Briefly on "Traditionalist Critiques":

This is in response to the following statement which was seen on social media earlier in the year.

[T]here are...quasi- or semi- or crypto-trads, people who intellectually or emotionally agree with traditionalist critiques of the modern situation, but for one reason or another stick it out in the novus ordo paradigm

Virtually all traditionalist critiques are facile and ignore underlying causes in favour of focusing on symptoms. They also usually manifest a shocking degree of spiritual immaturity and ignorance of traditional Catholic spiritual principles in practice even if some may know of them in theory.

There are exactly two (and only two) strong arguments from the traditionalist camp and they rarely focus on either as much as they should. Those arguments involve aesthetics: the two chief weaknesses of the ordinary form contingent as a rule. The first is church architecture. The second is church music. If trads spent most of their time developing those areas and not wasting time on subjective nonsense, they would get further with most folks than they usually do. Well that and ceasing the spiritually immature bile{1} that tends if unchecked to propagate their enclaves over time of course.

Note:

{1} I agree with you that the concern that animates their positions is important. However, a lot of it is simply a lack of spiritual maturity on their side -something I made note of in many of my writings... [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa May 7, 2004) as cited in a Rerum Novarum Vault Posting (circa July 18, 2018)]

Points to Ponder:

There has never been a statue erected to honor a critic. [Zig Ziglar]

On the Inexorable Path of the Intransigent Traditionalist:

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

This is pretty straightforward...he...Cardinal Burke...bishop Schneider...Cardinal Brandmueller and others need to sit down and write a serious plan on how to go forward and then submit it to Francis...and if he won’t listen, to his successor...

In other words they would appeal "from a pope ill informed to a pope better informed"?

absolutely. Its clear Benedict felt it was manipulated. Francis might not. He's clearly wrong if he doesn't think it was. A successor not formed during and right after would likely agree.

You do realize you have just sided with Fr. Martin Luther against Pope Leo X right? (I used the words of Luther's appeal against Leo nearly verbatim.)

You would do well to think long and hard about this and not just delete my follow up and pretend it did not happen. This is how schism is cultivated my friend. Seriously.

When doing a quick archival search for something I had previously stated, I discovered the posting it was in had a number of formatting glitches that somehow was overlooked in the compositional and revision stages prior to final publication.

I took a few minutes and did a quick scan and made about a dozen fixes to the text. Most of them were minor but annoying oversights but three were more significant including two bits of discoloured font that got missed in reformatting including half of a paragraph long footnote. I also discovered a uniformity glitch in my footnotes so I changed one word to fix it.

Anyway, all these changes have been published and here is the new hopefully fully deglitched version of a piece I believe is among the most (if not the most) important I have done in two decades plus of web writings.{1} Without further ado...

On the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, Obedience, and the Requirements of Faithful Catholics (circa February 26, 2020)

Note:

{1} The above piece of writing is one that is so significant that it pre-emptively beget three prefatory spinoff pieces composed of material edited out of the piece during revisions (but linked to it in various places later on) as well as a subsequent clarification and retraction piece. The latter can be read here:

On Clarifying and Retracting Some Prior Statements on the Magisterium (circa March 8, 2020)

The most significant of three former pieces can be read here:

On Magisterial Interpretation (circa January 4, 2020)

Points to Ponder:

Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness. [James Wilson]

Roberts Isn’t a Liberal. He’s a Perfectionist Who Wants to Win

This is a response to the following posting. My words are in regular font.

Shawn, a fine is not a tax.

You are forgetting a few things. For example, that if the court is asked to decide between two possible readings and one of those readings will save an statute from unconstitutionality, they will as a rule go with the one that saves the statute. This principle of American constitutional law goes back explicitly to at least the days of Joseph Story who sat on the Marshall Court and who wrote in one of his decisions that "[n]o court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution."{1} Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes made the same point a century later writing "the rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act."{2} For "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality."{3} None of this is new.

As for your claim a fine is not a tax, you obviously are not familiar with The Child Labour Cases most notably Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co{4} where the Court determined that a purported tax levied by the statute was actually a penalty disguised as a tax. Also applicable here is the License Tax Cases{5} where the Court held that fees assessed by federal licencees for selling lottery and alcohol products were permissible under the federal taxing power despite their classification as a "fee."{6} And in New York v. United States (1992), the Court upheld as a tax something referred to not as a tax but instead as a "surcharge." For as the Court explained in the syllabus of yet another case, "[a]n exaction which in reality is a penalty cannot be converted into a tax by so naming it; its purpose and operation determine its character."{7}

In other words, your simplistic unsubstantiated assertion does not stand.

