Varying Opinions Of Lenten Fasting

I think that many of us are all too aware of the "dumbing down" of various Church disciplines, including those called fasting and abstinence.  When I made my First Holy Communion, the Vatican II council was still in session.  That means that the Sacraments and various disciplines were still "pre-Vatican II".

We were required to fast for three hours before Holy Communion.  As I was a small child, I was exempt from the stricter Lenten fast.  Fish on Fridays was always the norm, however.  Vatican II and its misapplications began to be made manifest while I was twelve years old, so I was never obliged to engage in the strict Lenten fast.

That was also the time when there was much upheaval and "dumbing down".  I won't rehearse them all, but suffice it to say that when I rediscovered Church patrimony, I was by far not alone in lamenting the de facto disappearance of ascetical discipline.  That lamentation, however, came with its own spiritual perils.  Quite a few traditionalists, in their zeal for restoring Church disciplines, seem to make it a point of pride - and I do mean "pride" in the harmful sense of the word - to pursue rigor and to chide others for not conforming to their particular standards.  In other words, sometimes the pendulum swings too much in the opposite direction.

A year or two ago, a well-known podcaster, during Holy Week, announced that he was going on a "black fast" for Holy Saturday.  That is, he would eat no solid food nor take liquid nourishment.  Then he challenged his listeners to do the same, to "not be wimps".  Hmmm... Isn't that interesting, in light of today's Gospel, where Jesus exhorted His followers to fast and not to make their fasting manifest?  Since when did a fast become an occasion for swaggering bravado?

Today, Ann Barnhardt, whom I do hold in respect, published an unfortunate piece regarding fasting.  It is actually factually inaccurate.  She states that "fasting means to not eat any food whatsoever".  That's not how the Church has defined it - and I'm talking about the Church's definition for the past several hundred years, not just since Vatican II.

I am now going to post links to other sites so that I don't have to "reinvent the wheel", as it were.

• https://voxluci.com/catholic-fasting-rules-then-vs-now/ 
• https://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2022/02/history-of-lenten-fasting-how-to.html 
• https://fatima.org/news-views/pasting-part-7-fasting-in-the-1900s-pre-vatican-ii/ 

Only for a short while was Ash Wednesday taken to be a day of total fast.  The typical fast day in Lent was a meal after Vespers was prayed, with two smaller snacks (not summing to the regular meal) were permitted.  No warm-blooded meats were to be consumed.  The fast was binding on adults between the ages of 21 to 59 years, while abstinence bound those from 14 on up.

One might have certain convictions about their need to observe a more rigorous fast.  That's fine.  However, we dare not imagine that our convictions are somehow binding upon other Catholics.

Of Papal Resignations And Depositions

The seemingly non-stop insults to Tradition coming from Pope Francis have led to much discussion regarding the possibility of deposing a sitting pope and, in this case, whether or not Benedict XVI's resignation was valid.  Below are two videos.  The first is a discussion between Taylor Marshall and Eric Sammons regarding the possibility of deposing a pope.  As you listen, pay close attention at the 6:04 mark, when Sammons says, "there's only been one pope at a time; never has there been a case of two popes at a time."

That dovetails into Ann Barnhardt's video, in which she makes a case, from canon law, that the "resignation" proffered by Pope Benedict XVI was invalid.  That being the case, Benedict is still pope and Jorge Bergoglio never has been.  These videos are long, but they are well worth the investment of time to consider.  You may agree or disagree with what these individuals say, but they raise questions that all faithful Catholics must ponder for we are indeed living in treacherous times, and much of that treachery comes from Church leadership.  Now the videos...

Church Militant! Stand With The Four Cardinals!

