a good theocrat since Cromwell.
If anything, the Franco regime probably turned people off of the Church. Unlike the Medievals, we Moderns are fiercely independent. We hate being told what to do. We insist making up our own minds, even (or especially) when we have no idea what we’re talking about. We hate being preached to and propagandized. Franco didn’t get that. I’m afraid Mr. Ahmari and his comrades don’t, either.
So, how do we reclaim the West for Christ? I think we have a better role-model than Charlemagne or even Boris the Baptizer. I mean St. Boniface.
We all know that Boniface cut down an oak tree, which was believed to be sacred to the god Thor (or maybe Odin), and used the wood to build a church. That is how he lived. The story of how he died might be less well known.
Just as the sun was dawning on June 5, 754, Boniface and his company were attacked by a band of Saxon pirates. The Christians drew their swords—all except their leader, Boniface, who ordered his companions to lay down their them down. They had come to preach the Gospel, not to shed blood—innocent or otherwise. The missionaries were hacked to ribbons.
Boniface hated heathenry but loved the heathen. He had no desire to punish anyone for being pagan, or even for being a pirate. He had an irresistable desire to bring the Gospel to the Saxons. He knew that nothing mattered but the conversion of sinners. He also knew that nothing could convert sinners except the living God. NHe gave up everything he had for that mission, including his own life. But he used the proceeds to win Germany for Christ.
That’s why St. Boniface, not Charlemagne, is known as the Apostle to the Germans. The Emperor put his trust in the Empire. The Saint put his trust in God.
But I’m afraid that,by mentioning St. Boniface, I’ll out myself as one of those Christians whom Mr. Ahmari derides for their “fatalistic over-eagerness for ‘martyrdom.’ ” He laments that,
In response to our crises, some Christians have been tempted to return to the “catacombs,” or even to see the Church “purified” down to mustard-seed size as a prelude to healthier growth. Rather than seek to envelop modern civilization, such as it is, they would build smaller communities characterized by intense piety, homespun institutions, and a readiness for ostracism.
This is an implicit attack on Rod Dreher’s idea of the Benedict Option, as well as Mr. Barnes’s vision of a New Polity. Mr. Ahmari must also know that the “mustard seed” line comes from Benedict XVI, of blessed memory.
For whatever it’s worth, I’m a proud mustard-seeder. And I think I can speak for my comrades when I say that our end-goal is the same as Mr. Ahmari’s. We, too, want to “envelop modern civilization.” We simply have different ways of going about it.
Again, like St. Gregory, we believe that “humility and kindness, teaching and persuasion, are the means by which to gather in the foes of the Christian faith.” And, like St. Alcuin, we want to be gentle with converts and potential converts. If we “instruct them brutally,” there’s a good chance they will “vomit everything up,” as the Spanish did in 1975.
But what specific steps would we take to bring about a revival of the Faith? Probably the same steps the Apostles took: teaching, preaching, and outreaching.
First, we inculcate Christian truth in our children. This is why forming strong Christian communities is so important. Second, we share the Good News of Jesus Christ with our neighbors—ideally in partnership with groups like St. Paul Street Evangelization. Third, we perform the Corporal Works of Mercy. As Tertullian said of the Early Church, “It is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. ‘See how they love one another,’ they say.”
Even the way we live can be a powerful witness. St. Francis of Assisi didn’t really say, “Preach always; when necessary, use words.” But it’s sound advice. I’ve encountered dozens of young men and women who converted after experiencing one of these “intentional communities,” places where Christians are committed to growing together in spiritual, moral, physical, and intellectual excellence. These folks didn’t understand Christianity—at least, not at first—but they wanted to be part of the Christian thing.
What’s more, effective revolutionaries have always known that, before we can transform society (for better or worse), we must transform ourselves. For instance, as Ian Huyett pointed out last month in Staseos, the vision of a “New Hebrew”—a “courageous, practical, and suntanned soldier” forged by honest landwork—was integral to the Zionist movement’s early success.
Yet Mr. Ahmari generally discourages these methods. He warns against placing too much emphasis on personal sanctity or evangelizing non-Christians. Rather, we should be more concerned about enacting “reforms to the material order to make their lives a little easier.”