Notes:

{1} Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448–449 (1830)

{2} Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927)

{3} Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895)

{4} Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20 (1922)

{5} License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 5 Wall. 462 462 (1866)

{6} Which is in essence what you are claiming above.

{7} United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935)

On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:

This is a further response on social media to the following material:

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform

The first installments in this series can be read HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. My words will be in regular font.

I think doing away with qualified immunity makes cops prey to ambulance chasing lawyers. They don’t need to have evidence to begin a lawsuit and bankrupt cops who don’t make a whole lot of money to begin with. If there is clear evidence of misconduct, that’s another thing.

Besides, is this something Congress ought to be focusing a lot of energy on? Where’s the evidence of systemic police brutality and abuse?

On qualified immunity...

Qualified immunity hinders the protection of civil rights in a number of ways: 

1. First and foremost, qualified immunity means that victims of brutality or harassment by law enforcement generally get no relief in court and have no ability to hold offending officers accountable for their actions. That means the officers who commit the brutality and harassment—and the governments that employ them—have little incentive to improve their practices and follow the law. This undermines safety and justice for everyone, and particularly for people of color or vulnerable people who are most likely to be the target of police misconduct. 

2. Qualified immunity doesn’t just reduce a person’s chance for victory in a civil rights lawsuit; it means many claims will never be brought to court in the first place. As part of a civil rights law passed in 1976, Congress tried to create an incentive for lawyers to represent victims in civil rights actions and ensure that constitutional rights are safeguarded. To do so, Congress guaranteed that lawyers who represent victims in successful civil rights actions would be able to recover the cost of their time. A huge number of lawyers who bring civil rights actions rely on this law or on the possibility of contingency fees in the event they succeed. 

But when a case is dismissed based on qualified immunity, the victim loses and attorneys are not able to recover the fees for their work. Thus, as a result of the Supreme Court’s aggressive defense of qualified immunity, victims of civil rights violations may be less likely to find a lawyer who is willing to represent them and suits will not be brought in the first place. 

3. Qualified immunity freezes constitutional law. As mentioned previously, in order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, a victim must show that law enforcement violated “clearly established” law by pointing to a case arising in the same context and involving the same conduct. This has given courts a shortcut to resolving cases: Instead of reviewing, analyzing, and applying constitutional doctrine to determine whether a person’s rights were violated, a court can instead simply say that there has been no sufficiently similar case in the past. The result is that fewer courts ever resolve constitutional issues, and constitutional rights are hardly ever “clearly established.”
This shortcut has led to some outrageous results. In an opinion filed in March 2019, for instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that officers were immune from liability for the deliberate stealing of property simply because there was no “clearly established” case law governing the circumstances. In that case, police officers who had executed a search warrant seized about $275,000 in property: approximately $150,000 in cash, and another $125,000 in rare coins, but stated that they had seized only $50,000. In other words, the officers attempted to steal $225,000 while on the job. 

The Ninth Circuit dismissed the lawsuit against the officers, granting qualified immunity because it had “never before addressed” whether officers executing a warrant could steal property. And, according to the court, it was not sufficiently “obvious” to police officers that stealing property under the guise of executing a search warrant violated an individual’s constitutional rights. As a result, the Ninth Circuit said that it “need not” even address whether the officers’ stealing was illegal. 

This example should show the degree to which qualified immunity opens the door for wrongdoing on the part of law enforcement. No reasonable officer needs a case to tell them that stealing property is wrong. But it’s worse than that. Because the court did not say that the conduct was illegal, the law is still not clearly established that officers may not deliberately steal property when exercising a search. So an officer could, again, claim immunity for the same behavior. 

As Fifth Circuit Judge Don Willett described this phenomenon: Victims of abuse “must produce precedent even as fewer courts are producing precedent. Important constitutional questions go unanswered precisely because those questions are yet unanswered. Courts then rely on that judicial silence to conclude there’s no equivalent case on the books. No precedent = no clearly established law = no liability.” In other words, Judge Willett said, “Heads defendants win, tails plaintiffs lose.” [LINK]

‘I’m Tired of Being the Help’

Points to Ponder:

Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. [Jaroslav Pelikan]

On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:

This is a further response on social media to the following material:

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform

The first installments in this series can be read HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. My words will be in regular font

Shawn, oh, and by the way, I think cops who commit crimes should be themselves

Then what was your objection to the original status?

