Plea To The Pope

Many thanks to LifeSiteNews for releasing this video presentation.  Here we see several respected Catholic and pro-life leaders throughout the world respectfully yet unambiguously asking the Pope to cease causing scandal and confusion and to live up to his sacred charge.  Several of them also beseech the Pope to withdraw Amoris Laetitia.  With no further ado, here is the full-length "Plea To The Pope".

Another "Tale Of Two Cardinals": Cardinal Nichols Undermines Cardinal Sarah's Call For Reforms At Mass

When I wrote last Wednesday of Cardinal Sarah's call for "reform of the reform", I mentioned that there would most likely be push-back from more liberal prelates.  I didn't realize how quickly that would occur.

First, please read the text of Cardinal Sarah's talk given at the "Sacra Liturgia UK Conference 2016", given in London on July 5.  Almost immediately after that talk was given, Cardinal Nichols, Bishop of Westminster, acted in defiance of the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and instructed his priests to continue facing the congregation during Mass.  This isn't the first time that Cardinal Nichols threw fellow clergy under the bus.  He scolded 500 of his priests when the latter expressed concerns over last autumn's sin-nod.  He also has condoned "gay civil unions".  Therefore, for him to harp about "exercising personal preference or taste" is a tad disingenuous.  The Remnant has a video of some "liturgy guidelines" that the Cardinal seems to find acceptable.

Now what will Nichols do about kneeling for the Consecration?  About 25-30 years ago, I made several trips to England and attended Mass there.  At that time they did NOT kneel for the Consecration.  In fact, many churches lacked kneelers.  He did not mention that in his screed but I suspect there will be little kneeling during the Consecration.

I don't think my own diocese will fare any better.  But if Cardinal Sarah's words are implemented elsewhere, that will be at least some improvement.

Eric Gajewski Interviews Michael Hichborn

Eric Gajewski of TradCatKnight interviewed Michael Hichborn of Lepanto Institute recently.  In the video below, Mike relates how he moved from his former position at American Life League to Lepanto.  He is quite correct in stating that we must work to eliminate the corruption that infests the Church.  I add that includes all corruption, even that which is found in the Vatican.  At the 37:00 mark they begin to discuss the corruption in the Church.  I do suggest listening to the entire thing -and of course, to keep praying the Rosary.

What The Hell Is Going On At Church Militant TV???

Several of us have commented on the Vortex cited in my post yesterday.  We have found our comments removed.  My blogging colleague at Connecticut Catholic Corner is one of them - us.  Please read her account.  My one tiny disagreement with Julie is that I think the behavior of Church Militant personnel - particularly those on the comment page - portend something far more ominous.  Rather than "laugh and let it go" I think some of the stench there needs to be exposed, as many good people are contributing to CM's "premium" program.  They deserve to know what they are supporting.

Before I commence, I'd like to extend an invitation to those others who have also found their comments deleted by the moderator of that page.  You may post your comments here - provided, of course, that they are respectful and in accordance with the Magisterium of the Church.

One hardly knows where to begin so I'll start with the little scolding tossed in my face by the moderator.  If one goes to that comment page, you can find this original posting. (Note - if these pictures are too small, just click on them and larger images will appear in their own windows.)

First, I notice that the moderator has adopted the same condescending attitude towards faithful Catholics evinced on one of the first Vortexes in which Voris castigated his colleagues for questioning the doings and sayings of Pope Francis.  In reading this, one might think their readership is comprised of delicate snowflakes similar to those on college campuses who scurried for "safe places" after seeing Trump's name chalked on sidewalks.

Ironically the condescension is applied to Festus, for for according to the moderator, he wouldn't have "succumbed to the temptation to respond".  Is the moderator saying that Festus does not have the intellectual and spiritual fortitude to control himself?  Well, given what Festus wrote on my last post, I can see from where the moderator draws his/her apprehensions, but that is the responsibility of Festus.  By the way, I don't see any similar scolding directed to Festus.  Does anyone else?


But there are some other comments that make me wonder whether or not Festus might be a CM insider.  Here's one:

Why, oh why, would Festus "have to say that"?  Where does that come from????

Here's another.  As I read this, it appears that Festus speaks rather authoritatively regarding the Download and its features and purposes.  I could very well be incorrect about this, but Festus appears to be quite familiar with the Download; his tone speaks of someone who is "in the know".

As I said earlier, my comments on that vortex were deleted.  Ostensibly what can get comments deleted are if they contain criticisms of the pope.  Apparently that's not the only criteria for deletion.  I can only suppose deletion can happen simply due to the caprices of the moderator.  How else do we explain the following?

Here is a discussion during which Festus trash-talked LifeSiteNews, Voice of the Family, Rorate Caeli.  You'll notice in the middle of this picture a notation advising that a comment was deleted.  It was mine.  I have my deleted comment posted below the discussion.

You'll notice that my comment had no mention whatsoever of the pope.  Therefore it cannot be said that the comment was in anyway critical of the pope.  So why was it removed?  Is it because I called out Festus for his slander of the other sites?  For the record, I believe that LifeSiteNews and Voice of the Family did a yeoman's job of unpacking the messes known as Laudato Si and Amoris Laetetia.  But getting back to why my comment was removed, and not Festus' slanderous one, is it because I rightly rebuked their buddy?