Mr. Ahmari also warns us about the dangers of lifestyle rightism. That’s his term for a conservative subculture that stresses the need for healthy living, spiritual formation, and community-building. The lifestyle rightists are creating an army of “New Christians”—transforming themselves, in order to transform society.
Working out and studying Scripture are good things, Mr. Ahmari concedes. Yet he argues that lifestyle rightism “misdirects its adherents, shifting them away from collective action and the shared pursuit of common goods toward essentially private goods (some of which aren’t good at all).”
So, what does Mr. Ahmari actually want us to do with ourselves? He doesn’t say. And this is a common complaint about Political Catholicism. It asserts that we should seize the levers of power and create an illiberal Christian theocracy. Well, all right. But how do you seize the levers of power? The answer seems to be, “By writing tweets and op-eds about the need to seize the levers of power.” Yet I don’t see that quite doing the job.
Here, I think, is the long and short of it:
Political Catholicism is hard in theory, but it’s easy in practice. It promises that we can fundamentally trasform the modern world by conforming to it as closely as possible. All it demands of us is “collective action,” which seems to mean “doing nothing at all.”
The alternative, which is laid out by Gregory and Alcuin—call it Evangelical Catholicism—is easy in theory but hard in practice. It requires us to be in the world (the real world, with people and trees and cars and whatnot), but never of the world. We’re supposed to abjure wealth, fame, and power in favor of prayer and fasting, simplicity and service.
I hope I’m not misrepresenting Mr. Ahmari and his comrades. And, if I am, I hope they’ll set me straight. In the meantime, I think we should seek first the kingdom of God, preaching the Gospel to every creature, while keeping unspotted from the world. If that makes us “quietists”—well, then, we’re in good company.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Here, I think, is the long and short of it:
Almost everything that has followed from the woke mass hysteria gripping the nation since 2020 has proved disastrous.
Wokeism destroys meritocracy in favor of forced equality of result—history’s prescription for civilizational decline.
If we continue with the woke hiring of administrators, air traffic controllers, ground crews, pilots, and rail workers, there will be even more news of disasters and near-miss airline crashes.
Wokeness demands a McCarthyite suppression of free expression. No wonder a woke FBI recently hired out social media censors to suppress stories it deemed unhelpful.
Soviet-style, wokeism mandates strict ideological party-line narratives under the cover of “science.” No wonder a woke government lied that requiring vaccines would prevent both infection and infectiousness.
Woke substitutes race for class in its eternal neo-Marxist quest to permanently divide the nation along racial lines, between victims and victimizers.
Yet wokeism recently has embarrassed itself as never before.
Take the COVID pandemic.
The Department of Energy has joined the FBI and is now attributing the origins of the pandemic to a leak of a likely engineered virus from the top-security virology lab in Wuhan, China.
Wokesters had long suppressed that reality, demonizing any who rejected its orthodox lies and spoke a larger truth: A dystopic China is not our global partner in greening the planet. Criticizing Stalinist China is not “racist.” China is not building a progressive society that is a model for others.
The ongoing environmental catastrophe in East Palestine, Ohio, following the train derailment revealed more woke moral bankruptcy.
Ostensibly the ensuing toxic spill and noxious plume have poisoned a poor and working-class small town. It should have galvanized the old Democratic Party that once voiced loud support for all green causes and championed the lower American classes.
But woke ended all that—substituting racial chauvinism for class concerns and ideology for genuine worry over the environment.
Woke dogma mandates that pollution and poverty are no longer concerns—if they affect the white poor who are stereotyped collectively as privileged victimizers.
Wokesters insisted that California is the greatest casualty of “climate change” defined as permanent drought.
Purported climate change required radical new bureaucratic rules and antidemocratic mandates over irrigation supplies, groundwater, and contracted water deliveries from public reservoirs.
But then it rained. And it snowed. And it became terribly cold in supposedly scorching California.
Southern California is blanketed in snow.
Even so, for much of this cold, wet winter, state officials continued to claim the man-made drought was in full force. But finally, the most recent frigid, wet weather strangled the woke drought—and with it, the credibility of our climate change Cassandras.
