SEE HOW THE DEMONS SHRIEK

U.S. President Donald Trump, joined by first lady Melania Trump, Army Maj. Gen. Bradley Becker and Vice President Mike Pence and his wife, Karen, reviews troops at a military parade after Trump’s swearing-in as the country’s 45th president at the U.S. Capitol in Washington. (CNS photo/Michael Heiman pool via Reuters)
We are in a sad, strange place when excuses are made for adultery and scorn is heaped on those who are faithful to their wedding vows.

If ever we wanted another small but telling example of society hitting rock bottom, look no further than the “outrage” expressed recently and very aggressively (here are some examples) toward Vice President Mike Pence. Based on how quickly the story went viral, one would think Mike Pence was involved in major scandal, accused of a serious crime—or both.  And in a sad way, given the sorry state of our culture, that’s exactly what happened. Pence not only stands accused but has already been found guilty as charged and is now undergoing what many believe is a well-deserved public flogging.

What is the Vice President’s serious offense? What was so utterly appalling that it caused such a major reaction from many in the general public? The answer can be found in a statement he made many years ago during an interview with The Hill.  He told the publication he never eats dinner alone with a woman other than his wife and that he won’t attend events featuring alcohol without his wife by his side, either.   Imagine that?

The statement was revisited in a March 28th Washington Post profile piece of the Vice President. “In 2002,” the article states, “Mike Pence told the Hill that he never eats alone with a woman other than his wife and that he won’t attend events featuring alcohol without her by his side, either.” Instead of being met with appreciation for respecting his wife and women in general, Pence was immediately mocked with the negative and snarky comments from all over the map.  Some referred to him as a religious zealot; others said he must have some sordid activity in his past since he is obviously afraid of being alone with a woman other than his wife. One woman commented on my Facebook page that he is actually discriminating—yes, discriminating—against women politicians because it means that all the male power brokers in Washington will have better and more frequent access to an audience with the Vice President.

Just a few weeks ago the same group that organized the women’s march in Washington, took to the streets although in much smaller numbers, to conduct their “Day Without a Woman” protest on International Women’s Day. Was it just me or did the protestors expend most of their energy on March 6th—not to mention at the women’s march on January 21st—railing against (among other things) the objectification of women while pointing directly at the White House?  Weren’t they demanding more respect in the work place and in the home? Who wouldn’t want a husband who respects his wife and their relationship so very much that he doesn’t not want to place himself or anyone else in a possible near occasion of sin or appearance of impropriety?

I don’t think it was a coincidence that at the same time the Vice President was being criticized for cherishing and protecting his marriage, Pope Francis addressed the importance of married couples as well as families in general being more aware of their weaknesses while learning to more fully embrace less selfish and more sacrificial relationships.  His comments were made in his recently released letter outlining the theme for next year’s World Meeting of Families taking place in Dublin, titled “The Gospel of the Family: joy for the world”. Francis stated:

I wish to underline how important it is for families to ask themselves often if they live based on love, for love, and in love.  In practice, this means giving oneself, forgiving, not losing patience, anticipating the other, respecting.  How much better family life would be if ever day we lived according the words “please”, “thank you”, and “I’m sorry.”

I don’t recall Mike Pence (or his wife) claiming that husbands who don’t embrace the same, specific practices in their relationships with the opposite sex are horrible, sinful people. Rather, they simply believe this is the best course of action for them based on their strong Christian faith and their prudential judgment.  But I think this is a wise approach that more than just devout Christians would do well to embrace.  We don’t need to look far to find all sorts of scandals involving those in the spotlight, and these scandals continue to derail our barely civilized society by promoting and often justifying immoral behavior. That’s why it’s no small matter when it comes to public persons maintaining a certain sense of decorum as well as restraint.

With all of these concerns in mind, not to mention the high divorce rate and continual breakdown of the family, how can the Vice President’s approach can be anything but positive and encouraging is beyond me. As one non-Christian pundit noted, “It’s a very strange place we’ve found ourselves in when elites say we have no right to judge adultery, but we have every right to judge couples who take steps to avoid it.” There is, in fact, a double standard at work. And could it be that those who mock him or disagree with Pence are in some way convicted of their own lack of discretion? Maybe thou doth protest too much?  But as Pope Francis said in his letter, it’s never too late.  Even if mistakes have been made, we serve a merciful and loving God and a little humility and self-reflection verses projection and deflection can make all the difference. In the words of the Holy Father:

Every day we have the experience of fragility and weakness, and therefore we all, families and pastors, are in need of renewed humility that forms the desire to form ourselves, to educate and be educated, to help and be helped, to accompany, discern, and integrate all men of good will.

About the Author
author image
Teresa Tomeo

Teresa Tomeo (teresatomeo.com) is an author, syndicated Catholic talk show host, and motivational speaker. Her daily morning radio program, Catholic Connection, is produced by Ave Maria Radio and is heard on over 200 Catholic stations nationwide as well as on Sirius/XM Satellite Radio. She has authored seven books, including Extreme Makeover: Women Transformed by Christ, Not Conformed to the Culture and Beyond Me, My Selfie & I: Finding Real Happiness in a Self-Absorbed World.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on SEE HOW THE DEMONS SHRIEK

HERE IS HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE NOW; QUO VADIMUS, DOMINE ???

Image result for HOLY FACE

Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister 

02 apr 17

The Man Who Had To Be Elected Pope

Francesco

 

*

Mission accomplished. After four years of pontificate, this is the assessment that has been made by the cardinals who brought Jorge Mario Bergoglio to election as pope.

The operation that produced the Francis phenomenon arises from a long time ago, as far back as 2002, when for the first time “L’Espresso” discovered and wrote that the then little-known archbishop of Buenos Aires had leapt to the top of the candidates for the papacy, the real ones, not the figureheads.

It laid the groundwork at the conclave of 2005, when it was to none other than Bergoglio that all the votes were funneled from those who did not want Joseph Ratzinger as pope.

