Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 273
» Latest member: Anna Roome
» Forum threads: 6,462
» Forum posts: 12,088

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 289 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 287 Guest(s)
Bing, Google

Latest Threads
Oratory Conference: Fr. H...
Forum: Conferences
Last Post: Deus Vult
3 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 22
Livestream: First Sunday ...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 61
Fr. Hewko's Mass: Thanksg...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:41 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 65
Heaven Opened by the Prac...
Forum: Our Lady
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:33 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 88
Thursday Night Holy Hour ...
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 05:57 AM
» Replies: 8
» Views: 2,304
Fr. Ruiz: Renewal of the ...
Forum: Rev. Father Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 05:05 AM
» Replies: 19
» Views: 1,820
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: St....
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
11-28-2024, 08:24 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 198
The Catholic Trumpet: Bis...
Forum: True vs. False Resistance
Last Post: Stone
11-28-2024, 08:24 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 122
The Editor of The Recusan...
Forum: Introduction to the Resistance
Last Post: Sacrificium
11-27-2024, 01:34 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 186
Feast of the Miraculous M...
Forum: Our Lady
Last Post: Stone
11-27-2024, 07:24 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 1,496

 
  Tertullian: Ad Martyras - Address to the Martyrs
Posted by: Stone - 12-31-2021, 09:23 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors - No Replies

Ad Martyras - To the Martyrs
by Tertullian d. 220 A.D.

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bibleblender.com%2F...f=1&nofb=1]


Chapter 1

Blessed Martyrs Designate — Along with the provision which our lady mother the Church from her bountiful breasts, and each brother out of his private means, makes for your bodily wants in the prison, accept also from me some contribution to your spiritual sustenance; for it is not good that the flesh be feasted and the spirit starve: nay, if that which is weak be carefully looked to, it is but right that that which is still weaker should not be neglected. Not that I am specially entitled to exhort you; yet not only the trainers and overseers, but even the unskilled, nay, all who choose, without the slightest need for it, are wont to animate from afar by their cries the most accomplished gladiators, and from the mere throng of onlookers useful suggestions have sometimes come; first, then, O blessed, grieve not the Holy Spirit, who has entered the prison with you; for if He had not gone with you there, you would not have been there this day. Do you give all endeavour, therefore, to retain Him; so let Him lead you thence to your Lord. The prison, indeed, is the devil's house as well, wherein he keeps his family. But you have come within its walls for the very purpose of trampling the wicked one under foot in his chosen abode. You had already in pitched battle outside utterly overcome him; let him have no reason, then, to say to himself, They are now in my domain; with vile hatreds I shall tempt them, with defections or dissensions among themselves. Let him fly from your presence, and skulk away into his own abysses, shrunken and torpid, as though he were an outcharmed or smoked-out snake. Give him not the success in his own kingdom of setting you at variance with each other, but let him find you armed and fortified with concord; for peace among you is battle with him. Some, not able to find this peace in the Church, have been used to seek it from the imprisoned martyrs. And so you ought to have it dwelling with you, and to cherish it, and to guard it, that you may be able perhaps to bestow it upon others.


Chapter 2

Other things, hindrances equally of the soul, may have accompanied you as far as the prison gate, to which also your relatives may have attended you. There and thenceforth you were severed from the world; how much more from the ordinary course of worldly life and all its affairs! Nor let this separation from the world alarm you; for if we reflect that the world is more really the prison, we shall see that you have gone out of a prison rather than into one. The world has the greater darkness, blinding men's hearts. The world imposes the more grievous fetters, binding men's very souls. The world breathes out the worst impurities — human lusts. The world contains the larger number of criminals, even the whole human race. Then, last of all, it awaits the judgment, not of the proconsul, but of God. Wherefore, O blessed, you may regard yourselves as having been translated from a prison to, we may say, a place of safety. It is full of darkness, but you yourselves are light; it has bonds, but God has made you free. Unpleasant exhalations are there, but you are an odour of sweetness. The judge is daily looked for, but you shall judge the judges themselves. Sadness may be there for him who sighs for the world's enjoyments. The Christian outside the prison has renounced the world, but in the prison he has renounced a prison too. It is of no consequence where you are in the world — you who are not of it. And if you have lost some of life's sweets, it is the way of business to suffer present loss, that after gains may be the larger. Thus far I say nothing of the rewards to which God invites the martyrs. Meanwhile let us compare the life of the world and of the prison, and see if the spirit does not gain more in the prison than the flesh loses. Nay, by the care of the Church and the love of the brethren, even the flesh does not lose there what is for its good, while the spirit obtains besides important advantages. You have no occasion to look on strange gods, you do not run against their images; you have no part in heathen holidays, even by mere bodily mingling in them; you are not annoyed by the foul fumes of idolatrous solemnities; you are not pained by the noise of the public shows, nor by the atrocity or madness or immodesty of their celebrants; your eyes do not fall on stews and brothels; you are free from causes of offense, from temptations, from unholy reminiscences; you are free now from persecution too. The prison does the same service for the Christian which the desert did for the prophet. Our Lord Himself spent much of His time in seclusion, that He might have greater liberty to pray, that He might be quit of the world. It was in a mountain solitude, too, He showed His glory to the disciples. Let us drop the name of prison; let us call it a place of retirement. Though the body is shut in, though the flesh is confined, all things are open to the spirit. In spirit, then, roam abroad; in spirit walk about, not setting before you shady paths or long colonnades, but the way which leads to God. As often as in spirit your footsteps are there, so often you will not be in bonds. The leg does not feel the chain when the mind is in the heavens. The mind compasses the whole man about, and whither it wills it carries him. But where your heart shall be, there shall be your treasure. Matthew 6:21 Be there our heart, then, where we would have our treasure.


Chapter 3

Grant now, O blessed, that even to Christians the prison is unpleasant; yet we were called to the warfare of the living God in our very response to the sacramental words. Well, no soldier comes out to the campaign laden with luxuries, nor does he go to action from his comfortable chamber, but from the light and narrow tent, where every kind of hardness, roughness and unpleasantness must be put up with. Even in peace soldiers inure themselves to war by toils and inconveniences — marching in arms, running over the plain, working at the ditch, making the testudo, engaging in many arduous labours. The sweat of the brow is on everything, that bodies and minds may not shrink at having to pass from shade to sunshine, from sunshine to icy cold, from the robe of peace to the coat of mail, from silence to clamour, from quiet to tumult. In like manner, O blessed ones, count whatever is hard in this lot of yours as a discipline of your powers of mind and body. You are about to pass through a noble struggle, in which the living God acts the part of superintendent, in which the Holy Ghost is your trainer, in which the prize is an eternal crown of angelic essence, citizenship in the heavens, glory everlasting. Therefore your Master, Jesus Christ, who has anointed you with His Spirit, and led you forth to the arena, has seen it good, before the day of conflict, to take you from a condition more pleasant in itself, and has imposed on you a harder treatment, that your strength might be the greater. For the athletes, too, are set apart to a more stringent discipline, that they may have their physical powers built up. They are kept from luxury, from daintier meats, from more pleasant drinks; they are pressed, racked, worn out; the harder their labours in the preparatory training, the stronger is the hope of victory. And they, says the apostle, that they may obtain a corruptible crown. 1 Corinthians 9:25 We, with the crown eternal in our eye, look upon the prison as our training-ground, that at the goal of final judgment we may be brought forth well disciplined by many a trial; since virtue is built up by hardships, as by voluptuous indulgence it is overthrown.