Americans sympathize with Ukraine’s plight as Vladimir Putin seeks to destroy its autonomy. But woke brooked no deviation from the party line that Ukraine’s Volodomyr Zelenskyy is a saint, while Russia is near bankrupt due to sanctions, and doomed to lose the war.
Accordingly, the United States was obligated to give Ukraine a veritable blank check given Kyiv’s commitment to freedom. Zelenskyy’s team now even talks of a victorious Ukrainian armored counteroffensive into Moscow’s Red Square.
This week, however, we are learning the Russian economy is nearly as strong now as it was before the war. It has mobilized 700,000 troops to ensure that eastern Ukraine becomes a Verdun-like killing field where tens of thousands more will be ground up.
Ukraine bars dissidents and maintains a government media monopoly. And the more Joe Biden promises another $2-3 billion in biweekly aid, the more Zelenskyy acts as if it is a pittance given what supposedly stingy Americans should be capable of supplying.
Meanwhile, at home, new woke protocols mandate race as essential rather than incidental to the human experience. Supposedly such fixations will heal racial wounds.
Under the new reparatory and compensatory diversity, equity, and inclusion rules, those deemed non-white were to be hired and admitted to colleges in greater numbers than their demographics. Even the old mandated proportional representation quotas were no longer enough.
But racial chauvinism, nonstop talk of reparations, and the new campus segregation have not resulted in better racial relations.
Polls show that there are greater racial tensions than ever before.
Data on interracial and hate crimes show even sharper racial disproportionalities. The incidences of both black violent criminal perpetrators and black crime victims are near historical highs.
Woke policies of no cash bail, downgrading felonies, and no jail time only spiked violent lawlessness.
Our elite universities are now fully woke. Almost weekly an embarrassing story further erodes their credibility and reputation.
Ridiculous lists of taboo words are issued on woke campuses, barring incendiary words like “American” and “immigrant.”
Bragging of segregated dorms, graduations, and safe spaces recalls Jim Crow, not woke racial utopias.
Grades and standards are deemed counterrevolutionary, even as incompetent graduates increasingly fail to impress employers.
Someday wokeism will disappear because it is inherently nihilistic and cannibalistic.
But in the meantime, Americans should end it now before it ends America first.
The Woke Wrecking Machine
By: Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness
March 2, 2023
Almost everything that has followed from the woke mass hysteria gripping the nation since 2020 has proved disastrous.
Wokeism destroys meritocracy in favor of forced equality of result—history’s prescription for civilizational decline.
If we continue with the woke hiring of administrators, air traffic controllers, ground crews, pilots, and rail workers, there will be even more news of disasters and near-miss airline crashes.
Wokeness demands a McCarthyite suppression of free expression. No wonder a woke FBI recently hired out social media censors to suppress stories it deemed unhelpful.
Soviet-style, wokeism mandates strict ideological party-line narratives under the cover of “science.” No wonder a woke government lied that requiring vaccines would prevent both infection and infectiousness.
Woke substitutes race for class in its eternal neo-Marxist quest to permanently divide the nation along racial lines, between victims and victimizers.
Yet wokeism recently has embarrassed itself as never before.
Take the COVID pandemic.
The Department of Energy has joined the FBI and is now attributing the origins of the pandemic to a leak of a likely engineered virus from the top-security virology lab in Wuhan, China.
Wokesters had long suppressed that reality, demonizing any who rejected its orthodox lies and spoke a larger truth: A dystopic China is not our global partner in greening the planet. Criticizing Stalinist China is not “racist.” China is not building a progressive society that is a model for others.
The ongoing environmental catastrophe in East Palestine, Ohio, following the train derailment revealed more woke moral bankruptcy.
Ostensibly the ensuing toxic spill and noxious plume have poisoned a poor and working-class small town. It should have galvanized the old Democratic Party that once voiced loud support for all green causes and championed the lower American classes.
But woke ended all that—substituting racial chauvinism for class concerns and ideology for genuine worry over the environment.
Woke dogma mandates that pollution and poverty are no longer concerns—if they affect the white poor who are stereotyped collectively as privileged victimizers.
Wokesters insisted that California is the greatest casualty of “climate change” defined as permanent drought.
Purported climate change required radical new bureaucratic rules and antidemocratic mandates over irrigation supplies, groundwater, and contracted water deliveries from public reservoirs.