And it came into port at the conclave of 2013, to a large extent because many of his electors still knew very little about that Argentine cardinal, and certainly not that he would deal the Church that “punch in the stomach” spoken of a few days ago by his rival defeated in the Sistine Chapel, Milan archbishop Angelo Scola.

Between Bergoglio and his great electors there was not and is not full agreement. He is the pope of proclamations more than of realizations, of allusions more than of definitions.

There is however one key factor that meets the expectations of a historic turning point of the Church capable of making up for its emblematic lag of “two hundred years” with respect to the modern world that was denounced by Carlo Maria Martini, the cardinal who loved to call himself the “ante-pope,” meaning the anticipator of the one who was to come. And it is the factor of “time.” Which for Bergoglio is a synonym for “initiating processes.” The destination matters little to him, because what counts is the journey.

And in effect it is so. With Francis the Church has become an open construction site. Everything is in movement. Everything is fluid. There is no longer dogma that holds up. One can reexamine everything and act accordingly.

Martini was precisely the sharpest mind of that club of St. Gallen which engineered Bergoglio’s rise to the papacy. It took its name from the Swiss town in which the club met, and included the cardinals Walter Kasper, Karl Lehmann, Achille Silvestrini, Basil Hume, Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Godfried Danneels. Of these only two, Kasper and Danneels, are still at the forefront, rewarded and treated with the highest regard by Pope Francis, in spite of the fact that they represent two national Churches in disarray, the German and the Belgian, and the latter even fell into discredit in 2010 for how he tried to cover up the sexual misdeeds of one of his protege bishops, whose victim was a young nephew of his.

Bergoglio never set foot in St. Gallen. It was the cardinals of the club who adopted him as their ideal candidate, and he adapted himself perfectly to their plan.

Everyone in Argentina remembers him very differently from how he later revealed himself to the world as pope. Taciturn, withdrawn, somber in expression, reserved even with crowds. Not once did he let slip a word or a gesture of disagreement with the reigning pontiffs, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. On the contrary. He praised in writing the encyclical “Veritatis Splendor,” very severe against the permissive “situational” ethics historically attributed to the Jesuits. He had no qualms over condemning Luther and Calvin as the worst enemies of the Church and of man. He attributed to the devil the deception of a law in favor of homosexual marriage.

But then he sent back home, “to avoid mixed messages,” the Catholics who had gathered outside of parliament for a prayer vigil against the imminent approval of that law. He knelt and had himself blessed in public by a Protestant pastor. He forged friendships with some of them, and also with a Jewish rabbi.

Above all he encouraged his priests not to deny communion to anyone, whether they be married, or cohabiting, or divorced and remarried. With no fuss and without making this decision public, the then-archbishop of Buenos Aires was already doing what the popes at the time prohibited, but he would later permit once he became pope.

In St. Gallen they knew and were taking note. And when Bergoglio was elected, the world learned to recognize him right from the first moment for what he really was. With no more veils.

_________

This commentary was published in “L’Espresso” no. 13 of 2017 on newsstands April 2, on the opinion page entitled “Settimo cielo” entrusted to Sandro Magister.

Here is the index of all the previous commentaries:

> “L’Espresso” in seventh heaven

__________

One crucial moment of the calculated advancement of Jorge Mario Bergoglio to the papacy was the final document of the general conference of Latin American bishops in Aparecida, in 2007.

The main author of the document was the archbishop of Buenos Aires at the time, who still continues today, as pope, to recommend it as a valid program for the Church not only in Latin America but all over the world.

Curiously, however, in the paragraphs dedicated to marriage and family there is no reference in the Aparecida document to the “openness” that Bergoglio would later implement as pope, and was already practicing, de facto, in his diocese of Buenos Aires.

In the almost 300 pages of the document, only a few lines concern communion for the divorced and remarried, on which he gives this guideline, in paragraph 437:

“Accompany with care, prudence and compassionate love, following the guidelines of the magisterium (‘Familiaris Consortio’ 84; ‘Sacramentum Caritatis’ 29), couples who live together out of wedlock, bearing in mind that those who are divorced and remarried may not receive communion.”

And in the previous paragraph it states, concerning the support given to policies against life and the family:

“We must adhere to ‘eucharistic coherence,’ that is, be conscious that they cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act with deeds or words against the commandments, particularly when abortion, euthanasia, and other grave crimes against life and family are encouraged. This responsibility weighs particularly over legislators, heads of governments, and health professionals (‘Sacramentum Caritatis’ 83; ‘Evangelium Vitae’ 74, 74, 89).”

This is what Bergoglio wrote in 2007. But his mind was already elsewhere: on the conviction – criticized by Benedict XVI – that “the Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak,” comparable to the meals of Jesus with sinners.

With the practical consequences that he had already drawn as bishop and would later draw as pope.

(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on HERE IS HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE NOW; QUO VADIMUS, DOMINE ???

THE LATIN MASS CAN CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOR THE BETTER

Image result for HOLY FACE

ZZZZ

The Latin Mass Changed My Life

Being a Novus Ordo Catholic put me in a tough spot in high school.

 

Up until about 10th grade I had generally been shielded from the really immoral things that existed. I was very innocent (I still think I am, though I’ve been exposed to more). I was inclined to good and wholesome things because my spirit was oriented that way and also because I had been formed that way. When I got to high school, I had no idea about some of things that were out there. Or else, I had vague ideas and didn’t want to know the intricacies.

The problem with the Novus Ordo, both Mass and culture, is that it refrains from confronting the wicked which exists in the world. It only focuses on love and goodness and happiness and community. These are good things, but when you leave out their counterparts which are very present in the world and very real, you are only halfway equipped to deal with reality.

Without the strong spiritual guidance of my father, who knows how strong my faith would be, and how much it could have withstood in high school. I personally think my faith is strong on its own, but that’s because I’ve been molded to be the way I am. I’m thinking with my current mind.