Randy Engels, who wrote "Rite of Sodomy", one of the first books to expose the gay infestation within the Catholic Church, issued an open letter to Pope Francis on the occasion of the filth that poured from his mouth during that interview a few days ago.  Here it is at it is published at Renew America.  When the pope uttered almost identical bile three years ago, she had written a letter then.  My one disagreement with Ms. Engels is that the pope wasn't only referring to "false news", but "nasty things, even if they're true".  As we know, "nasty" is a term ascribed by subjective judgment/feeling, not by the merits of objective truth.  In other words, the pope was slandering all of us who seek to shine the light on his attempts to undermine Holy Mother Church.  Did he feel the need to trot out that vile insult in a lame attempt to discredit those of us who are shining the light on Amoralis Lamentia and the de facto schism that is becoming more and more apparent?

Perhaps, as Ms. Engel suggested, he was actively trying to desensitize Catholics to the sinfulness of various perversions in order to make things like Amoralis Lamentia more palatable.  Let's look at the title of that document itself - Amoris Laetitia.  Some have criticized my coined term for the document, but perhaps the actual name is problematic itself.  Blogger Ann Barnhardt has issued her own commentary about the papal vulgarity and noted that a Latin definition of "amoris" is sodomy.  I googled it myself and sure enough, it is one of the translations of "amoris".  Yes, it's only one of five definitions, but might we be looking at some deliberate "double entendre" here?  Given past history, I'd say that's a reasonable possibility.

Meanwhile more faithful Catholics are openly protesting Amoralis Lamentia.  Two leading Catholic philosophers, Germain Grisez and John Finnis, issued a 37-page letter to Pope Francis, asking him to condemn some errors that they believe could arise from Amoralis Lamentia.  (The link to the letter on the First Things article is broken.  Go here and download it in case it "disappears")

Yesterday I mentioned a meeting that Bishop Schneider chaired, regarding the AL mess.   He gave a talk at that meeting.  He detailed times throughout history when prelates either defended God's teaching against man's sinful fancies (such as St John Fisher standing against Henry VIII) or when they capitulated to public demand (Aaron the first Jewish high priest making the golden calf).

Now let's look at another aspect through the lens of Our Lady of Akita.  The message of that apparition is quite similar to that given by Our Lady of Fatima, namely, that if there isn't repentance, God will chastise the earth.   Two phrases from Our Lady's message of Oct 13 come to mind.  First, cardinals and bishops will be opposing each other.  Given Archbishop Pinto's rebuke of the four cardinals (apparently at Pope Francis' behest) and Cardinal Tobin's attack on Archbishop Chaput, we see that prophesy playing out before our very eyes.  Another piece of the prophesy that is unfolding as I write this is "the Church will be full of those who accept compromises".  Indeed, the upper eschelons of Church hierarchy seem to be dominated by those who work to undermine her mission to save souls.  Getting back to Fatima, Sister Lucia dos Santos predicted that the "final battle between Christ and Satan will be about marriage and the family."

No one with at least one functioning eye ball in their skull can deny that all these events are happening as we breathe.  What must we do?  First, we remember that we are part of the Church Militant.  We're not the "church mellow", not the "church meely-mouth", not the "church mediocre".  Each and every one of us is called to step out of his/her own insular existence and take up the fight.  It means doing precisely what Our Lord commanded as He communicated through His Mother at Fatima and Akita.  We must also take our public stances - each and every one of us - alongside the four cardinals to demand that the teachings of Jesus Christ be upheld in our Church.

Some Others Weigh In On Father Guarnizo's Situation

Newsbusters takes an understandably dim view of the lack of research done by the Washington Post before they published Barbara Johnson's sob-story account of the events of February 25th.  Read Tim Graham's article here.

Then we have this piece by Ann Barnhardt (you may need to scroll down to March 4, 2012).  I've come to appreciate her no-nonsense way of stating things.  Then we have Matt Abbott of Renew America writing of "A Lesbian's Wrath".

Now read this about "Fall Guy Priests".  This tells the stories of good priests who've been back-stabbed by their bishops/superiors, etc.  Herein we read of Father Guarnizo, Father Michael Rodriguez and others.