But then it rained. And it snowed. And it became terribly cold in supposedly scorching California.
Southern California is blanketed in snow.
Even so, for much of this cold, wet winter, state officials continued to claim the man-made drought was in full force. But finally, the most recent frigid, wet weather strangled the woke drought—and with it, the credibility of our climate change Cassandras.
Americans sympathize with Ukraine’s plight as Vladimir Putin seeks to destroy its autonomy. But woke brooked no deviation from the party line that Ukraine’s Volodomyr Zelenskyy is a saint, while Russia is near bankrupt due to sanctions, and doomed to lose the war.
Accordingly, the United States was obligated to give Ukraine a veritable blank check given Kyiv’s commitment to freedom. Zelenskyy’s team now even talks of a victorious Ukrainian armored counteroffensive into Moscow’s Red Square.
This week, however, we are learning the Russian economy is nearly as strong now as it was before the war. It has mobilized 700,000 troops to ensure that eastern Ukraine becomes a Verdun-like killing field where tens of thousands more will be ground up.
Ukraine bars dissidents and maintains a government media monopoly. And the more Joe Biden promises another $2-3 billion in biweekly aid, the more Zelenskyy acts as if it is a pittance given what supposedly stingy Americans should be capable of supplying.
Meanwhile, at home, new woke protocols mandate race as essential rather than incidental to the human experience. Supposedly such fixations will heal racial wounds.
Under the new reparatory and compensatory diversity, equity, and inclusion rules, those deemed non-white were to be hired and admitted to colleges in greater numbers than their demographics. Even the old mandated proportional representation quotas were no longer enough.
But racial chauvinism, nonstop talk of reparations, and the new campus segregation have not resulted in better racial relations.
Polls show that there are greater racial tensions than ever before.
Data on interracial and hate crimes show even sharper racial disproportionalities. The incidences of both black violent criminal perpetrators and black crime victims are near historical highs.
Woke policies of no cash bail, downgrading felonies, and no jail time only spiked violent lawlessness.
Our elite universities are now fully woke. Almost weekly an embarrassing story further erodes their credibility and reputation.
Ridiculous lists of taboo words are issued on woke campuses, barring incendiary words like “American” and “immigrant.”
Bragging of segregated dorms, graduations, and safe spaces recalls Jim Crow, not woke racial utopias.
Grades and standards are deemed counterrevolutionary, even as incompetent graduates increasingly fail to impress employers.
Someday wokeism will disappear because it is inherently nihilistic and cannibalistic.
But in the meantime, Americans should end it now before it ends America first.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on The Woke Wrecking Machine
“The August 18th date has no significance. If a Senator from Pennsylvania passes away, a replacement appointed by the Governor will serve until the next special election,” the fact check said which is classic leftist misinformation.
BEING TOLD THAT FETTERMAN IS ESSENTIALLY BRAIN DEAD AND IT’S BEING HIDDEN BECAUSE KEEPING HIM IN OFFICE UNTIL AUGUST 18TH AVOIDS A SPECIAL ELECTION WHICH REPUBLICANS WOULD MOST CERTAINLY WIN.
GISELE FETTERMAN RECENTLY POSTED ON SOCIAL MEDIA, EXPLAINING THE JOURNEY HER AND HER CHILDREN HAVE BEEN ON SINCE SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN WAS HOSPITALIZED FOR CLINICAL DEPRESSION.
ON FRIDAY, THE SENATOR’S WIFE TOOK TO TWITTER AND FACEBOOK TO DISCUSS A SPONTANEOUS GETAWAY THAT SHE TOOK WITH THEIR CHILDREN AFTER TRYING TO ESCAPE THE MEDIA’S EYE WHEN MULTIPLE MEDIA TRUCKS BEGAN CIRCLING THEIR HOME.
THE MOTHER OF TWO DECIDED TO TAKE THEIR CHILDREN TO CANADA TO HELP THEM DECOMPRESS AFTER THE RECENT NEWS OF THEIR FATHER’S HEALTH MADE NATIONAL NEWS.
THE FAMILY WERE ABLE TO ENJOY ZIPLINING OVER NIAGARA FALLS WHILE HAVING HEART TO HEARTS ABOUT THEIR CURRENT SITUATION.