My point here is that the Novus Ordo way of life didn’t help as much as my dad. I learned more about the faith at home than at CCD. Maybe that’s not a terrible thing, but not every parent is a theologian or Bible scholar.

Anyway, I remember going to Mass when I was in high school. I went through the motions, said the prayers, and received Communion–in my hands and standing up. Then as soon as I got out I thought about everything under the sun except Jesus. I believed wholeheartedly, but it was a chore to commit myself to spiritual things.

It was a chore because I had come to understand the “spiritual” to literally mean feeling mushy about God and my neighbor all the time…to mean constantly having a positive disposition about things…

If, when in reality, I was sad or depressed, I thought I was wrong for feeling that way because it meant I wasn’t doing my part in my spiritual relationship with God. And beyond my personal condition, I was very confused about handling the big issues of society with a Catholic perspective.

 

When I first went to college, I indulged in a lot of bad things. The Novus Ordo didn’t compel me to resist them. Why not? It wasn’t BOLD enough. Also, I didn’t even realize, truly, the gravity of my sins. Really, I knew they were bad. But I allowed my sadness and loneliness and selfish desires to take precedence over doing the right thing. I didn’t fully realize it was against the bloody and beaten Jesus on the cross I was sinning.

I searched, above all things, for truth and understanding. I guess I didn’t think that God, in a specific way, understood what I was going through.

My thought was this:

God, I know I’m supposed to be a good Christian. I know I’m supposed to do the right thing. I know I’m not supposed to sin. But gosh, it’s so hard right now. Going through what I’m going through. Being alone, trying to adhere to my beliefs while everyone else is telling me they don’t matter, they’re uncool, and even that they’re wrong. No one understands…I’m truly alone. How can I go on firm in this spirituality pretending I’m happy when I’m completely distraught?

What I now realize, is that the Novus Ordo culture doesn’t acknowledge the disparaging reality of sin and evil which WILL confront you. You can’t ignore it. You must understand it.

And even more, I desired something STRONG; something real and compelling and magnificent. That’s why I drank so much. I didn’t think God was as strong as other things in life could be. He was only right. I wanted to be right, but I also wanted to live. What the heck was missing? 

Then, the Latin Mass came.

Wow. Did I find something strong. When the Latin Mass starts you realize right away the presence of something strong. You realize something serious is going down. The air is transcendent–both the aura, the spirit, and the incense which literally rises to Heaven. You can feel the holiness. You feel like God is there, because He is. You understand the nobility of the Priest and the power of his actions. You realize you’re witnessing something far greater than anything you could ever behold outside of a Cathedral.

And finally, FINALLY, I understood what it was all about–what Mass was about, what Catholicism was about, and what LIFE was about. It was about the sacrifice. Jesus sacrificing his life on the cross. You see, THAT’S love. That’s love! His love was brutal and bloody and harsh and ridiculed…and selfless and pure and true. That’s the strength and the boldness I was looking for. It was the truth I was searching for.

I didn’t understand it in the Novus Ordo, so I used to leave Mass STILL SEARCHING for it. I should have left complete! But I was left unsatisfied.

It turns out love isn’t pretending everything’s okay and accepting everything that everyone does. It’s confronting evil and suffering. It’s understanding right and wrong and doing everything to to promulgate good, even in when it hurts you. It’s surrendering your will to God’s, giving up your life, your desires…

And while the Novus Ordo was all I had ever known before, I had no clue that that was what Mass was about. I had no idea…

 

During my first year of college, I couldn’t even describe the reason for my emptiness. I was being pulled in opposite directions by two different forces. One was my knowledge of the faith–even a vague knowledge that for some grand reason was the truth beyond what I was then able to feel and acknowledge. The other was my heart’s desire to be satisfied with the truth and to feel what was real.

I knew my faith was right…but I didn’t know why it didn’t feel right at that time. Now it feels so right I want everyone to feel it.

This is what I have learned.

To know God isn’t to be enamored with a false perception of the world, or to be promised unending contentment or constant satisfaction. It’s not constantly feeling joy and fluffy feelings.  It’s not to kid yourself into thinking everything’s okay all the time and the world is really a good place.

To know God is to know the truth: That the world sucks. It’s hard, cold, and sinful and wants to devour you. It’s infected by Satan who wants to deceive you and bring you down to the depths of suffering with him in Hell.

But it’s also to know that God is the refuge in this dark world, and that there is purpose and glory in suffering for Christ; there is purpose and glory in striving for Heaven. There’s purpose and glory in the Mass, which is so, so beautiful.

To know God is to know what’s real. You don’t have to pretend to be happy when you’re not, you deal with things as they are. When things suck, you turn to God. And when things are glorious, you turn to God. In my experience, in order to want to turn to God, you have to understand why He’s worth turning to. I was skeptical to turn to God (and didn’t really know how to turn to God) because I desired mostly to be understood. I thought He didn’t know exactly what I was feeling. But the truth is He does understand. Of course he understands, He made us.

People are the ones who need convincing though. I was hard to be convinced of God’s real power. The way I became convinced was through the Latin Mass. Everything about the Mass–the reverence, the music, the Latin, the mystifying quiet, the peace, and the humbling knowledge that there’s no other place more important to be present–all these things drew me in to understand my faith the way I do now.

Each Mass, I learn more and more. I learn how to pray, what to pray for…and I learn that I must be a Christian every where and always. More importantly, I’m encouraged to actually do so.

The things of the Mass, they all make sense. They all culminate in the sacrifice–both the unbloody re-presentation and the historical event which was Christ’s. I finally understand why I go to Mass, what it means. That we are joining the choirs in Heaven! We are participating in Heaven’s affairs. What could be more glorious?

At this point in my life, especially because I feel a bit stuck in a rut, going to Mass is my favorite thing to do. Sunday is my favorite day of the week. I wish I could go to the Latin Mass everyday. I love looking up at the beautiful stained glass paintings upon the walls and windows of St. John the Baptist Cathedral. I love resting my eyes upon the architectural beauty of the altar, the statues, the candles and flowers…enriching my senses, enchanting my soul. I love smelling the incense. I love when the sunlight shines through the windows. I love wearing my Sunday best. I love speaking in Latin. I love kneeling down, and in this way expressing humility, because it is in these real and physical actions that we actually express our spirits’ desires.

