Points to Ponder:

Tell General Howard I know his heart. What he told me before, I have it in my heart. I am tired of fighting. Our chiefs are killed; Looking Glass is dead, Too-hul-hul-sote is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say yes or no. He who led on the young men is dead. It is cold, and we have no blankets; the little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are—perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children, to see how many I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever. [Chief Joseph (circa October 5, 1877)]

Seahawks 30 Rams 29: Winners and Losers from a Thursday night classic

If my words did glow with the gold of sunshine

And my tunes were played on the harp unstrung

Would you hear my voice come through the music

Would you hold it near as it were your own?

It's a hand-me-down, the thoughts are broken

Perhaps they're better left unsung

I don't know, don't really care

Let there be songs to fill the air

Ripple in still water

When there is no pebble tossed

Nor wind to blow

Reach out your hand if your cup be empty

If your cup is full may it be again

Let it be known there is a fountain

That was not made by the hands of men

There is a road, no simple highway

Between the dawn and the dark of night

And if you go no one may follow

That path is for your steps alone

Ripple in still water

When there is no pebble tossed

Nor wind to blow

You who choose to lead must follow

But if you fall you fall alone

If you should stand then who's to guide you?

If I knew the way I would take you home.

[Robert Hunter]

Media, the Left Have Pushed Trump Impeachment for 35 Months, Even Before Inauguration

I am not a fan of Mr. Trump as most everyone who has followed my stuff in various mediums online for a few years well knows. However, I also do not take this latest so-called "whistleblower" thing even remotely seriously either.

Why? Because these same clowns have been trying to push impeachment since before Mr. Trump was even sworn in. It was even being discussed on news networks before the Electoral College met to cast its votes. And there has been one attempted scam after another since November 9, 2016 undertaken by whining brats unable to accept the results of an election they did not like. It is why when (not if) the latest ploy blows up in their faces, I will laugh at them.

Mr. Trump is in many respects pathetic yes. But his opposition makes him look somewhat palatable by comparison. It did not have to be that way of course as Mr. Trump is an inherently vulnerable incumbent. But to beat him would require  both moderation as well as sanity: two traits nearly non-existent on the Democratic side right now. But I digress.

Cigar Thoughts, Game 4: Seahawks swoop into Cardinals’ nest, eat their worms, steal their eggs

In the attics of my life
Full of cloudy dreams; unreal
Full of tastes no tongue can know
And lights no eye can see

When there was no ear to hear
You sang to me

I have spent my life
Seeking all that's still unsung
Bent my ear to hear the tune
And closed my eyes to see

When there were no strings to play

You played to me

In the book of love's own dreams
Where all the print is blood
Where all the pages are my days
And all my lights grow old

When I had no wings to fly
You flew to me
You flew to me

In the secret space of dreams
Where I dreaming lay amazed
When the secrets all are told
And the petals all unfold

When there was no dream of mine
You dreamed of me. You dreamed of me.
[Robert Hunter]

A pistol shot at five o'clock
The bells of heaven ring
Tell me what you done it for
No I won't tell you a thing

Yesterday I begged you
Before I hit the ground
All I leave behind me
Is only what I found

If you can abide it
Let the hurdy gurdy play
Stranger ones have come by here
Before they flew away

I will not condemn you
Nor yet would I deny
I would ask the same of you
But failing, will not die

Take up your china doll
It's only fractured
And a little nervous from the fall
La la la la la la la. 
[Robert Hunter]

Democrats’ double standard on Ukraine

I seriously do not know about the whole Trump and Ukraine thing but I will say this: when the accusing side engages in the same thing themselves that they now are squawking about impeachment on, I cannot take them seriously for a moment no matter what I think of Trump!

Robert Hunter, Grateful Dead Collaborator and Lyricist, Dead at 78

"Fare you well, my honey, fare you well my only true one.
All the birds that were singing are flown, except you alone.

Going to leave this brokedown palace,
On my hand and my knees, I will roll, roll, roll.
Make myself a bed by the waterside,
In my time, in my time, I will roll, roll roll.

In a bed, in a bed, by the waterside I will lay my head.
Listen to the river sing sweet songs, to rock my soul..."