Shawn, I didn’t make an objection to your original status per se, although I don’t know if I would be 100% onboard with 3every point. Nor do I believe this should be federal issue. States and cities should make those calls.]

You do realize that these are all areas that were aggravated by federal legislation and federal courts right? It makes it very tough to have states and cities make the calls when the feds overrule it anyway. But that is neither here nor there.

Of the seven points listed, which ones do you have a problem with and why?

On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:

This is a further response on social media to the following material:

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform

The first installments in this series can be read HERE, HERE, and HERE. My words will be in regular font.

Apples and oranges? “unelected tin badge wearing authoritah jackoff”

Boy, your cop hatred is as obsessive as I suspected.

When you do not blow cops and place them on an untouchable pedestal, you have a more realist and less fairytale view.

Briefly on Pope Francis and Traditional Spiritual Instruction:

My words will be in regular font.

he’s repeatedly used words that lend one to think he believes in impanation or consubstantiation..

Only if you presume what he is saying must be unorthodox because he does not use specific words you want him to use or because your judgment is formed by an presuppositional inclination against him. St. Francis de Sales counseled against "people whose judgment is solely formed by inclination; who always think well of those they like, and ill of those they dislike." This principle applies to the words and actions of others. As Fr. Quadrupani noted in an eighteenth century spiritual instruction to devout souls referencing St Francis de Sales:

"Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable one will just as certainly choose the worst." 

This principle also made it into the CCC in the section on the eighth commandment and violations thereof (CCC 2478).

can you find similar words before 1965?

It would not matter if I could or could not. But if you want words "prior to 1965" for some arbitrary reason, the words of Quadrupani are from 1795 and the words of de Sales are from 1619.

On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:

This is a further response on social media to the following material:

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform

The first installments in this series can be read HERE and HERE. My words will be in regular font.

Shawn, wait a second. You gonna tell me that the assassination of a president, governor, or mayor is not going to be more vigorously prosecuted than a drive-by shooting?

Apples and oranges. There is a qualitative difference between a democratically elected chief executive and some unelected tin badge wearing authoritah jackoff.

Same principle applies, albeit to a lesser extent, to law enforcement for the simple reason that these occupations represent security beyond just themselves.

Geez, the photo from earlier was more on point with you than I thought.

7 Times John Roberts Was A Leftist Hack

Briefly...

1) The clownservatard right were the ones engaging in judicial activism by refusing to sever the mandate in NFIB v Sebilius and instead pretending it could not be severed (which was a lie) all so they could try and strike down an entire statute. This was blatant judicial activism of the sort clownservatards claimed they abhorred. Except it is not true. Because when supposed "conservatives" think they can get away with it, they will curb kick all that talk about originalism and judicial restraint. Hypocrites.

2) This was a basic move of the sort the court often does when there is a case in the pipeline on the same matter awaiting a lower court ruling. That the author sought to use it as one of her examples shows she is really straining to build her list.

3) Now she is bitching about a Roberts' concurrence in a 9-0 court case? Sad and pathetic reaching yet again.

4) The decision here actually was a proper utilization of the Administrative Practices Act. Wilbur Ross' agency screwed up by giving a less than reasonable reason for the addition so it was an example of doing the right thing for the wrong stated reasons. For those who do not give a damn about procedure and only want their chosen end result, they will of course not care.

5) So one complaint she had is during the President Trump impeachment trial, the presiding chief justice refused to engage in right wing political bullshit preferring to focus on the real issue at hand? Yeah, that is such hackery whereas nothing Rand Paul was doing was grandstanding hackish bs? Bitch, please.

6) Gorsuch wrote the opinion and Roberts is being blamed for this one? Boy are we desperate now.

7) Ok, finally we get a legitimate gripe rather than political hackery. What one president puts in place with pure executive authority should be just as easily be removed by another president. So yeah, Roberts blew it on this one.

So of her seven examples, only one really holds water.