Because of the Latin Mass, I understand more fully that we were designed to obey God, to respond to our creator and master. That it is in our real nature to worship God and respond to Him. It’s no longer a distant myth–the faith–but the truest reality…the sincerest of inclinations to seek God and Christ.

I know that the Mass has caused me to seek more deeply the faith, and to discover reality and purpose. I’m still confused as to what my specific vocation is, but I know, finally, why my faith is my life, on the deepest level. And I am ready to go forward holding tightly the truths I now understand, and to implement them in my life. I am so eager to live out the truth, so hungry for endless Sundays, so excited to do something great in the name of God.

I think it is possible that without the Latin Mass, I would still be lost, still be looking for something that didn’t exist. I think I might still be drinking my sadness, still trying to reconcile with a hostile world..I might still be stumbling, wondering what the missing piece of my heart is. This might very well have been the case had I not encountered the Latin Mass.

But thankfully, I don’t have to wonder. I have been enlightened, and I am not looking back. I can’t if I wanted to. I know too much..I know the truth.

The Latin Mass changed my life. It doesn’t matter to me anymore where I’m going tomorrow; the details will unravel when they will.  All that matters is where I’m going when I die.

My aim here is not to describe every epiphany I’ve had or illustrate the complete process of my still ongoing conversion, because they have developed as a result of my first encounter with the Latin Mass. My growing faith is a reaction to the catalyst of the Mass. Much of the wonderful progress I have made has been outside the walls of the Cathedral, but they only happened because of what happened within them.

The point I’d like to make is that I am very changed, very new. Like a born-again Christian. The Latin Mass has renewed my faith, strength, and understanding. It has changed me, it’s changed my life. It’s given me the comfort I’ve been searching for all the years of my life…the comfort of understanding. So even if I never get married or acquire the friendships I’ve always dreamed of, I will be able to carry on, and more than that, to truly live out my purpose, because the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and God the Father understand me. They’re with me. They get me. They know the arguments I try to make to people who don’t understand. And they know that I should stop trying to make arguments and start living out the love of Christ. They know that I feel terribly alone and want me to call out to them instead of trying to find my own ways to repair my heart and soul. They have what I’m looking for…so I can stop searching everywhere else and fully seek them.

They’ve given us the Mass among other things to know them. And it is so, so important. I hope that every Catholic gets the chance to experience the Latin Mass. It is through this gift of the Mass, that I finally understand reality.

 

Post navigation

One thought on “The Latin Mass Changed My Life”

  1. Miss Anya I never met your parents directly, I came to know them by way of many a comment section conversation on your Mom’s blog years ago, the discussion quite often came to the subjects of philosophy and/or religion and theology. I consider your folks exceptional thinkers in a time where thinking for one’s self is not terribly fashionable. Current society compels individuals to run with the herd, go with the flow, conform or be shunned. It’s a shame so many fail to see God’s wisdom at work in his design of making us all a little different and unique. Thank Heaven for your folks girl, they are a blessing you will understand more and more as time goes by, I was kind of a hard headed fool at your age that had to learn just about everything the hard way. I’ve learned a lot since those days, but kind of wish I’d have listened a little better and learned some things an easier way! The lord loved me all the way thru despite all my foolishness though, learning of such love is the point, eh? Reading your thoughts here makes me think this apple didn’t fall too far from the tree here, your folks seemed to have rubbed off on you a little. Have a blessed day.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

REMEMBERING MOTHER ANGELICA

SPIRITUALITY
On this 1st anniversary of Mother Angelica’s death, 20 of her memorable one-liners
Elizabeth Scalia | Mar 27, 2017
Via EWTN

Mincing words was never to her taste.

Mother Angelica, a Poor Clare of Perpetual Adoration, never did anything in a small way. She was known for her ability to parry a quick retort, make a wry observation or toss off a witticism that could catch a listener off-guard in its wisdom. Due to a stroke, the EWTN foundress had been silent for more than a decade, but her dart-like observations still hit their mark. We’ve collected a few for you, here. Most of these were found in Mother Angelica’s Little Book of Life Lessons and Everyday Spirituality.

On Conversion:
Even the devil believes that God exists. Believing has to change the way we live.

On Faith:
Faith is one foot on the ground, one foot in the air and a queasy feeling in the stomach.
On Clarity:
If you are following God, he never shows you the end. It’s always a walk of faith.

On Trust:
Unless you are willing to do the ridiculous, God will not do the miraculous.

On Mindfulness:
Everyone drags his own carcass to market, so be careful.

On Love:
Love is not a feeling; it’s a decision.

On Mercy:
You can’t go to heaven hating somebody. Forgive now.

On Anger:
St. Jerome used to hit himself with a rock every time he lost his temper. I’d be dead as a doornail with no ribs if I did that.

On Struggle:
If you’ve got a cross, carry it. It’s to make you holy.

On Reality:
Those who tell the truth love you. Those who tell you what you want to hear love themselves.

On Error:
Every moment of life is like God saying, “Look, I know you messed up the last moment, but here’s a new one.”

On Pride:
Once you contemplate the humility of Jesus in the Eucharist, how can you possibly justify your pride?

On the Courage to Suffer:
It takes a lot of guts to be in pain all day long.

On Enemies:
Don’t say, “If it weren’t for that person I could be holy.” No; you can be holy because of that person.

On Not Limiting God:
Your plans, your projects, your dreams have to always be bigger than you, so God has room to operate.

On Perseverance:
Faith is what gets you started. Hope is what keeps you going. Love is what brings you to the end.

On Holiness:
Holiness is a beautiful struggle.

On Death:
I guess that is what dying must be like: to be finished and to be able to look back at the struggles of life and know that God was your constant companion.