#RestInPeace

Seahawks' DK Metcalf is the big receiver Pete Carroll always wanted

For those who need an update on these things, the Democratic Presidential field is down to 19 candidates now. Here is a brief list of those who have dropped out so far:

Richard Ojeda (January 25, 2019)
Eric Swalwell (July 8, 2019)
Mike Gravel (August 6, 2019)
John Hinckenlooper (August 15, 2019)
Jay Inslee (August 21, 2019)
Seth Moulton (August 23, 2019)
Kirsten Gillibrand (August 28, 2019)
Bill de Blasio (September 20, 2019)

Pope Francis Addresses Criticism of His Pontificate and Discusses ‘Schism

Points to Ponder:

How beautifully leaves grow old. How full of light and color are their last days. [John Burrows]

Briefly on Sola Traditio and the Magisterium:

As I have seen variations of this problem over the years in various formats and contexts, I am posting here something written by yours truly as a recent response to certain misunderstandings and troubling methods of interpretation posted to the social media site of someone who dabbles in what some call traditionalism.

With all due respect, I do not see how in the above collection of quotes you are not engaging in a form of Sola Traditio whereby you purport to judge what is and is not Tradition or what is or is not properly speaking magisterial in the same way Protestants do with the Bible and Sola Scriptura.

We are supposed to believe the Bible is as St. Peter said "containing many things difficult to understand which the unlearned and unstable wrest to their own destruction" (cf. 2 Peter 1:20ff) but magisterial texts in isolation can be easily understood and do not have the same pitfalls for those who are themselves unlearned in such things as general norms of theological interpretation, understanding historical context, etc? And of course the self-proclaimed "conservatives", "traditionalists", etc are never admitting of their own unlearnedness and instability on these matters!

As for as the "novelty is our out" claim, you then have to explain how a purported "novelty" becomes sufficiently established to no longer be considered such as virtually everything you now consider Traditional or otherwise immutable was at one point in time a novelty. In short, you need a better standard than merely what is and is not a purported "novelty." You would also do well to remember the following words from Pope Leo XIII:

"[I]t is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them."

You also focus far too much on what is infallible and non-infallible. Apart from the fact that most Catholics do not understand well the subject of infallibility, "non-infallible does not ipso facto mean "containing errors." If your criteria of what requires assent of any form is what is or is not "infallible", then you run afoul of magisterial teaching on what is and is not requiring of assent.

There are recognized ways to approach areas of difficulty but I see none of them emphasized in what you write above.

Points to Ponder:

Autumn is a second spring when every leaf is a flower. [Albert Camus]

Seahawks defense the lone traditionalist in Week 1

On the Society of St. Pius X, Their Status, Diplomacy, Etc.:

My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...

So let me make sure I have this right:

1) You are critical of Pope Francis for supposedly saying he is not afraid of a schism in the Church.

But

2) You are often lionizing the schismatic Lefebvre on your page.

Sounds like you are trying to have it both ways.

supposedly saying? He said it. Its not even a question. Francis and benedict were clear that Lefebvre wasnt schismatic.

I noticed that you neglected to mention Pope St. John Paul II who explicitly declared in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre committed a schismatic act on June 30, 1988: a stance confirmed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in July of 1988 in an address to the bishops of Chile where he explicitly referred to "the schism of Lefebvre." Archbishop Lefebvre died in 1991 and Pope Benedict XVI never reversed the position he took as Cardinal Ratzinger. Pope Francis has not said anything about Lefebvre.

no...it was an objectively schematic act...sure...since 2000 rome has said the schismatic act did not equal a formal schism...successive heads of ED said that...people representing francis said it when visiting sspx...etc...its a 20 year long gone idea that there was a schism...there was a tense situation...distance even...great...im distant from the germans...distance happens...no one knows where the chips have fallen until the dust settles...for 20 years rome has ceased to call it a schism...

Nice try but this does not fly. The idea that just because for diplomatic reasons Rome through the Ecclesia Dei has not referred to them as schismatic does not mean that they are not (and that Lefebvre was not). Case in point: the reconciliation of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer. They were formed in 1987 and actually approached Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 for his blessing (which he gave). When Lefebvre went off the rails in 1988, the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer followed him. After nearly two decades in the ecclesial wilderness, in 2007, they took the occasion of the issuing of the Motu Proprio Summorem Pontificum to approach Pope Benedict XVI for reconciliation and after a process he accepted. Upon returning to full ecclesial communion, the very document regularizing them in the official text mentions the ending of their "schismatic state."

It is not unusual for diplomatic or tactical reasons to soft pedal the language in many respects but in circumstances like this, it is stated more bluntly. For example, when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Mueller explained it as follows:

"The canonical excommunication of the bishops for their illegal ordinations was revoked, but a de facto sacramental excommunication remains for their schism; they put themselves out of communion with the Church. After that we are not closing the door and never will, but we are inviting them to be reconciled. But they too must change their attitude, accept the conditions of the Catholic Church, and the Supreme Pontiff as the definitive criterion for membership." [Cardinal Gerhard Mueller: Interview with Corriere della Sera (circa December 22, 2013)]

Or if that is not recent enough for you, consider this statement from the former head of the Vatican Apostolic Signatura as recently as 2017:

"[D]espite the various arguments surrounding the question, the fact of the matter is that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X is in schism since the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff. 