Chapter 4

From the saying of our Lord we know that the flesh is weak, the spirit willing. Matthew 26:41 Let us not, withal, take delusive comfort from the Lord's acknowledgment of the weakness of the flesh. For precisely on this account He first declared the spirit willing, that He might show which of the two ought to be subject to the other — that the flesh might yield obedience to the spirit — the weaker to the stronger; the former thus from the latter getting strength. Let the spirit hold convene with the flesh about the common salvation, thinking no longer of the troubles of the prison, but of the wrestle and conflict for which they are the preparation. The flesh, perhaps, will dread the merciless sword, and the lofty cross, and the rage of the wild beasts, and that punishment of the flames, of all most terrible, and all the skill of the executioner in torture. But, on the other side, let the spirit set clearly before both itself and the flesh, how these things, though exceeding painful, have yet been calmly endured by many — and, have even been eagerly desired for the sake of fame and glory; and this not only in the case of men, but of women too, that you, O holy women, may be worthy of your sex. It would take me too long to enumerate one by one the men who at their own self-impulse have put an end to themselves. As to women, there is a famous case at hand: the violated Lucretia, in the presence of her kinsfolk, plunged the knife into herself, that she might have glory for her chastity. Mucius burned his right hand on an altar, that this deed of his might dwell in fame. The philosophers have been outstripped — for instance Heraclitus, who, smeared with cow dung, burned himself; and Empedocles, who leapt down into the fires of Ætna; and Peregrinus, who not long ago threw himself on the funeral pile. For women even have despised the flames. Dido did so, lest, after the death of a husband very dear to her, she should be compelled to marry again; and so did the wife of Hasdrubal, who, Carthage being on fire, that she might not behold her husband suppliant as Scipio's feet, rushed with her children into the conflagration, in which her native city was destroyed. Regulus, a Roman general, who had been taken prisoner by the Carthaginians, declined to be exchanged for a large number of Carthaginian captives, choosing rather to be given back to the enemy. He was crammed into a sort of chest; and, everywhere pierced by nails driven from the outside, he endured so many crucifixions. Woman has voluntarily sought the wild beasts, and even asps, those serpents worse than bear or bull, which Cleopatra applied to herself, that she might not fall into the hands of her enemy. But the fear of death is not so great as the fear of torture. And so the Athenian courtezan succumbed to the executioner, when, subjected to torture by the tyrant for having taken part in a conspiracy, still making no betrayal of her confederates, she at last bit off her tongue and spat it in the tyrant's face, that he might be convinced of the uselessness of his torments, however long they should be continued. Everybody knows what to this day is the great Lacedæmonian solemnity— the διαμαστύγωσις, or scourging; in which sacred rite the Spartan youths are beaten with scourges before the altar, their parents and kinsmen standing by and exhorting them to stand it bravely out. For it will be always counted more honourable and glorious that the soul rather than the body has given itself to stripes. But if so high a value is put on the earthly glory, won by mental and bodily vigour, that men, for the praise of their fellows, I may say, despise the sword, the fire, the cross, the wild beasts, the torture; these surely are but trifling sufferings to obtain a celestial glory and a divine reward. If the bit of glass is so precious, what must the true pearl be worth? Are we not called on, then, most joyfully to lay out as much for the true as others do for the false?


Chapter 5

I leave out of account now the motive of glory. All these same cruel and painful conflicts, a mere vanity you find among men— in fact, a sort of mental disease — as trampled under foot. How many ease-lovers does the conceit of arms give to the sword? They actually go down to meet the very wild beasts in vain ambition; and they fancy themselves more winsome from the bites and scars of the contest. Some have sold themselves to fires, to run a certain distance in a burning tunic. Others, with most enduring shoulders, have walked about under the hunters' whips. The Lord has given these things a place in the world, O blessed, not without some reason: for what reason, but now to animate us, and on that day to confound us if we have feared to suffer for the truth, that we might be saved, what others out of vanity have eagerly sought for to their ruin?


Chapter 6

Passing, too, from examples of enduring constancy having such an origin as this, let us turn to a simple contemplation of man's estate in its ordinary conditions, that perhaps from things which happen to us whether we will or no, and which we must set our minds to bear, we may get instruction. How often, then, have fires consumed the living! How often have wild beasts torn men in pieces, it may be in their own forests, or it may be in the heart of cities, when they have chanced to escape from their dens! How many have fallen by the robber's sword! How many have suffered at the hands of enemies the death of the cross, after having been tortured first, yes, and treated with every sort of contumely! One may even suffer in the cause of a man what he hesitates to suffer in the cause of God. In reference to this indeed, let the present time bear testimony, when so many persons of rank have met with death in a mere human being's cause, and that though from their birth and dignities and bodily condition and age such a fate seemed most unlikely; either suffering at his hands if they have taken part against him, or from his enemies if they have been his partisans.

Print this item

  Hillaire Belloc: Communism, The Theory
Posted by: Stone - 12-31-2021, 09:11 AM - Forum: Socialism & Communism - No Replies

Communism: The Theory
Written By Hilaire Belloc
Originally published in Social Justice Weekly (June 13, 1938)

[Image: Capture.png]


Communism, like every other political system, has two aspects: the Abstract and the Concrete. It is based on a theory, an idea: and also it has in real life a certain way of going on, habits and practices, which do not seem at first sight to be necessarily connected with that idea, but which are found appearing in connection with it. In this first article we will go into the idea of Communism and see why it is a false remedy. In the next we will go into the practice and see how abominable in practice Communism becomes.

The economic idea of Communism in itself, that is, the mere plan or pattern, seems at first sight neither good nor evil, any more than a mathematical proposition is good or evil. You can state Communism in this fashion so that it is apparently quite free from any moral taint, and appears as a system which anyone is free to accept or to let alone, according to his inclination. Stated thus, theoretically, the principle of Communism is simply this: that public authority shall not protect the property of any man when that property is used for production, distribution, or exchange. Communism proposes that there shall be no right of property in land or houses or ships or stores of food or machinery of any kind, when those things are used for producing further wealth, because this leads to poor men working the advantage of rich men.

Communism has no objection to a man consuming wealth on a large scale, even luxuriously. If you can earn a large income as a singer, for instance. the Communist state is quite agreeable that you should spend it on anything you like for your own pleasure. But you must not invest any of it. For when you invest you are creating a capitalist function. If you invest in railway shares, for instance, you do so in order to get an income without working for it: an income which is produced by the labor of some other man. In the same way, and for the same reasons. Communism forbids inheritance. You may spend what you earn, you may even spend it luxuriously, but you must not accumulate it and leave it to your children, lest they should use it for the capitalistic exploitation of their fellows. If I have a fine schooner which my sons and I can sail together, Communism makes no objection to our doing so as an amusement bur it forbids us to use that vessel for carrying goods or for any other useful purpose associated with profit.

Stated thus, the moral argument in favor of Communism seems a strong one. The exploitation of one man by another is not a moral act, nor the forbidding of it, apparently, an immoral act. Moreover, thousands of good men and great numbers of actual saints have lived under purely communistic conditions, for those are the conditions of most religious orders. The Community owns everything, the individual owns nothing, save what he really consumes, and this ownership of all by the community is (apparently) Communism. So far, so good. And Communism, thus stated as an ideal, appeals to the generous and the simple. Where, then, is the snag in the mere theory of Communism? The defender of Communism will say “No doubt such and such a group of Communists did behave very badly, but that has nothing to do with the Communist theory. The violence and the outrages and the rest of it are not logically connected with this simply conception of common ownership of all the means of production, distribution and exchange.”

There is another cogent argument in favor of Communism which we often hear used, and which seems at first sight irrefutable. It is this: when we are actually using, as a community, goods belonging to the community, when we are therefore acting in the Communist fashion, no suffering results but rather good. In Switzerland, (Switzerland is the freest and perhaps the happiest of all democracies), where the railroads are owned by the community, no one using the railroads feels any different from men using the railroads which belong to capitalist organizations in England or the United States. When you enjoy the amenities of a public park you are enjoying communal property. So your Communist can say again “Where is the snag?” expecting the answer, “There is none.”