On Serving:
God looks for dodos. A dodo doesn’t know it can’t be done. God uses dodos, and I’m a dodo.

On Worldliness:
God wants you to be in the world but so different from the world that you will change it. Get cracking.

—

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on REMEMBERING MOTHER ANGELICA

PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS ALIVE AND WELL THANKS TO PAUL RYAN

Image result for photo of paul ryan

CAN PAUL RYAN SURVIVE THE FREEDOM CAUCUS?:

The embarrassment of the failure of Republicans to deliver on their signature promise for the past seven years is falling, more than on anyone else, on House Speaker Paul Ryan. This is not irrational – after all, Ryan started working on this repeal effort at a time when Donald Trump was still just a reality TV star. And the tick-tock anecdotes out today do not paint a pretty picture of Ryan’s attempts to convince other lawmakers to get on board with the AHCA and his three step plan: http://vlt.tc/2s0z “Leaders continued to plead with individual lawmakers to support the measure well into Thursday night, with the House Rules Committee slated to meet early Friday morning to consider the proposed changes. Ryan got down on a knee to plead with Rep. Don Young, an 83-year-old from Alaska who is the longest-serving Republican in Congress and remains undecided.”

There’s no question that Ryan emerges from this health care defeat badly damaged, particularly considering the repeated “I got this” promises to the White House which delayed Trump’s direct involvement. http://vlt.tc/2rzw But the fact is that this does not change the reality of the alternatives here: Ryan is the best option the Congress has for Speaker and has the trust of the majority of his conference. There is not some other option standing in the wings. But as I noted on Face the Nation yesterday, it is incumbent upon Ryan and everyone else in leadership to learn the right lessons from this: you cannot pretend as if there are more centrist Democrats than there are Freedom Caucus members, you cannot ignore their objections, and you have to implement a more open and transparent process for the creation of legislation and come to agreements about strategy before you roll things this significant into the light of day. http://vlt.tc/2s0h Without them, he would not be Speaker. He needs to be Speaker with them, not against them.

Tim Alberta has a tick tock at Politico. http://vlt.tc/2s0j “Donald Trump had heard enough about policy and process. It was Thursday afternoon and members of the House Freedom Caucus were peppering the president with wonkish concerns about the American Health Care Act—the language that would leave Obamacare’s “essential health benefits” in place, the community rating provision that limited what insurers could charge certain patients, and whether the next two steps of Speaker Paul Ryan’s master plan were even feasible—when Trump decided to cut them off.

“Forget about the little s—,” Trump said, according to multiple sources in the room. “Let’s focus on the big picture here.”

“The group of roughly 30 House conservatives, gathered around a mammoth, oval-shaped conference table in the Cabinet Room of the White House, exchanged disapproving looks. Trump wanted to emphasize the political ramifications of the bill’s defeat; specifically, he said, it would derail his first-term agenda and imperil his prospects for reelection in 2020. The lawmakers nodded and said they understood. And yet they were disturbed by his dismissiveness. For many of the members, the “little s—” meant the policy details that could make or break their support for the bill—and have far-reaching implications for their constituents and the country.

“We’re talking about one-fifth of our economy,” a member told me afterward.

“Ultimately, the meeting failed to move any votes. Two Freedom Caucus members—Brian Babin and Ted Poe, both of Texas—told the president that they had switched to yes, but their decisions had already been registered with White House vote-counters prior to sitting down with Trump. (Their colleagues didn’t appreciate the gesture, feeling that Babin and Poe were trying to score points with the president at their expense.) Upon returning to Capitol Hill, the Freedom Caucus gathered in a meeting room inside the Rayburn office building, discussed Trump’s admonitions to them and took another vote. The tally had not changed: Of the group’s roughly three dozen members, two-thirds remained opposed, with only five or six of those saying they were “soft” in that stance.

“The president had been working on many of them individually in recent days, typically with what members described as “colorful” phone calls, littered with exaggerations and foul language and hilariously off-topic anecdotes. In some cases, the pressure worked. Jim Bridenstine, a Freedom Caucus member and longtime problem for the Republican leadership, agreed to back the bill after conversations with Trump and other administration officials. (It wasn’t necessary to remind Bridenstine that he was a leading candidate to become NASA administrator, and would likely hurt his chances by voting against the president.)

“But by and large, Trump’s first attempt to corral the Republican-controlled Congress—and particularly the Freedom Caucus, a rambunctious, ideologically charged collection of GOP legislators who have long refused to fall in line behind the party’s leadership—failed miserably. That failure played a major role in the collapse of the American Health Care Act almost exactly 24 hours after their meeting at the White House, and now, as Trump warned, threatens to paralyze the president’s first-year policy agenda and send Republicans into a damaging cycle of intra-party recrimination.”

And at the center of this, a simple agreement among the three dozen HFC members which held for most of them to the end – as the moderates ran for the hills. http://vlt.tc/2s0y “In a conference room in the Rayburn House Office Building, the group met that evening and made a secret pact. No member would commit his vote before consulting with the entire group — not even if Trump himself called to ask for an on-the-spot commitment. The idea, hatched by Freedom Caucus Vice Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), was to bind them together in negotiations and ensure the White House or House leaders could not peel them off one by one.

“Twenty-eight of the group’s roughly three dozen members took the plunge. Three weeks later, Republican leaders, as many as 25 votes short of passage, were forced to pull their bill from the House floor.

“This is a defining moment for our nation, but it’s also a defining moment for the Freedom Caucus,” said group leader Mark Meadows about a week before the doomed vote was scheduled. “I don’t think there’s a more critical vote for the Freedom Caucus than this.”

—

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS ALIVE AND WELL THANKS TO PAUL RYAN

FRANCIS FAVORS UNLIMITED IMMIGRATION INTO ALL COUNTRIES

Settimo Cielo
di Sandro Magister
27 mar Neither Walls Nor Bridges For Migrants, But Doors. To Be Opened and Closed, With Discernment
migrazioni

> Italiano
> English
> Español
> Français

> All the articles of Settimo Cielo in English

*

“It is the greatest tragedy since that of the second world war”: this is how Pope Francis a few days ago defined the phenomenon of migration, which is extraordinarily close to his heart and on which he comments nonstop.