We must always put the best construction that we can upon what we see our neighbour do. In doubtful matters, we ought to persuade ourselves that what we noticed is not bad, but that it is our imperfections that cause such a thought to arise in our minds; that thus we may avoid rash judgments, which are a very dangerous evil, and for which we ought to have a sovereign detestation. In cases clearly wrong, we ought to have compassion for our neighbour, and humble ourselves for his defects as if they were our own, and pray God for his amend ment with the same heart we should for our own, were we subject to the same defects. [St. Francis de Sales]

On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:

This is a further response on social media to the following material:

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform

The first installment in this series can be read HERE. My words will be in regular font.

Shawn, I have made no excuses whatsoever for police misconduct. And no, it is not an Animal Farm view of things to believe that violent crimes against law enforcement should be prosecuted with even more vigor. It’s not because they are better than anyone else, but for the reason I state above, that is killing cops makes a community more vulnerable. In other words, to BETTER PROTECT A COMMUNITY!!! Woke Shawn refuses to understand the simple logic of deterrence there.

As far as the death penalty is concerned, you know I’m one of the most pro-death penalty folks around for the capital murder of civilians,

Equality under the law should not be a mindless slogan. But just as leftists love to namedrop Dr. King while not bothering to listen to what he said, folks like yourself pay lip service to the notion of being "a nation of laws" and "equality under the law" to create special exemption preserves for some groups of people. In short, "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." In a nutshell: Animal Farm.

On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:

This was a response on social media to the following material:

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform

My words will be in regular font.

This should be a two way street. 1) If you mouth off to a cop (tell him to fuck off, call him a pig etc.)in the performance of his duties (traffic stops etc.) you should at least spend the night in jail. When I was growing up, a cop whipped your ass if you mouthed off and no one said shit about it. This was especially true with cops in the suburbs.

2) If you try to physically attack a cop on duty, it should be a felony if it isn’t already. If you happen to get a concussion in the process, tough shit!

3) Murder of a police officer should be an automatic federal death penalty-eligible offense. Since we are treating the Tenth Amendment as dead letter, might as well do it in favor of the good guys once in a while.

There is a difference between wanting effective law enforcement that respects the constitutional and civil rights of those they are supposed to serve and blowing the cops while making excuses for inexcusable violations of constitutional and civil rights with an Animal Farm view of things. Maybe someday you will realize this.

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform:

1) Abolish civil asset forfeiture

2) Make falsifying a police report a felony

3) End qualified immunity

4) End no knock warrants

5) End warrantless searches

6) Make intentionally turning off a police body camera to conceal evidence a felony

7) Require at least a year's training for police officers before they are allowed to go armed into a community.

Today is the 19th anniversary of the passing of my father Richard Dunn McElhinney. If readers could offer some prayers for the eternal repose of his soul, I would appreciate it.



Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him...May his soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Points to Ponder:

The work of evangelization presupposes in the evangelizer an ever increasing love for those whom he is evangelizing. That model evangelizer, the Apostle Paul, wrote these words to the Thessalonians, and they are a program for us all: "With such yearning love we chose to impart to you not only the gospel of God but our very selves, so dear had you become to us."{1 Thess 2:8; cf. Phil 1:8.} What is this love? It is much more than that of a teacher; it is the love of a father; and again, it is the love of a mother.{Cf. 1 Thess 2:7-11; 1 Cor 4:15; Gal 4:19.} It is this love that the Lord expects from every preacher of the Gospel, from every builder of the Church. A sign of love will be the concern to give the truth and to bring people into unity. Another sign of love will be a devotion to the proclamation of Jesus Christ, without reservation or turning back. Let us add some other signs of this love.

The first is respect for the religious and spiritual situation of those being evangelized. Respect for their tempo and pace; no one has the right to force them excessively. Respect for their conscience and convictions, which are not to be treated in a harsh manner.

Another sign of this love is concern not to wound the other person, especially if he or she is weak in faith,{Cf. 1 Cor 8:9-13; Rom 14:15.} with statements that may be clear for those who are already initiated but which for the faithful can be a source of bewilderment and scandal, like a wound in the soul.