To the trolls of the Archdiocese of Washington - Please read these articles closely.  Take them back to the Cardinal.  Please advise him that we are not buying the partisan line that Father Guarnizo "acted inappropriately".  The chancery needs to take some lessons from Father Guarnizo, not vice versa.

Ann Barnhardt On Mitt Romney

I like this lady!  She's right - the RINO establishment does seem intent on foisting Romney on us.  However, we don't have to let it happen!  Click here if you cannot see embedded video.

Catholic Standard's Attempt At "Guilting" Us

In today's Catholic Standard (page 4 of the print edition) we read "Anti-Muslim Sentiment: Catholics Say It Reminds Them of Own Experience".  I linked to the online version as it appears in Catholic News Service because it does not appear on the Catholic Standard's page (at least I couldn't locate it).  I've a number of problems with this article.

First we hear of testimony from such "stellar" Catholics like Richard Durbin and Patrick Leahy.  Both these men have spent their political careers advancing positions in direct opposition to the Catholic faith: legalized baby-murder, promotion of gay lifestyles, perversion of marriage.  Whatever "experience" they're relating, it isn't authentically Catholic.
There is in this article much ballyhoo about "persecution" and "violence", but no specific examples are given.  Are the details being kept nebulous for a reason - such as "they don't exist to a relevant degree"?  However there is just the slightest hint of an agenda from Thomas Perez, when he alleged "instances of religious intolerance in the workplace, harassment of school students, threats of violence, disputes over Mosques and other actions of bigotry in the past decade."     

BINGO!!

Is this an attempt to get good people to simply shut up about the Ground Zero Mosque?  Much has been written about the folly of that proposed mosque.  I needn't rehash that here.

Let's be honest about something else.  There is no doubt that Muslims, just like anyone else, deserve the respect and dignity due to any human being, simply because they are created in the image and likeness of God, who wants their salvation as much as anyone else's.  However, while all people  are created equal in God's eyes, the same cannot be said for religions and other subordinate ideologies.  Some are clearly dangerous - as is Islam.  It is the willfully (and thus sinfully) naive that insists that all faiths are equal.  That's called indifferentism, folks.  That's a heresy.  On the right sidebar are links detailing the dangers of Islam; some of those are created by former Muslims (at great risk to their own lives, I might add).

Yesterday I posted  Ann Barnhardt's video.  Please watch it.  Notice that as she tears out a page, she quotes from that page Islamic passages that justify rape, pedophilia, beheadings and other manners of violence.  Actually, "justify" isn't the right verb; what would be more accurate is "command".  Some might take umbrage to her tactic; this is probably a matter about which good people - even good Catholics - can disagree.  For an interesting treatise on the matter, read this blog article.

Ann Barnhardt Tells It Like It Is!

Don't you wish our bishops had half of her courage?  She is a Catholic (note her correct use of the term "Church Militant") who is not going to be complicit in the politically-correct boot-licking in which Lindsey Graham is engaging.  Hear him, in this clip, say that "freedom of speech is a great idea, but.."   Click here if you can't see embedded video.



No, Senator!  Freedom of speech is more than a "great idea".  It's an integral part of the United States Constitution.  You do remember what that is, right?  Do you remember your oath of office to uphold the United States Constitution?   Try to understand that "uphold" and "subvert" are not synonyms!

Let me ask this question.  When is the last time you heard of Christians running amok when Bibles were burned?  When is the last time that Catholics went on looting and murdering sprees when the Eucharist was desecrated or the Blessed Mother's pictures were profaned?  I haven't heard, either.  So why is it that when the Qu'ran is burned, that we expect the jihadists to wet their pants and go on killing sprees?  Where are the so-called "moderate" Muslims on this?  Why aren't they condemning their more violent members?

Watch Ms. Barnhardt here.  Click here if you can't see embedded video.