Every thing about Communism in theory at least, seems good, and it manifestly gets rid of a lot of evils which accompany private property. But the man who says “Where is the snag” and expects the answer “There is none” is shortsighted. There is a serious and obvious snag indeed, which is this: that though the public ownership of this or of that creates no injustice and does no violence to human nature, the public ownership of everything, the forbidding of the private citizen and his family to own land or house or plough or cattle, means that whoever owns those things—that is, the State—is the absolute master of the dispossessed Communist citizen.

Why that is the very argument the Communists, themselves have used, (just as anybody else has, who has thought at all about the industrial problem) when they condemn capitalism! “The capitalist class,” says the Communist, “by retaining in its power the land and the instruments of production, is the master of the mass of citizens who do not own those things.” Exactly! And the same is ten times truer of universal public ownership. The State (which means, in practice, the Officials) is as much the master of the Communist masses as a slave driver is of his slaves. He may wish the slaves well or he may wish them ill. That has nothing to do with the system. He may be generous or he may be cruel. His absolute power has nothing to do with that. Communism, even as a theory, denies the most elementary right of making: the right of choice, the right of ordering one’s own life.

It is no reply to this major accusation (which of itself damns the whole system irremediably) to say that present conditions are intolerably bad. No doubt they are: but one must not fly to a remedy worse than the disease. There is, indeed, one type of man who apologists for Communism, rather reluctantly, something like this: “No doubt Communism is a bad thing, but it is the only chance we have, for, under the effect of modern machinery, monopoly is inevitable. When monopoly is inevitable it is better to vest it in the State than in a few individuals.” When such a reply is made we touch on the very heart of Communism. We see its nature plainly exposed. It is the fruit of Capitalist mentality. It is an evil remedy bred of an evil thing. Industrial Capitalism talks in exactly this way of “inevitable monopoly” which is not inevitable at all. Under Communism we should have all the worst spiritual effects of industrial Capitalism extended and emphasized because their tyranny would be universal. It would be the killing of the soul of man and its dignity. Now it is precisely because of this character in it that Communism only comes into being under conditions of horror. It is because the thing is theoretically inhuman that its fruits are the fruits of inhumanity, appalling cruelty and an appalling contempt for human life.

It is a most superficial, false, analysis which can see no connection between Communist theory and the abominations which accompany Communism in action. When you destroy the family and the sanctity of the individual, when you make war on the tradition of human culture, you are making war on the Image of God. And because you are making war on the Image of God, which is Man, with his human dignity and free will, you find yourself at once at war with God Himself. It is not an accident that Communism should produce wholesale massacre, arson, torture, and the destruction of all lovely things. A perverse theory produces perverse acts. The story has been told over and over again but it can never be told too often.

Print this item

  G.K. Chesterton: Fun in the Field
Posted by: Stone - 12-31-2021, 08:46 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors - No Replies

Fun in the Field
Written By G.K. Chesterton

[Image: Capture.png]
Illustration by Theodore Schluenderfritz. G.K.'s Weekly, 2 July 1932.


Politicians will not make a land fit for heroes to live in. It is heroes who make a land fit for all the other poor people to live in; even such poor little people as the politicians. A vivid illustration of this may be seen in those small but bright patches, already beginning to appear on the map of England, in which men have really devoted themselves to the reclamation of the land and the restoration of the family. In some cases the work really has to be heroic in the sense of ascetic. In several cases it has actually been led and inspired by ascetics. Nay, by that profound Christian paradox which so much puzzles the pagan stupidity around us, the men who have restored these things are often the very men who have renounced them. Friars who have flung away all property will be the first to re-establish property; monks who have turned their backs on the family will be the last to defend the family. In this respect there is a great resemblance between the Distributist Movement, as described in the pamphlets of Father McNabb and Father McQuillan. Father McQuillan, member of the Catholic Scottish Land Movement and Commander Shove. Herbert W. Shove was an associate of the Guild of St. Joseph and St. Dominic, the author of The Fairy Ring of Commerce, and one time head of the London Distributist League branch and the original work done by monasteries in their first days. It is not only that the Christians exist already, but that their institutions exist already. There were monks and nuns long before there had ceased to be priests and priestesses of Apollo. Great councils of the universal Church had already met when great emperors were still thinking of Nazarenes as a new sort of food for lions; and the missionaries were preaching in the ends of the earth while the bishops were still prisoners in the Capital. And the reason is that both types of reaction are appeals to the individual; even to the salvation of the soul of the individual; though the sins and diseases of different societies make it necessary to emphasise things that seem different, and may even seem directly opposed.

The old pagan world was far too personal, with its personal government, its personal and almost simple greed, and its only too personal gods. Therefore it was often necessary to protest against it by the renunciation of personal property. The modern paganism is far too impersonal with its impersonal bureaucracies, its impersonal fantasy of finance and usury, its impersonal and therefore more than imbecile god. Therefore it is often necessary to protest against it by the assertion of personal property. But both are modes of the assertion of personal dignity; and you will note that it is the same spiritual philosophy, stretched across the ages, that has made possible these two contrary forms of protest against these two contrary forms of pride. There is one aspect of the heroic venture, made by the working Distributist, of which I feel free to speak, because it is quite unheroic; and I am not a hero. I hope everybody understands that the Land Movement of the Distributists does not mean that men are to sell turnips as other people sell top-hats; or to manufacture cabbages in a cabbage machine like sausages in a sausage-machine. Distributism dies when men sell their land; but it is rather off colour, even when people sell most of the produce of their land. And the obvious inference is that men living by grubbing roots out of the ground are not living at all. The more the experiment succeeds, the more effort will be made to show that it means life on a lower level than that of the modern town; which, God knows, would be very low indeed.

Now, because this is a frivolous point, and because I am a frivolous person, it is one on which I think I can really give advice; as I cannot give it on serious things like sowing and reaping. On work I am a very doubtful witness; but on holidays I am all there. On sustaining life—I could learn from the poorest peasant. But on enjoying life I will not learn from anybody. And I really think this question of the fun or sport of a Distributive State is one about which I can see the truth more clearly, either than the good men who have been stupefied by modern labour, or the bad men who have been staled by modern pleasure-seeking. For the truth is that the latter are much too stale with pleasure-seeking not to be stupid about pleasure-finding. And when the case against Distributism is that men will never desert the film for the farm, or that life on a farm is always dull, or that common sport and fun will be forgotten, I feel almost personally moved to reply. For the fact is that the fun will begin with the new life, not that the fun will end with it. The fun is already ending without it. For the whole thing called Sport is now absolutely staggering on its last legs; staggering on the rickety ridiculous stilts, on which plutocracy and professionalism have hoisted it above the crowd, for the purpose of advertisement. We are always reading of dying creeds or crabbed sciences petering out in petty quarrels about details, in hairsplitting about trivial applications of trite and tiresome rules. And all this is visibly happening to Sport or Games, if it ever happened to anything in this world. There is not really more fun out of golf; there is only more fuss about golf. There are only more golf-clubs or more technical articles in magazines, drawing fine distinctions between one ungainly attitude and another.

Also, as is invariable in such decadence, nobody dares to deny or alter the original dogmas of the game; nobody dreams, for instance, of inventing a new game. There was never a golfer who went forth to golf and then suddenly decided to do something else; to throw his clubs about like a juggler, or fence with the caddy. Exactly what has gone out of all sports is sport; the spring or spontaneous jerk towards doing something fresh and free. Very slowly and intricately will the technical ceremonies end; but we are still waiting for the fun to begin. And where did the fun begin? It began on the farm. It began with the sort of tools, tricks and hiding-places that can most easily be found on the farm. Our fathers made the great English game of cricket out of a stool and a stone. The very terms of tennis and many old games refer, not to new engines bought at Gamage’s,[note]Gamages was a department store located in central London.[/note] but to new uses found for the buttery-hatch or the milking-stool. No; we shall have no lack of games; for the world's great age begins anew; and we shall have some new ones.