And so it is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that’s under the direction of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X. Having said that, we, part of the kind of general confusion in the Church has also entered into this question because the Holy Father has given the priests of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X faculties to celebrate validly marriages, licitly and validly. But there is no canonical explanation for it, and it is simply an anomaly. 

And, also Pope Benedict XVI, before his abdication, he lifted the excommunication of the four bishops who were ordained without the papal mandate, but, he, they hadn’t, the requirement for having an excommunication lifted is that a person has withdrawn from his contumacy and now desires to be fully reconciled with the Church but in fact that hasn’t happened, and so that’s another bit of an anomalous situation 

They’re no longer excommunicated, but they’re also not in regular communion with the Catholic Church. 

And so the whole thing is very complicated, but I would say to you that, I don’t think it’s a good sign to receive sacraments in the Priestly Society of St. Pius X because that’s not helping them to, first of all, the sacraments are not celebrated licitly. They’re valid, there’s no question about it if the priests are validly ordained, but it’s not a, it’s a countersign to the communion of the Church. Instead we should be encouraging the members of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X to be reconciled with the Church." [Cardinal Raymond Burke: Sacred Liturgy Conference in Medford, Oregon Q&A Session (circa July 15, 2017)]

With all due respect, I would advise you not to not engage in cafeteria style picking and choosing in these areas based on your personal whims or inclinations. Otherwise you are doing nothing different than the Protestants.

Briefly on Pope Francis, Handling Difficulties, Principles of Dialogue, Etc:

My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...

no one ever knows what the Pope is saying

Actually, I have as a rule not found it difficult to figure out either what the Pope is saying or how it coheres within the broader Catholic tradition. The good priest would do well to remember these words from Donum Veritatis -though directed towards theologians, the words of this Instruction are no less important for regular layfolk as well (all emphasis is mine):

"...If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments. 

In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth..."

"Donum Veritatis" is referring to legitimate disagreement with official (but undogmatic) Church teaching, not to public correction of heretical or otherwise destructive hierarchs, particularly those with diarrhea of the mouth who have already, and on numerous occasions, obstinately refused to entertain private corrections, or private invitations to clarification and self-correction.

XXXXXX while speaking of their willingness to dialogue lol

You cannot publicly trash your perceived enemies -- particularly when the enemies in question are orthodox Catholics and objectively innocent of wrong-doing -- and then demand that any and all retort must be made privately

Donum Veritatis is a text outlining the ecclesial vocation of the theologian. The principles involved in the Instruction however apply across the board as there are not more restrictions on these matters applied to theologians whereas the much more ignorant (as a rule) laity are given carte blanche to kvetch and whine publicly about every little matter. There is an acceptable and unacceptable manner for dealing with teachings as well as prudential interventions. Unfortunately, not a few Catholics who loudly proclaim themselves "orthodox" and/or "traditional" far too often run afoul in these areas and are as stubborn about being corrected here as they are in certain unorthodox positions they espouse. If their attitude was more humble and sincere, it would be a different story but alas the latter are the exception in More Orthodox Than Thou circles, not the rule. (At least online anyway.)

As far as "publicly trash[ing] perceived enemies", so-called "traditionalists" do so online all the time. So much so that it is extremely difficult oftentimes to separate this attitude from any potential points of value they might on occasion make. And the orthodoxy of many (thankfully not all) of them can very easily be questioned, particularly when they ignore general principles of traditional Catholic spiritual instruction while simultaneously claiming to be Traditional. Actions after all speak louder than words.

As for "willingness to dialogue", the latter presupposes by its very nature "the good will of both parties to the dialogue" (cf. Ecclesiam Suam 81,3). Sadly, a lot of folks have shown publicly and objectively that they lack such good will; ergo, they by their actions and statements forfeit this general courtesy.

Points to Ponder:

"[I]f we are just accidental, if this life is all there is, if there is no eternal standard of right and wrong, then all that matters is power. And atheism leads to brutality...it flows very naturally from an idea that there is no judgment and there is nothing other than the brief time we spend on this Earth." [Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (circa December 24, 2009)]

Cigar Thoughts, Game 1: Seahawks grind out opening day win against feisty Bengals