Yet another sign of love will be the effort to transmit to Christians not doubts and uncertainties born of an erudition poorly assimilated but certainties that are solid because they are anchored in the Word of God. The faithful need these certainties for their Christian life; they have a right to them, as children of God who abandon themselves entirely into His arms and to the exigencies of love. [Pope Paul VI: Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi §79 (December 8, 1975) as Quoted in a Rerum Novarum Posting On the Double Effect Principle in Ethical Argumentation (circa December 30, 2004)]

Viganò: Vatican II Marked The Beginning of a False, Parallel Church

Well, it is official: Vigano finally took an objectively manifested schismatic plunge. I knew he eventually would as the pattern leading toward such things was evident. Nonetheless, somehow he avoided going completely over the edge until now. No longer, he is now a manifested schismatic who espouses positions that are proximate to heresy and quite possibly (if drawn to their logical conclusions) heretical.

Anathema sit!

Points to Ponder:

We would willingly have others perfect, and yet we do not amend our own faults. We would have others strictly corrected; but are not willing to be corrected ourselves. [Thomas a Kempis (circa 1418)]

Twenty years ago today, I made my online writing debut with a sprawling ambitious project. I would like to mark that anniversary by reminding folks not of it but instead by pointing to a similarly ambitious but far more important project that was published this year on Ash Wednesday. Without further ado...

On the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, Obedience, and the Requirements of Faithful Catholics

Rush Limbaugh and Charlamagne tha God have a much-needed, difficult conversation

Miscellaneous Musings on "Us" and "Them":

A lot of people live in bubble-like echo chambers comprising of the proverbial Us. Those who do not live in particular chambers are the proverbial Them. All sorts of bad thing or suspicions can and often are imputed to "Them" that would never be presumed to exist among "Us." The various chambers of "Us" or "Them" embrace all religions, creeds, political parties, races, families, countries, etc.

While this sort of instinct could have had some value in the days when information was scarce for survival or other reasons, it should have long ago in our supposedly more civilized age been consigned to obsolescence. At some point, to avoid the insanity of repeating the same mistakes of the past and getting the same results, something has to be done differently. And while plenty of "Us" folks will blame various and sundry "Them", perhaps it is time for all of us to get out of our echo chambers and actually meet some of them. Whomever the particular "Them" happen to be. Racial, religious, political, familial, etc., make it a point to bridge the various divides not just in rhetoric or theoretically but practically and actually. Go outside of your respective bubbles people.

Remember, not all of Them are sinners while all of Us are saints -there are also saints among Them and sinners among Us. We are all people. It is easier to throw rocks from a distance, much harder to get closer and really try to listen, learn, and understand. You can learn something from almost anybody. But when you keep to "your people" (Us) and make no attempts to actually reach out to "those people" (Them), you are not part of a real solution but instead are perpetuating part of the problem.

We have all at one point in time or another, consciously or (probably more often) unconsciously been part of the problem. Even when we thought we were not or even when we were consciously trying to be part of the solution. For those who sought solace in their bubbles, break them and venture out with and seek to listen at least as much as you talk, if not even more so. And those who have been in the fields for a while, work a little harder on this as well. We all can improve in these areas. Let us all strive to move forward and do just that please. [Written May 29, 2020]

Waiting for the Barbarians

Why are we all assembled and waiting in the market place?

It is the barbarians; they will be here today.

Why is there nothing being done in the senate house? Why are the senators in session but are not passing laws?

Because the barbarians are coming today. Why should the senators make laws any more? The barbarians will make the laws when they get here.

Why has our emperor got up so early and sits there at the biggest gate of the city
high on his throne, in state, and with his crown on?

Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor is waiting to receive them and their general. And he has even made ready a parchment to present them, and thereon he has written many names and many titles.

Why have our two consuls and our praetors
Come out today in their red embroidered togas? Why have they put on their bracelets with all those amethysts and rings shining with the glitter of emeralds? Why will they carry their precious staves today which are decorated with figures of gold and silver? 

Because the barbarians are coming today And things like that impress the barbarians.

Why do our good orators not put in any appearance and make public speeches, and do what they generally do? 

Because the barbarians are coming today and they get bored with eloquent public speeches. 

Why is everybody beginning to be so uneasy? Why so disordered? (See how grave all the faces have become!) Why do the streets and the squares empty so quickly, and they are all anxiously going home to their houses? 

Because it is night, and the barbarians have not got here, and some people have come in from the frontier and say that there aren’t any more barbarians.