Welcome is his dogma, albeit in proportion to the “capacities” of each country to “integrate” the newcomers. And “not walls but bridges” is the watchword that he repeats often, as an admonition to the Church and to states.

But how much is this image worth, as evocative as it is? The monk Giulio Meiattini, of the order of Saint Benedict, maintains that another image, that of the door, would be more appropriate, to better express what should be done about migrants.

He has published his reflections in the latest issue of the magazine “La Scala,” a quarterly on spirituality from the Abbey of La Madonna della Scala, in Noci, to which he belongs.

Dom Meiattini is also a professor at the theological faculty of Puglia and at the pontifical atheneum of Sant Anselm in Rome. Readers of Settimo Cielo will remember him for his critical analysis of the first of the four postulates that Pope Francis says he uses as his inspiration: the one according to which “time is greater than space”:

> Bergoglio Too Has His Nonnegotiable Principles

Here is an extract from his article in “La Scala,” which is three times longer.

*

WE NEED DOORS! REGARDING WELCOME

by Giulio Meiattini, OSB

1. A false dichotomy

It has become a refrain: “Not walls, but bridges!” It sounds good as a slogan, and it expresses effectively a healthy reaction to excessive instincts of defense that risk concealing selfishness and indifference. But my impression is that switching from “walls” to “bridges” is to want to avoid one excess while falling into another.

In order to inhabit the world, man has felt the primary necessity of a “home.” Now, the home is made of walls, but at the same time of doors. Through the door one can exit and enter. It is through the door that the stranger or the guest can pass, provided that he asks for this and permission is granted, or he is invited with welcome. The door, in a home, is the symbol of discretion, and therefore of discernment, in the style of welcome. There is a time to open and a time to close, as we could say paraphrasing the biblical book of Qoheleth.

2. The door and the wall

The door refers by its nature to a separation of different spaces. The first delimiter and creator of boundaries, it is good to remember this, was God himself, in the work of creation. God separates the light from the darkness, the heavens from the earth, the land from the waters (Gen 1:4-8). This act marks the passage from chaos to cosmos, from disorder to proportion and beauty: “And God saw that it was good/beautiful” (Gen 1:10 passim).

At the same time, however, God guarantees the unity and communication between these great areas, without thereby bringing their distinction into question. Between heaven and earth God builds passageways (Jacob’s ladder: Gen 28:12; or the door that opens in heaven to let in the seer of Revelation: Rev 4:1), to the point of making his Son the reconciler of the beings that are in heaven and those that are on earth (Col 1:20).

So there is no door without a wall, there is no access without obstacle. The divine action shows that one lives only in the alternation of unity and distinction, of insuppressible differences and virtuous communication. If the wall represents the need for articulation and distinction, the door recalls and actuates the link between inside and outside, mine and yours, this and that. The wall without a door is division, the opening without a boundary wall is chaos. All welcoming needs this art of “distinguishing in order to unite,” which corresponds to the fundamental principle of the Christology of the Council of Chalcedon. The mutual welcome between humanity and divinity in Jesus is an important indicator of method for every other form of welcome.

3. Here and hereafter

To forget that there exist doors that are guarded and to be guarded, and that in turn do guarding of their own, is to wipe out identities. Anyone who approaches the “home” of another must be made aware by the doors that he is entering a world that is not his own, but of others, into a place already inhabited, not into a no man’s land. Because of this, crossing a threshold requires a transformation, and also produces it. One does not behave in the same manner whatever the place. The door enjoins a change of behavior, it calls for a conversion to respect the inhabitants of that home. If this is lacking, there is lacking one of the essential conditions of welcome: respect. Anyone who from the outside may enter into a home through the door must conform to the customs of that home. The kindness of the one who opens the door demands, on the other side, respect from the one who knocks.

4. Open door, closed door

There is also a closing of the door that indicates a full welcome: this happens when, after the newcomer is brought inside, the door is closed behind him so as to bring him into our world, instead of keeping him standing at the entrance to the home.

The alternation of opening and closing refers us once again to the door by antonomasia, which is Jesus Christ. He too is the opening to the Father and entrance to the Kingdom, the possibility of the infinite offered to man. But he is also the door that in the end, for some, inexorably closes: “Now, while those maidens were going to buy oil, the bridegroom came and the maidens who were ready entered with him to the wedding, and the door was closed. Later the other maidens also came and began to say: ‘Lord, lord, open for us!’ But he responded: ‘Truly, I say to you: I do not know you’” (Mt 25:10-12).

Healthy welcoming cannot do without this rhythm, this discernment between closing and opening. To absolutize one of the two actions means not having an adequate and correct vision of welcome, in personal relationships as in the relationships between peoples and cultures.

5. Possibility and necessity

Between these two extremes, possibility and necessity, there stands human freedom. We could say that possibility and necessity are the doorposts and freedom is the lintel that is set above them.

The first doorpost, that of possibility, says: “you may pass through here.” But the other doorpost speaks otherwise. The door designed in with the wall obliges one to pass through there and not through other spots, and it demands obedience. The door is law, it is “nomos.”It says: “you must enter through here.”

Precisely as possibility and obedience together, the door reflects the paradox of the breadth and of the limitation of human freedom. It above all expresses the communal aspect of freedom. A door is a shared passage, through which each one agrees, together with the others, to pass. It is shared law, an implicit pact. Once a home is built and the door is fixed, every legitimate passage will take place through there. There is a de facto accord, a submission to the common norm. “He who enters by another way is a thief or a brigand” (Jn 10:1).