There's more where all that came from, but I don't want this post to get too long.  I'll close this one with a comment that Festus sent to me last evening.  I alluded to it this morning as I replied to what Festus left on my post last evening.  Here it is...
"Is that what you told the Nuncio when he tried to navigate your blog to get the details together?
No, you didn't even do him that courtesy - you just gave in a link to your home page and suggest that he trawl through your blog to find the relevant details. Presumably while doing that he found what you were saying about the Pope. Have you considered tha t perhaps you and your blogger friends might have had something to do with what happened the priest?  As you say it was "after" you and your blogger friends pubished dirt and no doubt publically castigating those who issued an apology to Ms Johnson that more serious charges were raised.  When I do a search on key words blogger does not allow me to control the order in which the posts appear"Do you know what that is? That is a bad workman blaming his tools.  I don't need to discredit you. Your sloppy blog is more than adequate for that job."

Does this sound like a rational person engaging in calm and reasonable discourse or the rantings of someone who has some very serious issues?  But this is the person that the CM Moderator allows to puke all over their comment page while deleting the comments of others offering cogent thoughts (and I reiterate my invitation to them).  I pray that he is not affiliated with Church Militant TV.

As I've said before, I respect CM's right to exercise their own policies in the governance of their apostolate.  However, when they display disrespect for our policies in the governance of our apostolates, then they must be called out.  Whether or not this is the last such post that I'll write is largely up to them.

Why I Will Never Again Sing Anything By David Haas

I was alerted to his problems by Eponymous Flower and Tantumblogo.  The latter had a picture of a facebook entry so I decided to look at Haas' facebook page myself.  Sure enough, it's full of gay-enabling and climate-change shilling crap.  See:

• https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=490613121134796&id=225649324297845  Notice how baby-slaughter isn't in that list of what he calls evils?
• https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=489113547951420&id=225649324297845
• https://www.facebook.com/225649324297845/photos/a.225784670950977.1073741831.225649324297845/483237241872384/?type=3&theater

Given his obvious sympathies for gay perverted sexuality, may we believe that he's the same David Haas who at one time was on the Board of Directors for the Long Island Gay Men's Chorus?

Perhaps some choir directors don't know these details about Haas, although he makes no secret of them on the facebook page.  Perhaps they should do some "due-diligence" work on song authors before they use their pieces and lend credibility to their dissidence and heresies.

Michael Voris - Doubling Down On Denial Of Serious Papal Problems

Generally I've found Michael Voris and his Church Militant TV apostolate to be very informative and helpful through the years - particularly the Vortex series.  Regrettably though, he's evinced denial of the serious problems that Pope Francis continues to pose for the Faith.  When these episodes have presented themselves, I (and others) have seen it necessary to refute them for they are full of logical flaws.  Indeed, it is only the utilization of flawed logic that would cause one to deny evidence that repeatedly presents itself to the public.  If logical fallacies aren't the root causes of the denials, the latter might be engaged at the request of a donor.  It's one or the other; I don't know which.  At any rate, see here, here, here, here, here

As I did in most of those previous posts, I'm going to analyze the lack of logic posed in this Vortex.  I may not necessarily go in the same order as the script of this Vortex.

• In the first paragraph, Voris acknowledges the problematic and even harmful nature of the pope's repeated erroneous remarks.  As he states, a blind person can see the glaring problems.
• In the second paragraph, his train of thought starts to jump the rails.  He talks of this "industry of blasting the pope for his confusing conflicting statements".  Industry?  First, we are kept busy addressing the confusing statements, but that's because they issue from his mouth non-stop (especially when he's aboard planes).  Second, let's be clear that "addressing the confusing statements" is NOT equivalent to "blasting the pope".  I truly believe that a donor is feeding this script to Voris.  Then he talks of a notion that "everything that's wrong in the Church can be solved by the pope".  That's not a correct picture of the papacy at all.  He does have the sacred charge of safeguarding the deposit of faith.  Unfortunately these "conflicting statements" have had the effect of endangering the deposit of faith.  Is it too much to ask that the pope not pose a danger to the faith?

Pope Enables Progressive Bishop To Select Other Heterodox Clerics For Episcopal Ordination

Archbishop Blaise Cupich of Chicago ranks as one of the most progressive (if not heretical) bishops in the United States.  His disdain for Catholic morality is all-too-well known.  To wit:

• As bishop of Spokane Washington he forbade his priests from participating in the 40 Days for Life campaign.
• When the Supreme Court passed a ruling on "gay mowwidge", the statement he uttered was, at best, limp-wristed lip service to marriage.
• He issued a statement claiming that gun control and immigration are equal in importance to baby-slaughter.
• He advocates violations of Canon 915.