WE DID SOME SCARY THINGS BUT WE DID THEM TOGETHER. WE ZIPLINED OVER NIAGARA FALLS AND AUGUST GOT STUCK . WE TALKED ABOUT FLEXIBILITY AND THE NEED TO ALWAYS HAVE AN OPEN HEART AND AN OPEN MIND. PIC.TWITTER.COM/IYUVBBXAOE
One day after the story was leaked on social media, Gisele flees to Canada while her husband allegedly is in serious condition in DC.
Just two days later Fetterman’s office put out a statement that things are just fine but gave no real updates on his condition.
“We don’t have a lot to update folks with since there’s no real news to report except that John is doing well, working with the wonderful doctors, and remains on a path to recovery,” communications director Joe Calvello said in a statement. “He is visiting with staff and family daily, and his staff are keeping him updated on Senate business and news.”
Isn’t his family in Canada right now having fun?
It’s like watching a House of Cards season play out right in front of you.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Fetterman Health Leak Will Send DC Into Chaos
”It was evident that the quarrel had gone beyond the possibility of human control.” —The Catholic Encyclopedia, under the heading of the First Ecumenical Council (link) Letter #66, 2023 Friday, March 3: Nicaea Just a brief note to draw your attention to an important date: 2025 — the anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council in the history of the Church. The year 2025 will be 1,700 years since the First Ecumenical Council held in Nicaea, near Constantinople (today Istanbul) in 325 A.D. (link), to deal with the question of the Arian heresy. There are a number of initiatives now being planned to commemorate that first great Council. The article published below, from the Lutheran World Federation, explains that the Lutherans and the Orthodox are meeting to a common celebration on the 1,700th anniversary in 2025. What is not clear is whether such a meeting with simply be a commemoration and celebration of something that occurred long ago, or… a Council in its own right, to address doctrinal issues facing Christians today, and to discern what the orthodox Christian teaching is on these issues, as occurred at the First Council of Nicaea with regard to the teachings of the priest Arius. Here is a brief sumary from the Catholic Encyclopedia (link): First Ecumenical Council of the CatholicChurch, held in 325 on the occasion of the heresy of Arius (Arianism). As early as 320 or 321 St. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, convoked a council at Alexandria at which more than one hundred bishops from Egypt and Libya anathematized Arius. The latter continued to officiate in his church and to recruit followers. Being finally driven out, he went to Palestine and from there to Nicomedia. During this time St. Alexander published his “Epistola encyclica”, to which Arius replied; but henceforth it was evident that the quarrel had gone beyond the possibility of human control. Sozomen even speaks of a Council of Bithynia which addressed an encyclical to all the bishops asking them to receive the Arians into the communion of the Church. This discord, and the war which soon broke out between Constantine and Licinius, added to the disorder and partly explains the progress of the religious conflict during the years 322-3. Finally Constantine, having conquered Licinius and become sole emperor, concerned himself with the re-establishment of religious peace as well as of civil order. He addressed letters to St. Alexander and to Arius deprecating these heated controversies regarding questions of no practical importance, and advising the adversaries to agree without delay. It was evident that the emperor did not then grasp the significance of the Arian controversy. Hosius of Cordova, his counsellor in religious matters, bore the imperial letter to Alexandria, but failed in his conciliatory mission. Seeing this, the emperor, perhaps advised by Hosius, judged no remedy more apt to restore peace in the Church than the convocation of an ecumenical council. It is not known for certain when the Council of Nicaea occurred, so it is not known when the appropriate time would be for the anniversary celebration, but the start of the Council seems to have been May 20, 325, and the closing day to have been August 25, 2025. The formulation of the first Creed of Nicaea is commonly dated to June 19, 325. Here, again, the Catholic Encyclopedia: The year 325 is accepted without hesitation as that of the First Council of Nicaea. There is less agreement among our early authorities as to the month and day of the opening. In order to reconcile the indications furnished by Socrates and by the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, this date may, perhaps, be taken as 20 May, and that of the drawing up of the symbol as 19 June. It may be assumed without too great hardihood that the synod, having been convoked for 20 May, in the absence of the emperor held meetings of a less solemn character until 14 June, when after the emperor’s arrival, the sessions properly so called began, the symbol being formulated on 19 June, after which various matters – the paschal controversy, etc. – were dealt with, and the sessions came to an end 25 August. The Council was opened by