This principle must also apply to those who cross our borders: “Remember that here there are laws, there is a history and a tradition that have forged them; through these you must pass, if you also want to enjoy the possibilities that our common home grants to you; for this you should give thanks!” One does not pass through just any spot and as one wishes. This applies to the inhabitants of the home, so it also applies to the guests who aspire to become more like part of the family. This is, in essence, the great problem of integration. Too much carelessness on our part does not benefit us or those who arrive.

6. Neither bridges nor walls…

So let’s leave aside the slogans, which are as poor and threadbare as they are easy. We cannot pacify or delude ourselves by saying that bridges are enough. Without taking anything away from this beautiful image, one must go on to think that human beings, once they have crossed, need dwellings and homes in which to live.

And the life of a home is sustained by common balances and alliances, norms and languages. Our European countries, subjected to exceptional challenges of demographics and immigration, cannot trivialize with reductive formulas – of the right or of the left – the meaning of welcome and its politics. The wall is comfortable and simplistic. The bridge is banal and demagogic. The spirituality of the door is discrete and complex, intricate and intelligent.

(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on FRANCIS FAVORS UNLIMITED IMMIGRATION INTO ALL COUNTRIES

FROM LUTHER TO BUGNINI AND BEYOND

Sunday, March 26, 2017
SUNDAY SERMON: From Luther to Bugnini Featured
Written by Michael Matt | Editor
Rate this item1 2 3 4 5 (26 votes)
SUNDAY SERMON: From Luther to Bugnini
New from RTV…

Laetare Sunday’s sermon gets right to the heart of the matter of Mass — the sacrifice. Beginning with the miracle of the loaves and fishes, Father illustrates how this prefigures the Last Supper, the Sacrifice of Calvary and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Then Father shows how from Luther to Bugnini the idea has been to destroy the sacrifice and wreck the Church. Father’s powerful conclusion will make you want to become a saint today!

Please Share This Video

Published in Remnant Articles

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on FROM LUTHER TO BUGNINI AND BEYOND

DEVIOUSNESS ILL BECOMES THE PAPACY

ncis and the Chilean Bishops: An Addendum
Steve Skojec Steve Skojec March 23, 2017 One Comment
45
SharesFacebook44Google+1TwitterPinterestPocket
Last night, I posted my thoughts on the alleged statements of Pope Francis to the Chilean bishops as regards several items of importance, including Communion for the divorced and “remarried”. If you haven’t read it yet, the gist is that he appears to have contradicted his own previous stance on this issue by saying this:

Faced with the question of the communion of remarried divorcees, the bishop explains that the Pontiff denied that his goal with the synod he called upon the family was to authorize the communion of the divorced . He told them that there is no “moral situation,” say other sources. “It’s hard for us to see the gray ones,” he would have told them when he told a personal, family affair.

“I have a niece married to a divorcee, well, Catholic, Sunday Mass and when she confesses she tells the priest ‘I know he can not absolve me, but give me a blessing.’

My contentions that this is a) hearsay and b) ultimately meaningless insofar as it represents a consistent pattern of inconsistency in his positions remain. But a third point, which I failed to make, is this:

If people believe that Francis has aligned himself with the orthodox position on Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia, it will undercut any effort of the Four Cardinals to issue a public, formal correction.

This is incredibly important. Don’t lose sight of it. You’re likely to see this very argument — that Francis is not in fact a supporter of Communion for the “remarried” and thus cannot and should not be corrected — advanced by the papal positivists when it suits them to make use of it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on DEVIOUSNESS ILL BECOMES THE PAPACY

CHERRY PICKING TIME IN THE VATICAN

Settimo Cielo
di Sandro Magister
20 mar Archbishop Forte, Professor Melloni and the Undigested “Four Cherries”
Forte

> Italiano
> English
> Español
> Français

> All the articles of Settimo Cielo in English

*

For understanding how Francis acts with his opponents, the archbishop and theologian Bruno Forte is a reliable oracle, especially since he reported in public what the pope said to him during the last synod, at which he acted as special secretary:

“If we talk explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried, you have no idea what a mess these guys will make for us. So let’s not talk about it directly, you get the premises in place and then I will draw the conclusions.”

Francis has drawn the conclusions, as is known, in the postsynodal exhortation “Amoris Laetitia,” but in such an ambiguous form that he has inevitably aggravated the opposition and confusion in the whole Church, and has induced four cardinals to ask him publicly to bring clarity on the “dubia” created by this fluid magisterium of his.

But for Bruno Forte, it is not the words of “Amoris Laetitia” that have generated the doubts, but it is these latter and those who are raising them that are “sowing uncertainty and division among Catholics and others.”

This and more was said by the archbishop and former special secretary of the two synods on the family, who is also one of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s trusted men, at the conference that he gave on March 9, in Rome, at the church of San Salvatore in Lauro, introduced by the auxiliary bishop of the pope’s diocese, Gianrico Ruzza, and as followup speaker, immediately after him, Church historian Alberto Melloni, head of the famous “school of Bologna.”

The main argument that Forte brought out in support of Pope Francis’s position is the concordance between what is written in “Amoris Laetitia” and the propositions voted on by the synod of bishops: a “consensus fidelium” – he added – which has been wrongfully abandoned by those who have raised the “dubia.”

Here are his exact words in this regard, transcribed from an audio recording of his conference:

“The final points of the synod were approved by the representatives of the episcopates of the whole world, with an extraordinary majority: almost all of them unanimously and the more delicate by at least two thirds. Francis had clear ideas, he knew where he wanted to go. When he called on me to be the secretary of the synod, he said to me: ‘For me it is important to arrive there together with all the bishops of the world, because the pope is the servant of the servants of God and I want us to grow together. It doesn’t matter to anyone if a document is written for the Church without the journey we have made.’ This is an aspect that must not be overlooked. Pope Francis has taken collegiality seriously. There are those who have calculated that the 85 percent of the contents of the postsynodal exhortation comes from texts of the final synodal relation. They are texts that ripened collegially, with the episcopate of the world working alongside the successor of Peter. We therefore find ourselves before what is truly a ‘sensus,’ an impressive ‘consensus fidelium.’ This is why the ‘dubia,’ underground, raise doubts over those who have raised them, because some of them were absent from the synod and have not seen what great power of communion there was.”