Print this item

  G. K. Chesterton: The Circular Argument
Posted by: Stone - 12-31-2021, 08:39 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors - No Replies

The Circular Argument
Written By G.K. Chesterton

[Image: Capture.png]
Illustration by Theodore Schluenderfritz. G.K.'s Weekly, August 1, 1925


The argument underlying most of the arguments of our critics against our ideal is a sort of argument in a circle. It is very necessary to understand and yet it is not very easy to explain. It is like the old oriental symbol of a snake with its tail in its mouth; the occult and mystical image upon which whiting are sometimes made to model themselves. One would think that such a symbol was a simple matter; but in fact it is like the Figure in the Carpet of which Henry James wrote; a thing really recurrent and regular but at the first glance bewildering and even invisible. It is not always easy to trace the pattern of the carpet, even if it be a pattern of self-devouring snakes. It is not always easy to follow the large returning curve in what appears a chaos of intersecting lines. But we for our part are sorry when snakes bite their own tails. We are sorry for the snake and we are sorry for the tail. We weep over the reptile who has such an unsatisfactory meal. We also weep over the tail which has such an unsatisfactory time. And we shall try to explain the point, although it is difficult and may even be dull.

The point is this. When we describe our ideal, our opponents always deride and reject it because it is an ideal; which means in their language a dream. When we denounce existing conditions or current proposals, they ask us what is the use of denunciation which could only lead to destruction; which in their language means to mere negation. We say, for instance, that the only tolerable ideal for a man is that of a free man; and the only tolerable ideal of a free man is that of a man free over a fairly wide area to choose and to create. We say that while this ideal is nowhere ideally realised, it can be really realised. We say there was more of it in a free craftsman than in a modern mechanic; more of it in a farmer's wife doing as she liked with her own herbs and cordials than in a factory girl doing as she is told by a capitalist combine. We do not desire to produce this precise example of this precise state of things. We do not limit the craftsman to carving gargoyles; we do not force the critic to drink cowslip wine. We give these things as examples of the various ways in which a healthy humanity has attempted to approach this ideal, rather than the other ideals. But when we describe the ideal in such general and ideal terms, we are accused of describing a legendary Arcadia or a mythical Golden Age. We are asked why we should profess to be propounding a social solution like that of Mr. Sidney Webb or Mr. Henry Ford, when in fact we are only describing a Land of Heart's Desire like Mr. W.B. Yeats.

In a word, they say we waste time in describing an unattainable dignity and independence. Very well; let us merely note that complaint and keep it clearly in mind. It will come round again, like the serpent's tail. So, on the other hand, they complain of our complaints. They say that the industrial system, like its alleged author, is not so black as it is painted. They say we paint it blacker than it is; and that this (under the circumstances) is a mere waste of blacking. They suggest that it is mere pessimism to insist that things are indefensible when they are really indestructible. They say we are merely throwing away dirty water before we can get clean. Or rather they say we are merely analysing the animalculae in the dirty water, while we do not even venture to throw it away. Why, it is asked, do we waste so many words in making men discontented with conditions with which they are forced to be content? Why do we talk of a thing as an intolerable slavery when we know that it must for a time be tolerated? We say that the rule of mere rich men is far more shameful and benighted than the rule of any king or squire, of any priests or princess. We say there has never been a tyranny pressing so closely upon man as this tyranny of trade gone mad. Individual rulers have done much worse things to individual subjects. But in the matter of the daily bread and the breath of life, the ruler has never been so powerful, the subject has never been so impotent. We say that a hatred of this condition is not a question of a sociological theory, but a question of a sense of honour. And we are asked why we put it with so much heat; why we think it worth while to appeal to such hatred. It is all futile; because nothing can really be done. That is their argument; and again we only ask that it should be realised and remembered. We denounce what we cannot destroy. Therefore we are a pack of idiots.

Let us make a note of the fact; and proceed. Now what follows in practice is this. We are eventually, and very rightly, asked to give some sort of account of how we should set to work. As a matter of fact, we are very much more prepared to go into detail about definite and practical proposals than most of the literary men who have been counted legitimate critics and even reforming influences. Still, we are not parliamentary lawyers and have never pretended to be industrial experts. We can, in the ordinary sense of human speech, suggest a number of things that could be done. They range from things that could be done tomorrow, like turning down a side street to a small shop, to things that are not likely to be done even a hundred years hence, though they could easily have been done six hundred years ago; such as putting a man in prison for making a corner in wheat. We think these proposals practical; but it is not their practicality that is the point here. It is the way in which our critics prove them unpractical. Their argument always amounts to this, in one form or another. You cannot thus reverse the trend of the time and alter the mind of the society. It would mean an effort that men will not make, a sacrifice they cannot be expected to make, a crisis they will not face, a paradox they will not entertain. You cannot get the mob of a modern town to boycott the biggest and best advertised shop. You cannot get a plunging and pleasure-seeking crowd to hunt out the hole and corner homes of a lost liberty or a dying self-respect. Similarly, you cannot make medieval laws against trusts and tricks of the trade; or if you made them you could not enforce them. Your legal campaign would break down; your Anti-Trust law would be checkmated and evaded; your lawyers would be bribed; your witnesses would be brow-beaten; the mob would be turned against you in the end. In short, the real argument against us is just that. We cannot make our cause really practical because we cannot make it really popular. The modern mind is set in its weary ruts. There will not be a change of mind without a change of heart; and we cannot effect it. Perhaps; but at least you cannot logically blame us because we try.

At least you cannot say that people do not hate plutocracy enough to destroy it; and then blame us for asking them to look at it enough to hate it. At least and at last, you may begin to have some notion of why we do think it worth while to attempt to make the ideal inspiring as an ideal and the reality intolerable because it is a reality. At last our critics can find the answer to the question which they asked first; which they have possibly already forgotten. This is why it is worth while to insist on the merely moral beauty of simplicity and sanity. This is why it is worth while to emphasise the mere repulsiveness of corruption and servility. We do not say that we can do it; but we do say it would be worth doing. We do not say that we can be eloquent enough to persuade degenerate Christians of what even the heathens understood; the glory of the household gods and the closeness of the hearth to the altar. But if we preserve the protest of that human tradition, heathen and Christian, men may arise who can sing and speak of it as did the great poets of heroic times. We do not say we can find words foul enough to describe modern wealth, and all that world of bullying and bribing and fawning which vulgar plutocracy offers us as a final home. But the resources of civilisation are not exhausted; and somebody with a richer reserve of bad language may find fitting terms, for it yet.

But the point is that it is not illogical, but strictly logical, that we should appeal to the abstractions which our critics deplore, because the actualities are as our critics describe. It is they who are arguing in a circle, when they complain of our merely describing desirable things; and then go on to complain that they cannot be realised unless they are shown to be desirable. It is they who are arguing in a circle, when they object to our denouncing things as detestable; and then object again because it is idle to denounce them until we can get people to detest them. The thing they insist would have to be done is exactly the thing which we, in our humble way, are trying to do. It is to get people to desire the one thing and to detest the other. That is why we describe the virtues of peasants who we know cannot be exactly copied. That is why we describe the corruption of profiteers who we know will never be really punished. We are doing what our own opponents say would be the only practical preliminary. And when we do it, they call us unpractical.

Print this item

  95.58% of the #Omicron cases in Germany are fully vaccinated
Posted by: Stone - 12-30-2021, 04:53 PM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular] - Replies (1)

Print this item

  Latest COVID Restrictions Based On What Govt 'Thought People Would Tolerate'
Posted by: Stone - 12-30-2021, 04:50 PM - Forum: Socialism & Communism - No Replies

CDC Director Admits Latest COVID Restrictions Based On What Government "Thought People Would Be Able To Tolerate"


ZH | THURSDAY, DEC 30, 2021
Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky admitted Wednesday that the agency’s latest guidance on COVID was based on what the government perceived people would accept.