Constantine with the greatest solemnity. The emperor waited until all the bishops had taken their seats before making his entry. He was clad in gold and covered with precious stones in the fashion of an Oriental sovereign. A chair of gold had been made ready for him, and when he had taken his place the bishops seated themselves. After he had been addressed in a hurried allocution, the emperor made an address in Latin, expressing his will that religious peace should be re-established. He had opened the session as honorary president, and he had assisted at the subsequent sessions, but the direction of the theological discussions was abandoned, as was fitting, to the ecclesiastical leaders of the council. The actual president seems to have been Hosius of Cordova, assisted by the pope’slegates, Victor and Vincentius. Then there is this, with regard to the Creed promulgated at Nicaea (link): ”One of the projects undertaken by the Council was the creation of a creed, a declaration and summary of the Christian faith. ”Several creeds were already in existence; many creeds were acceptable to the members of the Council, including Arius. ”From earliest times, various creeds served as a means of identification for Christians, as a means of inclusion and recognition, especially at baptism. ”In Rome, for example, the Apostles’ Creed was popular, especially for use in Lent and the Easter season. ”In the Council of Nicaea, one specific creed was used to define the Church’s faith clearly, to include those who professed it, and to exclude those who did not. ”The original Nicene Creed read as follows: We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down, and became incarnate and became man, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and dead, And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or created, or is subject to alteration or change – these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. Some distinctive elements in the Nicene Creed, perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added, some specifically to counter the Arian point of view.Jesus Christ is described as “Light from Light, true God from true God,” proclaiming his divinity.Jesus Christ is said to be “begotten, not made,” asserting that he was not a mere creature, brought into being out of nothing, but the true Son of God, brought into being “from the substance of the Father.”He is said to be “of one substance with the Father,” proclaiming that although Jesus Christ is “true God” and God the Father is also “true God,” they are “of one substance.” The Greek term homoousios, consubstantial (i.e. of the same substance) is ascribed by Eusebius of Caesarea to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority. The significance of this clause, however, is ambiguous as to the extent in which Jesus Christ and God the Father are “of one substance,” and the issues it raised would be seriously controverted in the future. At the end of the creed came a list of anathemas, designed to repudiate explicitly the Arians’ stated claims.The view that “there was once when he was not” was rejected to maintain the coeternity of the Son with the Father.The view that he was “mutable or subject to change” was rejected to maintain that the Son just like the Father was beyond any form of weakness or corruptibility, and most importantly that he could not fall away from absolute moral perfection. [End, brief overview of the First Ecumenical Council of 325 A.D. in Nicaea.] *** So an appropriate date for a celebration by all Christians who hold to the Creed of Nicaea might be June 19, 2025. —RM P.S. If you would like, please support our work. Support the Moynihan Letters Lutherans, Orthodox plan to mark Nicaea anniversary (link) 28 Feb 2023 Lutheran and Orthodox theologians meet for the first time since the pandemic and look ahead to the publication of a joint statement on the theme of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the World. Dialogue partners meet in Turkey to discuss plans for next plenary and a common statement set for 2025 (LWI) – The next plenary session of Joint International Commission on theological dialogue between the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and the Orthodox Church will take place from 29 April to 6 May in Wittenberg, Germany, focusing on the theme of ‘The Holy Spirit, the Church and the World: Creation, Humankind and Salvation.’ Participants will start working on a common statement due for publication ahead of the 1,700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea in 2025. The announcement came in a communiqué issued at the conclusion of a Preparatory Committee meeting which took place from 22 to 25 February on the premises of the Theological School of Halki, at the Holy Trinity Patriarchal and Stavropegial monastery in Turkey. Participants were able to visit the prestigious seminary of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, founded in the mid-19th century on the site of an ancient Orthodox monastery but closed by the Turkish government in 1971. Prof. DrDirk Lange, LWF’s Assistant General Secretary for Ecumenical Relations said: “It was a joy to share in the life of the monastery, in prayer and in meals together with the monks. The abbot, Bishop Kassianos