Of course, Forte didn’t make the slightest reference to how the twofold synod was manipulated from on high, resulting among other things in a sensational incident halfway through the first session – when Forte himself was accused in public by cardinal relator Peter Erdo of having written parts of the “relatio post disceptationem” entirely on his own initiative – and in an even more sensational letter of protest and of appeal to the pope from thirteen cardinals at the beginning of the second session.

Nor did he make any reference to a presumed “collegiality” that produced texts rejected in their most controversial points by almost a third of the synod fathers, and passed by a margin of a few votes only on account of an ambiguity and reticence of language even more pronounced than those afterward put into “Amoris Laetitia.”

Instead, entering into the content of the objections, Forte contested the accusation of “relativism” brought against the pope and his “Who am I to judge?”

And he did so by referring to the “great Jesuit” Karl Rahner and to Saint Ignatius of Loyola, in whose footsteps – he said – Francis is going against relativism, since “he combines the absoluteness of the truth with the absoluteness of charity, in a daily effort of discernment, from which no one should feel excluded.”

It can be presumed with a certain surety that what Forte has illustrated is also what Pope Francis thinks about the objections of the four cardinals, and not only about these.

*

Less directly attributable to the thought of Francis, but also expressive of the sentiments of the pontifical court, is instead the derisive tone with which, right after Forte, Melloni went after the four cardinals of the “dubia.”

“The specialty of certain components of the Church,” he said in alluding to them, “is that they believe they are half of the Church. It is as if the cherry were to believe itself half of the cherry tree.”

And further on in saying that “the four cherries that I cited before” have not understood anything either of the famous saying of John XXIII: “It is not the Gospel that changes, it is we who change over time,” or of the “authentic doctrinal authority” that Francis acknowledges not only in the synod but also in the episcopal conferences.

The only thing that the four believe, according to Melloni, is that “the function of the magisterium is that of doing the algebraic sum between the statements of one encyclical and of another.”

Unfortunately, however, the professor lamented, the four are equipped with an exaggerated sound box, which “turns their little things into half of the reality.” And he recounted a meeting he had in China with the seminarians of Shanghai, “who knew very little about ‘Amoris Laetitia’ but knew everything about the ‘dubia’. For them the ‘dubia” were serious and grave matters, and the text of ‘Amoris Laetitia’ was instead a bit freaky.”

Melloni concluded:

“The most striking thing about the ‘dubia’ is not that someone should be raising them, even if I find extremely improper the very instrument of questions posed to the pope. The bishops and cardinals have every right and even the duty to tell the pope what they think, but treating the pope like a defendant, as is done in trials, no, this they do not have the right to do, it doesn’t help at all.”

(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on CHERRY PICKING TIME IN THE VATICAN

HERE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS I EXPERIENCED IN THE CHURCH BEFORE THE VATICAN COUNCIL

20 Things I Experience In The Catholic Church Before Vatican II

A young man was listening to me talk to someone about the problems in the our Catholic Church. He asked me; “What is wrong in the Catholic Church?”

This young man is too young to know how great the Catholic Church was before Vatican II. Most people were not born then to know how healthy the Church was before. All they have is now and no experience with what it was like in the Church before 1965. They assume that the Church was always as it is now and that this is normal. No, it is not normal.

triumph of the Church_ANDREA DA FIRENZEI did live before that time and am a living witness of how things were. Here is a list of 20 things I experience then.

1) Many many vocations to the priesthood. Full Seminaries and more being built.

2) Many many young priest. Most parishes had a lot of priests. Very few were homosexuals.

3) Everywhere I traveled, Mexico, Europe, Canada there was only one Tridentine Latin Mass.

4) Many many vocations to the religious life. More and more convents were being built.

5) Nuns wore full habit and could be identified in public.

6) Many many Catholic schools taught by priests and nuns.

Winter Landscape with a Church_FRIEDRICH, Caspar David7) Beautiful church buildings that attracted you to go in and pray before the Blessed Sacrament. (You could easily find Jesus in the Tabernacle on the High Main Altar and the red vigil lamp).

8) Most Catholics attended the Latin Mass with quiet devotion.

9) Everyone went to Holy Mass in their Sunday best.

10) All women and girls covered their heads with a veil or hat.

11) Women wore dresses to Holy Mass.

12) It was extremely rare to know of any divorced Catholics.

13) All families had a lot of happy children.

14) There were no sex abuse law suits. (Sad to say there was some sexual abuse).

15) Catholics respected the Pope, bishops, priests and religious.

16) It was unheard of to live together before marriage in the church.

17) Most people went to confession often.

Blessed_Sacrament_fruit_wreath_detail_thumb18) All Catholics believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.

19) Catholics believe that the Catholic Church was the Only True Church founded by Jesus Christ.

20) Children knew their faith by studying the Baltimore Catechism (In the USA).

These were the Fruits of the Holy Spirit God produced before Vatican II. No one can lie to me. I personally experienced these fruits. All of you, who are older, tell the true story to others who have absolutely no idea how wonderful the Church was before and how bad things have become since Vatican II. All the young people know is what they experience today. They think this is normal.

BlessedVirginMary 2The Catholic Church had problems before Vatican II. In fact, there have been problems ever since Jesus founded it. But it was way way better before and I lived those days and remember very well how everything began to change and get worse and worse.

We traditional Catholics are here to scream out loudly that there is a terrible virus, infection (progressive modernism) infecting the Church. We pray and work to restore to health God’s beloved Catholic Church. Yes the Gates of Hell will never prevail against Her, but we are the ones, with God’s help, to fight against the devils and the evil people who want to destroy the Mystical Body of Christ.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on HERE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS I EXPERIENCED IN THE CHURCH BEFORE THE VATICAN COUNCIL