Appearing on CNN, Walensky addressed the fact that the CDC suddenly updated its guidelines after Joe Biden declared that “there is no federal solution” to the virus.

Restrictions including quarantine times were lessened from ten days to five.

It really had a lot to do with what we thought people would be able to tolerate,” Walensky starkly admitted.

She added, “We really want to make sure we have guidance in this moment where we were going to have a lot of disease that could be adhered to, that people were willing to adhere to, and that spoke to specifically when people were maximally infectious. So it really spoke to both behaviors and to what people were able to do.”

Watch:


Walensky’s comments dovetail with those of Anthony Fauci, who yesterday (after two years of isolating everyone) admitted that isolation is ‘not good for society.’

Rumble Video: Fauci admits that isolation is not good for society

Elsewhere in her interview, Walensky said that the government is considering opening booster shots for 12 to 15 year olds, urging “the first thing to note is to get your children vaccinated.”

“I know that the companies and manufactures are working towards data for under five year olds. That will not be in the months ahead, but we’re working to get there soon,” the CDC head added.

Full interview for context:

Print this item

  Dickens’ ‘A Christmas Carol’ is a marvelous conversion tale best explained by GK Chesterton
Posted by: Stone - 12-30-2021, 04:32 PM - Forum: General Commentary - No Replies

Dickens’ ‘A Christmas Carol’ is a marvelous conversion tale best explained by GK Chesterton
The moment of Scrooge’s conversion is legendary, and is the closest depiction I have ever read of what happens in a man’s soul 
when he accepts the logical justice of damnation and undeserved privilege to repent.

[Image: Scrooge-810x500.jpg]
Scrooge and the Ghost of Christmas Present look through a window at the Crachet family around the hearth.


Fri Dec 24, 2021
(LifeSiteNews) – Without a doubt, we have all read, heard, or watched a rendition of A Christmas Carol, the classic English novella by Charles Dickens (1812-1870). Whether from a cartoon, a play, a Hollywood production, or by reading a children’s version of the story, we can all call to mind the story about the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future. Our common parlance in all the of English-speaking world knows exactly what is meant when someone is labeled a ‘Scrooge.’

Popular authors who seek to transmit the ‘true meaning of Christmas’ in their works are often only able to imitate a Dickens-esque motif wherein a miser comes to find the true meaning of the Christian celebration through some sort of interior conversion. The famous Dr. Seuss story The Grinch Who Stole Christmas is perhaps nothing more than a whimsical rendition of the theme set out by the great English author a century prior.

It might seem a bit of a stretch to some, but I believe the argument could be made that we see shades of Dickens in the classic film It’s a Wonderful Life. Themes of childhood trauma, greed and financial obsession, and inevitable conversion brought on by a preternatural visitor who helps the protagonist see the real “reason for the season,” are paramount in both stories. In addition, the depths of human despair and the brink of nihilistic suicidal ideation are palpable as we watch George Bailey see a glimpse of life without his existence, just as we see Ebenezer Scrooge perceive the veritable contempt that so many have for him.

In Frank Capra’s motion-picture masterpiece and in Charles Dickens’ literary classic, the profundity of sadness at certain points is almost too much. Our hearts ache along with the characters as we simultaneously despise them to a degree that might only be matched by how much we come to pity their tragic lot.


Enter Chesterton

G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936), the famous English writer and convert to the Faith, wrote a biography of Dickens that T.S. Eliot said was the “best on that author that has ever been written.” This is high praise coming from a highly praise-worthy source. It would be a mistake for us to consider the biography that Chesterton published in 1906 as part of post-modern biographical literature. So often in our day, biographies are written mostly like elongated encyclopedia entries wherein the focus is on the minutia of historical factoids. This is not to say that great attention to detail is not sometimes extremely relevant and helpful, but it was not Chesterton’s style — not at all.

Anyone familiar with G.K. Chesterton’s works will know very well that in each book, chapter, and even phrase, there is a story told that gives us a glimpse of the exuberance that filled his mind on the very idea considered. When Chesterton wrote biographies, he was not always focused on the empirical facts of a man’s life as the primary means of knowing a man; instead, he took the reader on a journey into the meaning of what meant most to the person about whom he wrote.

When he published St. Francis of Assisi, for example, he went beyond what other biographers had done before him and brought us into the romance that St. Francis had with God’s creation, void of any ‘earth-worship’ nonsense that so many tragically associate with the Seraphic Father. One passage in his biography encapsulates the man in a way that only a Chestertonian prose could accomplish:

Quote:“Now for St. Francis nothing was ever in the background. We might say that his mind had no background, except perhaps that divine darkness out of which the divine love had called up every colored creature one by one. He saw everything as dramatic, distinct from its setting, not all of a piece like a picture but in action like a play. A bird went by him like an arrow; something with a story and a purpose, though it was a purpose of life and not a purpose of death. A bush could stop him like a brigand; and indeed he was as ready to welcome the brigand as the bush.”

In St Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox, we find ourselves falling in love with the magnificent mind of the Angelic Doctor, in a way that only a 20th-century fun-loving English author could accomplish. One quote comes to mind that portrays the child-like wonder behind the great theologian’s contemplation of God: “I can hardly conceive of any educated man believing in God at all without believing that God contains in Himself every perfection including eternal joy; and does not require the solar system to entertain Him like a circus.”


Chesterton’s biography of Dickens

Chesterton wrote about Dickens before he tackled the stories of great saints. Leafing through the pages written about the progenitor of the most well-known Christmas story of the past 200 years is like being guided through a reliquary by a holy man, who has true devotion to each saint represented. It is obvious when reading the Dickens biography that Chesterton had something of an encyclopedic memory of his works — littering his phrases with timely references from any of Dickens’ works with ease. 

It is certain that Chesterton had comprehended Dickens’ style as if it were his own. There is a moment in A Christmas Carol when Ebenezer Scrooge arrives home for that fateful night of his preternatural sojourn with the ghosts that haunted his conscience. Scrooge happens upon the most mundane of things, a door-knocker, but sees something so real that it must not be real at all. Dickens masterfully describes the moment in the following manner:

Quote:“Now, it is a fact, that there was nothing at all particular about the knocker on the door, except that it was very large. It is also a fact, that Scrooge had seen it, night and morning, during his whole residence in that place; also that Scrooge had as little of what is called fancy about him as any man in the city of London, even including — which is a bold word — the corporation, aldermen, and livery… Scrooge, having his key in the lock of the door, saw in the knocker, without its undergoing any intermediate process of change — not a knocker, but Marley’s face. Marley’s face. It was not in impenetrable shadow as the other objects in the yard were, but had a dismal light about it, like a bad lobster in a dark cellar. It was not angry or ferocious, but looked at Scrooge as Marley used to look: with ghostly spectacles turned up on its ghostly forehead… and its livid color, made it horrible; but its horror seemed to be in spite of the face and beyond its control, rather than a part of its own expression.”

There is a certain dread that creeps up the reader’s spine when entering into that eerie scene, and the uncanny nature of such an impossible event piques curiosity for a realm of things heretofore invisible. Chesterton describes the texture of the moment perfectly:

Quote:“There are details in the Dickens descriptions — a window, or a railing, or the keyhole of a door — which he endows with demoniac life. The things seem more actual than things really are. Indeed, that degree of realism does not exist in reality; it is the unbearable realism of a dream. And this kind of realism can only be gained by walking dreamily in a place; it cannot be gained by walking observantly.”


Could there be a more accurate way of describing that dreadful moment in Scrooge’s journey than how Chesterton describes the hyper-realism of Dickens? If my experience is any barometer, I believe I can say that there is a transportation to another literary world that takes place when following Scrooge to his home that night. It is that sort of moment that feels as mundane as buttering toast, almost unconscious, only to be interrupted by a textured shadow that fills the corner of your eye; a figure that disappears when you try and focus, but was definitely real. 