of Aravissos, hosted us with generosity and noted that many former professors from the Theological School contributed to the work for unity. For example, the 1920 encyclical entitled ‘To all the Churches of Christ’ was drawn up by professors from that period calling for the foundation of a world council of churches, which then came to fruition almost 30 years later.” First meeting of partners since pandemic The eight-member Preparatory Committee continued discussions on the role and activity of the Holy Spirit, hearing presentations from Lutheran and Orthodox theologians on the role and activity of the Holy Spirit in the life of the two traditions. The meeting was co-chaired by His Eminence Metropolitan Prof. Dr. Kyrillos of Krini and by Bishop Dr. Johann Schneider from the Evangelical Church in Central Germany. Prof. Lange said: “Discussions on the papers were engaging and identified areas of agreement between the two traditions, particularly in the understanding of the place and the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. At the same time, it also became clear that further study was needed on the role of the Holy Spirit in the world, outside the walls of the Church. The preparatory meeting ended with great hope, inspired by the rich conversations over our two days together.” The meeting in Halki marked the first time that the LWF and Orthodox dialogue partners were able to come together in person since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Their last meeting was held in the Albanian port city of Durrës in 2019. LWF/P. Hitchen
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THE CHURCH LIVES (NOT MERELY SURVIVES) IN THE LIGHT OF THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL HELD IN NICEA (1700 YEARS AGO IN 2025) IN NICEA (ISTANBUL, TURKEY)
Judie Brown, No Exceptions, No Compromise. Happy Birthday!
The defeat of Roe v. Wade took 50 years of prayer, commitment, and relentless faith and effort in the face of unyielding evil.The end of Roe is the beginning of the end of abortion. How did this happen? For over 50 years, Judie Brown has led the fight against this evil. She is the only one to lead from the position of an unwavering commitment to life. Abortion is child killing, at all times, under all circumstances.NO EXCEPTIONS. NO COMPROMISE.While other pro-life groups placate you for your support by claiming some sort of victory if abortion is banned at 12 weeks, 15 weeks, or if a heartbeat is detectable, children still die.Child killing is wrong. There are no moral victories when children are butchered under laws that compromise life. How can this be celebrated?Shutting down three of the 15 ovens at the Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz that were murdering human beings is not a victory. This position has made Judie and her American Life League not so popular in the “corporate pro-life” industry.We don’t care. Child killing is wrong. “It’s about the babies” is a phrase Judie states every day.For 50 years Judie has said that any Catholic supporting child killing who hides behind words and worldly gobbledygook explanations of their support of death should be denied Christ in the Eucharist. NO EXCEPTIONS. NO COMPROMISE.Her position has brought on hateful and heated rebukes from now fallen ex-cardinals and prelate wolves parading in shepherds’ clothing. But Judie believes that denying the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and not exposing Him to sacrilege is spitting in His face, and she really doesn’t care what the world thinks. Today is Judie’s 79th birthday. She is a hero and a saint for those with no voice, and while she would recoil at that description, it’s true.The pro-life world seems directionless now. The defeat of Roe means abortion is now in the hands of 50 states. We see it very clearly. Children must be protected from the moment of their creation and afforded the dignity and human rights guaranteed by almighty God and the Constitution of the United States.It’s not complicated.It’s not political.Child killing is wrong. Child killing is evil. Child killing is protected by evil men and women who have made the decision to kill and to protect the killing.They must be opposed.Join me today in wishing Judie a happy 79th birthday and thanking her for her tireless commitment to the babies, to the elderly and infirmed, and to our Lord and His Church.Celebrate Judie’s legacy and make a generous gift today in her honor. 100% of what you give in support of her continuing efforts to rid this planet of child killing will go to fund her lifesaving programs at American Life League to educate the world on the value of preborn babies’ lives.Happy Birthday, Mom, and thank you for your leadership and courageous witness in an age of evil and madness. No exceptions, no compromise.Yours humbly in Christ, Hugh Brown Vice President American Life League.PS: Your generosity allows us to save lives. The fight has just begun. Support our lifesaving work today.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on HAPPY BIRTHDAY, JUDIE BROWN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
. WE TALKED ABOUT FLEXIBILITY AND THE NEED TO ALWAYS HAVE AN OPEN HEART AND AN OPEN MIND. 
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.