Despite all these serious and blatant shortcomings, the pope personally invited him to participate in the sin-nod, where he opined that de facto unrepentant adulterers could receive Holy Communion..  Now it seems that the pope is doubling down on promoting this man to high position in the Church. It was announced today that the pope has named Cupich to the Congregation for Bishops  Yes that is the same committee from which the pope ejected Cardinals Rigali and Burke and also placed Cardinal Wuerl.  LifeSiteNews and Church Militant TV both have additional commentaries.

Ladies and gentlemen, this pope knows what he is doing  He knows very well that Cupich will lobby to have clerics of his own low caliber ordained as bishops.  They will most likely offer poor leadership to their own flocks.

I'm calling upon my willfully naive friends to cease their denial regarding this pope.  Yes, others have made mistakes during their pontificates.  But when "mistakes" happen with alarming frequency, common sense dictates that these "mistakes" are deliberate.

Cardinal Sarah Calls For Ad Orientem And Other Reforms At Mass

Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, called upon bishops around the world to implement several reforms by Advent of this year, e.g., November 27th.  The First Sunday of Advent is the start of a new liturgical year.  See here and here.  The reforms are:

• The priest should face "ad orientem", meaning that he faces the tabernacle instead of the congregation.
• Communicants should kneel for Holy Communion.
• Kneeling at the Consecration.  In most U.S. dioceses, that already happens.  In some countries, like England, the congregation stands for the Canon.
• Curtailing usage of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion

There are others.  The Cardinal states that he is initiating these measures at the request of the pope, for which the latter should be thanked.  If these changes are implemented I think that can only be beneficial to the Church at large.  Two years ago, Cardinal Burke explained that "there is a strict correlation between liturgical abuse and moral corruption".  The Mass is utterly crucial to the Catholic life; we need to worship God properly if we are to secure our own salvation and be effective in the culture wars in which we are now embroiled.

We know, of course, that there will be a concerted "push-back" from liberal and progressive parishes and dioceses.  We must prepare to engage them in battle.  If and how we'll do that remains to be seen.

On-The-Job Deathscort Training - The Art Of Hypocrisy

I present the video below as a public service to all aspiring deathscorts.  While I know that "training" is offered by the Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force, such "training" is sketchy at best when it comes down to what will really be expected of you.  I've published some videos in which deathscorts have been engaged in acts that will be expected of you, training talks notwithstanding.  See here and here.

This past Saturday (July 2) a deathscort chided a pro-life person for "blocking".  The video below shows that the pro-life woman wasn't blocking anyone.  Then the deathscort immediately blocks her, interposing herself between the pro-life woman and the ladies getting out of the car.  Again, that's all on the video below.  She engaged in blocking behavior against the pro-life woman: the same behavior of which she accused the pro-life woman just a moment prior.

Somehow I suspect that those giving the "training" sessions for WACDTF will not broach this little aspect of the deathscort job.  But it exists, as the video (and others) demonstrate.  If any deathscort neophytes are reading this, they just might want to view this a few times.

What Price Are We Willing To Pay To Defend The Faith?

Two days ago an article was published by Sandro Magister indicating that the pope was exploring the possibility of opening Holy Communion to Protestants.  Of course that possibility does not exist unless one is talking of turning a blind eye to sacrilegious Holy Communion.  However since that was explicitly done in Amoris Laetitia (or more accurately, Amoralis Lamentia) in regards to unrepentant adulterers being admitted to Holy Communion, there's no reason to doubt that he just might be mulling that additional sacrilege in his mind.

So what would be next?  Would we see Jewish rabbis with yarmulkes and Buddhist monks in robes in line to receive Holy Communion?  How about Muslim imams?  They did, after all, utter prayers to their false idols in the Vatican gardens.  Perhaps we'll see wiccans and "church of satan" devotees receiving (hopefully not to blaspheme the Host later).  Why not?  It seems like anything goes these days.  Granted many of these would not receive as their own creeds would forbid it, but why would we even welcome the possibility?

Couple this now with an article that was published on the site that I call Crud.  As far as this particular article goes, I've no reason to question its factual accuracy, given other things that have spewed forth from the Vatican lately.  We "ultra-conservatives" and "pelagians" find many causes for concern, as any reader of this (and many other) blogs have noticed during the past few years.  He knows of our concerns for the Faith and the multitude of souls that will languish in hell if they don't receive the fullness of teaching and truth that Jesus literally died to have extended to them.  Yet he is dismissive of them.  That brings me to the points in the next paragraph.

Three months ago I put forth a suggestion that we lay Catholics might need to resist these insults to Our Lord.  I think we need to revisit this matter.  About fourteen years ago some Catholic men organized "ushers of the Eucharist" to physically prevent sacrilegious Holy Communion by gay activists.  I haven't heard from this group since, but I believe this concept bears some exploration and even implementation.  Too many progressives are quite comfortable in putting forth blasphemies and heresies, believing that we are too uncomfortable to confront them.  Only we can end that by stepping out of our comfort zones.  Will there be a price to pay for doing so?  Yes, but that won't be as costly as the price we'll pay if we let the progressives go unchallenged and without resistance.

Now.. Will we have the courage to do so, especially as we know it will be a long and arduous struggle?