In Dickens’ personal life, he was something of a tragic man, and his battle with his Christian conscience was something that he could never avoid. I dare not speak ill of the dead in the way that modern writers love to do — bashing the character flaws of every man who represents an older and wiser way — but it is true that he struggled with personal demons, like all of us. His Christian faith was not orthodox, and he toyed with agnostic and materialist conceptions of religion, but his psychology was as Christian as England once was.

It would be too simplistic to say that Scrooge was Dickens, or that Dickens wrote Scrooge to consciously project himself, but it is a fact of literature that every good author includes a piece of his soul in his work; it is unavoidable. Bad writers are capable of leaving themselves out of their work, like the Hollywood foot soldiers who crank out vapid blockbusters that have as much depth as the computer software that creates the graphics for the film. Dickens was too honest, he was too great, he was too real not to offer his own conscience as a central theme in his work.


Dickens and the spirit of Christmas

There is something about Christmas, even more than Easter, that ‘baptizes’ the secular world, even if just for a night. Please don’t misunderstand what I mean — the gloominess of Good Friday and the levity of Easter Sunday are palpable — but on the night of Christ’s Birth, there is a triumphant expectation that accelerates when little children spring forth from their beds on that following morning of Christian Mirth.

Even those who have fallen away from the Faith allow themselves to be Christians, if just for a few hours each December, as there is no greater song that the human heart can sing in thanksgiving for all that has been given, than a Christmas carol. There are a select few who actively work against this inescapable yearning, and they find themselves miserable. There is no sadder or more darkened soul than the man who spends Christmas alone in defiance of the joy that is offered him; if only he let his tears of gratitude flow down his cheeks with the musicality of that Angelic Visitation to the Shepherds.

Scrooge is one of those men. This reality is depicted soon after he passes through the preternatural initiation of the ghostly door-knocker, while he sits in front of a fire that gives him no warmth. “It was a very low fire indeed; nothing on such a bitter night. He was obliged to sit close to it, and brood over it, before he could extract the least sensation of warmth from such a handful of fuel.”

Dickens then projects his struggle with God in the proceeding phrases:
Quote:“The fireplace was an old one, built by some Dutch merchant long ago, and paved all round with quaint Dutch tiles, designed to illustrate the Scriptures. There were Cains and Abels, Pharaoh’s daughters, Queens of Sheba, Angelic messengers descending through the air on clouds like feather-beds, Abrahams, Belshazzars, Apostles putting off to sea in butter-boats, hundreds of figures to attract his thoughts…” 

The Biblical imagery that brought Scrooge’s mind to higher and holier things was interrupted by the ghost that depicted his greatest sin: “… and yet that face of Marley, seven years dead, came like the ancient Prophet’s rod, and swallowed up the whole. If each smooth tile had been a blank at first, with power to shape some picture on its surface from the disjointed fragments of his thoughts, there would have been a copy of old Marley’s head on every one.” 

The Saints of Holy Writ offer the story of salvation and repentance, but the demons in Scrooge’s conscience lust for his attention and despair.

Chesterton offers a most succinct view into the religious atmosphere and struggle that plagued Dickens in the first chapter of his biography:
Quote:“But the strength of religion was that it did not care for Cromwell; did not care for him, that is, any more than for anybody else. He and his footman were equally welcomed to warm places in the hospitality of hell. It has often been said, very truly, that religion is the thing that makes the ordinary man feel extraordinary; it is an equally important truth that religion is the thing that makes the extraordinary man feel ordinary.”

Dickens was an ‘extraordinary’ man who came from very ordinary beginnings, going from relative poverty to the height of English literary celebrity. He amassed considerable wealth as well. Scrooge was of course also wealthy and great in the material sense, if we consider money to be a sign of greatness. But any man who sits alone with his conscience knows that the heaviness of his sins outweighs any accumulation of currency. 


Dickens the mythologist

It would be a mistake to portray the journey that Scrooge takes with the phantoms as representative of Christian doctrine, or even as plain theological musings. As Chesterton writes,
Quote:“Dickens was a mythologist rather than a novelist; he was the last of the mythologists, and perhaps the greatest. He did not always manage to make his characters men, but he always managed, at the least, to make them gods.”


Mythology is a misunderstood term by so many, as the word ‘myth’ is commonly used to describe anything that is false. In addition, we are rightly weary of pagan religious relics such as mythological books that promote a bent religion. However, we might say that mythology cannot be defined so narrow as a ‘genre’ but is instead a mood of literature. There is an ineffable mystery about our sojourn between Heaven and hell, and often there are things that can only be described with fantasy that are in some way more real than real.

In Christendom, this mood of mythology was purified and became folklore, or fairy-stories. La Fontaine baptized Aesop’s fables, giving the characters the complexity of Christian moral theology, and thereby improving on the calculated naturalism of the ancient lessons. Legends about witches that frightened little children in the heart of winter were replaced by fits of make-believe played by parents with their children on the Eve of Christ’s Birth about a man named Father Christmas who exists in an eternal state of Christmas joy and generosity.

England at the time of Dickens was going through a century of moral despair and progress. The old religion had been lost, first with the tragedy of King Henry VIII, and then with the continual splintering of Christian sects that became tiresome in their efforts to rebrand the Gospel. The horrors of chattel slavery were brought to light by William Wilberforce in parliament, and there was a level of drunkenness so rampant amongst the population that a national effort in the reform of manners was necessary to right the intoxicated nation.

Perhaps it was only an organic English mythology, written by a troubled English soul and inspired by the light of Christmas, that could speak to England at the time.

The journey that Scrooge takes with the mythical spirits through time and eternity is too much to discuss in detail in this piece. It reads like a breathless tale all contained in a lasting moment that is too full to comprehend; “a kind of philanthropic dream, an enjoyable nightmare, in which the scenes shift bewilderingly and seem as miscellaneous as the pictures in a scrap-book, but in which there is one constant state of the soul, a state of rowdy benediction,” says Chesterton. 


Conclusion: Chesterton on Scrooge’s conversion

The moment of Scrooge’s conversion is of course legendary, and is the closest depiction I have ever read of what happens in a man’s soul when he accepts the logical justice of damnation and undeserved privilege to repent. I could not describe the culmination of A Christmas Carol any better than the author who knew him best: 

Quote:“The beauty and the real blessing of the story do not lie in the mechanical plot of it, the repentance of Scrooge, probable or improbable; they lie in the great furnace of real happiness that glows through Scrooge and everything around him; that great furnace, the heart of Dickens. Whether the Christmas visions would or would not convert Scrooge, they convert us. Whether or not the visions were evoked by real Spirits of the Past, Present, and Future, they were evoked by that truly exalted order of angels who are correctly called High Spirits. They are impelled and sustained by a quality which our contemporary artists ignore or almost deny, but which in a life decently lived is as normal and attainable as sleep, positive, passionate, conscious joy. The story sings from end to end like a happy man going home; and, like a happy and good man, when it cannot sing it yells. It is lyric and exclamatory, from the first exclamatory words of it. It is strictly a Christmas carol.”

Print this item

  Propers for the Feast of the Circumcision [Octave Day of Christmas] - January 1st
Posted by: Stone - 12-29-2021, 10:57 AM - Forum: Christmas - No Replies

Propers for the Feast of the Circumcision [Octave Day of Christmas] - January 1st
Taken from here.


[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_DAM...f=1&nofb=1]



Except for the ALLELUIA, these Propers are identical to Christmas Daytime

Introit • Score • Puer natus
Gradual • Score • Viderunt
Alleluia • Score • Multifarie olim Deus
Offertory • Score • Tui sunt caeli
Communion • Score • Viderunt

Print this item

  Propers for the Sunday within the Octave of Christmas
Posted by: Stone - 12-29-2021, 10:50 AM - Forum: Christmas - No Replies

Propers for the Sunday within the Octave of Christmas
Taken from here.


[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ebayimg.com%2Fimages%...f=1&nofb=1]


Introit • Score • Dum medium silentium
Gradual • Score • Speciosus forma
Alleluia • Score • Dominus regnavit decorem induit
Offertory • Score • Deus enim firmavit
Communion • Score • Tolle Puerum et Matrem ejus

Print this item

  Plastic Waste from Increased Testing will be Enormous
Posted by: Stone - 12-29-2021, 10:36 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular] - No Replies

Print this item

  FDA to decide on booster shots for 12-15 year olds in coming days to weeks
Posted by: Stone - 12-29-2021, 10:34 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular] - No Replies

Print this item

  Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine: Please pray for Mrs. Kathleen Donelly
Posted by: Stone - 12-29-2021, 09:30 AM - Forum: Appeals for Prayer - No Replies

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginal...f=1&nofb=1]

Requiem aeternam dona eis Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis. Requiescat in pace. Amen.


In your charity, please pray for the soul of Mrs. Kathleen Donelly who passed away on December 29th from cancer at age 91.
Some of you may recall that Mrs. Donelly ran the Cor Mariae website. Many of us remember her fighting spirit in the early days of the Resistance. 
Kathleen had a great love of the Faith and in these times of great confusion,
we must pray very much for our fellow Catholics and remain humbly attached to the true Faith without compromise. 

May her soul and the souls of all the faithful departed rest in peace.  Amen.


✠ ✠ ✠


The De Profundis  - Psalm 129

Out of the depths I have cried unto Thee, O Lord; Lord, hear my voice.
Let Thine ears be attentive to the voice of my supplication.
If Thou, O Lord, shalt mark our iniquities: O Lord, who can abide it?
For with Thee there is mercy: and by reason of Thy law I have waited on Thee, O Lord.
My soul hath waited on His word: my soul hath hoped in the Lord.
From the morning watch even unto night: let Israel hope in the Lord.
For with the Lord there is mercy: and with Him is plenteous redemption.
And He shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.

Eternal rest grant unto him O Lord And let perpetual light shine upon him.

Print this item

  Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: About the “Responsa ad Dubia” of Traditionis Custodes
Posted by: Stone - 12-29-2021, 09:04 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò - No Replies

About the “Responsa ad Dubia” of Traditionis Custodes
by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
December 28, 2021


[Image: Capture.png]

Video of the Archbishop on Rumble here.

Transcript below [computer translated from the Italian]

Vos estis qui justificatis vos coram hominibus:
Deus autem novit corda vestra:
quia quod hominibus altum est,
abominatio est ante Deum. Lk 16, 15




In reading the Responsa ad Dubia recently published by the Congregation for Divine Worship, one wonders at what lowest levels the Roman Curia could have descended, for having to indulge Bergoglio with such servility, in a cruel and ruthless war against the most docile and faithful part of the Church. Never, in the last decades of very serious crisis in the Church, has ecclesiastical authority shown itself so determined and severe: it has not done so with the heretical theologians who infest the pontifical universities and seminaries; he did not do it with fornicating clerics and prelates; it did not do so in exemplary punishing the scandals of bishops and cardinals. But against the faithful, priests and religious who ask only to be able to celebrate the Tridentine Mass, no mercy, no mercy, no inclusiveness. All brothers?

Never before under this "pontificate" has the abuse of power by the authorities been perceptible, not even when two thousand years of lex orandi were immolated by Paul VI on the altar of Vatican II, imposing on the Church a rite as equivocal as it is hypocritical . That imposition, which was accompanied by the prohibition of celebrating in the ancient rite and the persecution of dissenters, had at least the alibi of the illusion that a change would perhaps have revived the fortunes of Catholicism in the face of an increasingly secularized world. Today, after fifty years of huge disasters and fourteen years of Summorum Pontificum, that labile justification is not only no longer valid, but is disavowed in its inconsistency by the evidence of the facts. Everything that the Council has brought back has proved harmful, it has emptied churches, seminaries and convents, it has destroyed ecclesiastical and religious vocations, has drained all spiritual, cultural and civil impetus of Catholics, has humiliated the Church of Christ and confined it to the margins of society, making it pathetic in its clumsy attempt to please the world.

And vice versa, since Benedict XVI tried to heal that vulnus by recognizing full rights to the traditional liturgy, the communities linked to the Mass of Saint Pius V have multiplied, the seminaries of the Ecclesia Dei institutes have grown, vocations have increased, the frequency of the faithful increased, the spiritual life of many young people and many families has found an unexpected impetus. It humiliated the Church of Christ and confined it to the margins of society, making it pathetic in its clumsy attempt to please the world. 

What lesson should have been drawn from this "experience of Tradition" invoked at the time also by Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre? The most obvious and at the same time simpler: what God has given to the Church is destined for success, and what man adds to it collapses miserably. A soul not blinded by ideological fury would have admitted the mistake made, trying to repair the damage and rebuild what had in the meantime been destroyed, to restore what had been abandoned. But this requires humility, a supernatural gaze and a trust in the provident intervention of God. This also requires the awareness on the part of the Pastors that they are administrators of the Lord's goods, and not masters: they have no right either to alienate his goods, nor to hide them or replace them with their own inventions; they must limit themselves to guarding them and making them available to the faithful, sine glossa, and with the constant thought of having to answer before God for every ewe and every lamb of His flock. The Apostle warns: "Hic jam quæritur inter dispensatóres, ut fidélis quis inveniátur" (I Cor 4: 2), "what is required of administrators is that they be faithful".

The Responsa in Dubia are consistent with Traditionis custodes, and make clear the subversive nature of this "pontificate", in which the supreme power of the Church is usurped to obtain a purpose diametrically opposed to that for which Our Lord has established the Sacred as authority. Pastori and His Vicar on earth. An indocile and rebellious power to the One who instituted it and legitimizes it, a power that believes itself to be fide solutus, so to speak, according to an intrinsically revolutionary and therefore heretical principle. Let us not forget: the Revolution claims for itself a power that is justified by the mere fact of being revolutionary, subversive, conspiratorial and antithetical to the legitimate power it intends to overthrow; and that as soon as it reaches institutional roles it is exercised with tyrannical authoritarianism,

Allow me to point out a parallel between two apparently disconnected situations. As in the presence of the pandemic, effective treatments are denied, with the imposition of a useless, indeed harmful and even lethal "vaccine"; thus the Tridentine Holy Mass, true medicine of the soul in a moment of very serious moral pestilence, is culpably denied to the faithful, replacing it with the Novus Ordo. Physicians fail in their duty, even in the presence of therapies, and impose both the sick and the healthy an experimental serum, and insist on administering it despite the evidence of total ineffectiveness and adverse effects. Similarly, priests, doctors of the soul, betray their mandate, even in the presence of an infallible drug tested for over two thousand years, and they go to great lengths to prevent those who have experienced its efficacy from using it to heal from sin. In the first case, the body's immune defenses are weakened or canceled to create chronically ill patients at the mercy of the pharmaceutical companies; in the second case the immune defenses of the soul are compromised by a worldly mentality and by the cancellation of the supernatural and transcendent dimension, so as to leave the souls defenseless in the face of the attacks of the devil. And this is valid as a response to those who claim to face the religious crisis without considering the social and political crisis in parallel, because it is precisely this duplicity of attack that makes it so terrible and that reveals its only criminal mind.

In the first case, the body's immune defenses are weakened or canceled to create chronically ill patients at the mercy of the pharmaceutical companies; in the second case the immune defenses of the soul are compromised by a worldly mentality and by the cancellation of the supernatural and transcendent dimension, so as to leave the souls defenseless in the face of the attacks of the devil. And this is valid as a response to those who claim to face the religious crisis without considering the social and political crisis in parallel, because it is precisely this duplicity of attack that makes it so terrible and that reveals its only criminal mind. In the first case, the body's immune defenses are weakened or canceled to create chronically ill patients at the mercy of the pharmaceutical companies; in the second case the immune defenses of the soul are compromised by a worldly mentality and by the cancellation of the supernatural and transcendent dimension, so as to leave the souls defenseless in the face of the attacks of the devil. And this is valid as a response to those who claim to face the religious crisis without considering the social and political crisis in parallel, because it is precisely this duplicity of attack that makes it so terrible and that reveals its only criminal mind. in the second case the immune defenses of the soul are compromised by a worldly mentality and by the cancellation of the supernatural and transcendent dimension, so as to leave the souls defenseless in the face of the attacks of the devil. And this is valid as a response to those who claim to face the religious crisis without considering the social and political crisis in parallel, because it is precisely this duplicity of attack that makes it so terrible and that reveals its only criminal mind. in the second case the immune defenses of the soul are compromised by a worldly mentality and by the cancellation of the supernatural and transcendent dimension, so as to leave the souls defenseless in the face of the attacks of the devil. And this is valid as a response to those who claim to face the religious crisis without considering the social and political crisis in parallel, because it is precisely this duplicity of attack that makes it so terrible and that reveals its only criminal mind.

I do not want to enter into the merits of the delusions of the Responsa: it is enough to know the ratio legis to reject Traditionis custodes as an ideological and biased document, drawn up by vindictive and intolerant people, full of ambitions and gross canonical errors, with the intention of prohibiting a rite canonized by two thousand years of saints and popes and impose a spurious one, copied by the Lutherans and patched up by the modernists, which in fifty years has caused a huge disaster to the ecclesial body and which, precisely because of its devastating effectiveness, must not know a derogation. There is not only guilt: there is also malice and the double betrayal of the divine Legislator and the faithful.

Bishops, priests, religious and laity find themselves once again having to make a choice of field: either with the Catholic Church and its two-thousand-year-old and immutable doctrine, or with the Conciliar and Bergoglian Church, with its errors and its secularized rites. And this happens in a paradoxical situation in which the Catholic Church and its counterfeiting coincide in the same Hierarchy, to which the faithful feel they must obey as an expression of God's authority and at the same time they must disobey as a traitor and rebel.

Of course, it is not easy to disobey the tyrant: his reactions are ruthless and cruel; but far worse persecutions were those that Catholics had to suffer over the centuries who found themselves having to face Arianism, iconoclasm, Lutheran heresy, Anglican schism, Cromwell's Puritanism, the Masonic secularism of France and Mexico, Soviet communism, Spain, Cambodia, China ... How many martyred, imprisoned, exiled bishops and priests. How many religious massacred, how many churches desecrated, how many altars destroyed. And all this why? Because the Holy Ministers did not want to give up the most precious treasure that Our Lord has given us: the Holy Mass. The Mass which He taught the Apostles to celebrate, which the Apostles passed on to their Successors, which the Popes have guarded and restored and which has always been at the center of the infernal hatred of the enemies of Christ and the Church.

To think that that Holy Mass, for which the missionaries sent to Protestant lands or the priests prisoners of the gulags risked their lives, is now prohibited by the Holy See is a cause of pain and scandal, as well as an offense to the Martyrs that that Mass have defended until the last breath. But these things can only be understood by those who believe, those who love, those who hope. Only to those who live by God. as well as an offense to the martyrs that that Mass defended to the last breath. But these things can only be understood by those who believe, those who love, those who hope. Only to those who live by God. as well as an offense to the martyrs that that Mass defended to the last breath. But these things can only be understood by those who believe, those who love, those who hope. Only to those who live by God.

Those who limit themselves to expressing reservations or criticisms of Traditionis custodes and the Responsa fall into the trap of the adversary, because they recognize the legitimacy of an illegitimate and invalid law, desired and promulgated to humiliate the Church and its faithful, to spite the "traditionalists" who dare nothing less than to oppose heterodox doctrines condemned up to Vatican II, which it made its own and today become the cipher of the Bergoglian pontificate. Traditionis custodes and Responsa must simply be ignored, returned to the sender. They must be ignored because there is a clear desire to punish Catholics who have remained faithful, to disperse them, to make them disappear.

I am dismayed at the servility of so many Cardinals and Bishops, who to please Bergoglio trample on the rights of God and of the souls entrusted to them and who take credit for showing their aversion to the "pre-conciliar" Liturgy, considering themselves deserving of public commendation and Vatican approval. The Lord's words are addressed to them: "You think yourselves righteous before men, but God knows your hearts: what is exalted among men is detestable before God" (Lk 16:15).

The coherent and courageous response to a tyrannical gesture of the ecclesiastical authority must be resistance and disobedience to an inadmissible order. Resigning oneself to accepting this umpteenth oppression means adding another precedent to the long series of abuses tolerated up to now, and with one's servile obedience making oneself responsible for maintaining a power as an end in itself.

It is necessary that the Bishops, Successors of the Apostles, exercise their own sacred authority, in obedience and fidelity to the Head of the Mystical Body, to put an end to this ecclesiastical coup that took place before our eyes. This is required by the honor of the Papacy, today exposed to discredit and humiliation by the one who occupies the Throne of Peter. The good of souls requires it, whose salvation is the supreme lex of the Church. The glory of God requires it, with respect to which no compromise is tolerable.

The Polish Archbishop Msgr. Jan Paweł Lenga said that it is time for a Catholic counter-revolution if we do not want to see the Church sink under the heresies and vices of mercenaries and traitors. The promise of the Non prævalebunt does not exclude in the least, rather it asks and demands firm and courageous action not only on the part of the Bishops and priests, but also of the laity, who are treated as subjects like never before, despite the fatuous appeals to the actuosa participatio to their role in the Church. Let's take note: clericalism has reached its peak under the "pontificate" of those who hypocritically do nothing but stigmatize it.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Print this item

  Mary the Cause of Our Joy! - November - December 2021
Posted by: Stone - 12-28-2021, 09:44 PM - Forum: Mary, the Cause of Our Joy! - Replies (1)

[Image: Capture.png]


To view in your browser, click HERE. To download, click HERE.

Print this item

  Coventry Carol - For the Feast of the Holy Innocents
Posted by: Stone - 12-28-2021, 11:26 AM - Forum: Christmas - No Replies

A Brief History of the Coventry Carol
Taken from here

The Coventry Carol, surprisingly, is not a Christmas carol at all. It is actually a part of the Feast of the Holy Innocents, celebrated December 28th, commemorating the massacre of the young children of Bethlehem ordered by King Herod in an attempt to eliminate the Messiah. The song is supposed to be rooted in one of the Coventry Corpus Christi plays which was the “Pageant of the Shearmen and Tailors,” (one of a cycle of medieval mystery plays where local people performed theatrical productions based on Bible stories). Basically, this song is a lament, women singing a last lullaby for their murdered children.  It is lovely, sorrowful, and haunting.  Another interpretation has it as Mary’s lament for the future fate of her newborn Son.  It seems a strange song for a festive time, but brings home part of the deeper meaning of the holiday for me.

The origins of the Coventry Carol as we know it are not clear.  The play was performed in the 15th century for Queen Margaret of England in 1456 and for Henry VII in 1492.  It may go back as far as 1392.  The lyrics known today are attributed to Robert Croo 1534 (based on early 19th century copies of a manuscript that was destroyed in 1875), and the music to an unknown composer in 1591.  There are conflicting references for this song, but it is known to have been performed and popular in the 16th century in some form, and are still popular today. 



The Coventry Carol

Lullay, thou little tiny Child,
By-bye lully, lullay.
Lullay, thou little tiny Child,
By-bye lully, lullay.

O sisters too, how may we do
For to preserve this day,
This poor Youngling for whom we sing
By-bye lully, lullay.

Herod the King, in his raging,
Charged he hath this day;
His men of might, in his own sight,
All children young, to slay.

Then woe is me, poor Child, for Thee,
And ever mourn and say;
For Thy parting nor say nor sing,
By-bye lully, lullay.



Print this item