What are we going to do now without the barbarians? In a way, those people were a solution. [C P Cavafy (circa 1904)]

Honky Cat Biden's Ugly Truth

As today would have been Chris DiSomma's 48th birthday, I wanted to revisit a couple postings in the archives about him from recent years. Without further ado...

Chris DiSomma: A Birthday Commemoration Posting (circa May 23, 2018)

Remembering Chris DiSomma: A Simple Man (circa November 23, 2019)

You are in my thoughts and prayers always my friend. Rest in Peace!

Briefly on "Ending The Fed" and the Gold Standard:

Too many folks who talk about "ending the fed" are not familiar with the frequencies and severities of economic recessions and depressions historically in America in the eras without a central bank. It is one thing to want to reform the fed but abolishing it and going to some free banking scheme...we tried that in this country before and there is a good reason we moved back to a central bank format.

As for the gold standard, it was a joke. It never worked as advertised, it made economic flexibility difficult, it prolonged recessions and depressions, and was frequently torn up and recalibrated to devalue money at various monetarily problematical points and then everyone tried to pretend everything remained kosher. In a nutshell, a gold standard is only as solid as the paper it is written on.

Points to Ponder:

Prayer can be downright arid at times. But it is praying in those moments that can actually be the most meritorious for you and for those whom you pray. Its easy to pray when surrounded by sweetness, consolations, and everything we like...a lot harder when those things are not present. 

On Bayside:

The following is basically a Facebook note in very rough composition form on May 14, 2018 that was not finished for publication ready for various reasons. I decided recently to finish and publish it. My words will be in regular font.

The Church never condemned Bayside, Ryan. The word condemned was never used.

Mel you are engaging in private judgment on this matter. It is not required to use the word "condemned" to condemn an apparition. It suffices for the bishop to (i) call them inauthentic, (ii) theologically problematical, (iii) erroneous on doctrine, (iv) lack moral certitude, (v) discourage publication, dissemination, and distribution of the apparitions. If that does not constitute a condemnation of the content of said apparitions, then you do not know what the concept entails!

The truth is that the bishops of the Dioceses of Brooklyn have done all of these things been very clear as to the status of this "apparition" many times and the current Bishop of Brooklyn just reiterated the stance of his predecessors:

Anyone who can read either the above decision or the one from 1986 and somehow think that the diocesan bishops of Brooklyn (whom I might add are the competent authorities on these matters in their dioceses) did not condemn the apparition are only fooling themselves.

Shawn, will you please verify, for me, that Bishop Mugavero did a Church-ruled investigation?? 

Only when you verify for me that these prophecies from "Our Lady" courtesy of Veronica Leuken were not false prophecies:

Prophecy #1:
“Please, My children, pray for your Holy Father, the Pope. You must not lose him, for the one who comes after him will destroy if he can – he will attempt to destroy Pope John Paul II.” [“Our Lady” of Bayside aka "Our Lady of the Roses", June 18, 1988 from Our Lady of the Roses (Blue Book), p. 108.]

The pope who came after John Paul II was Benedict XVI and far from destroying him actually proclaimed him venerable, beatified him, and before he re-signed was pressing for his canonization.

Prophecy #2:
"Pray for your Vicar (Pope John Paul II). There will be another attempt upon his life." ["Our Lady of the Roses", June,30, 1984]

There were no further attempts on the life of Pope John Paul II after 1981.

Prophecy #3:
"Your Father, in the eternal city of Rome, Pope Paul VI, your Holy Father, is a blessed man, for he carries his cross. Your Holy Father is a blessed man, for he shall be martyred." ["Our Lady", June 18, 1977]

Pope Paul VI died of natural causes in 1978. Furthermore, this "prophecy" contradicts earlier and absurd statements claiming that Pope Paul VI was replaced in 1975 or thereabouts by an imposter pope.

Prophecy #4:
“Within two years or less, there will be a great crash of the market. The whole world’s monetary systems will be paralyzed. That, My child, is why you had to come this evening to the grounds.” [“Our Lady” of Bayside aka "Our Lady of the Roses", June 18, 1988 from Our Lady of the Roses (Blue Book), p. 108.]

There was no great crash of the market within two years or less of June 18, 1988.

Prophecy #5:
“Do not be affrighted, My child; you must see this, for it is important. Within this century this Ball will be sent upon mankind… It is almost too late… a Ball that is fast hurtling towards earth! It will be here within this century, if not sooner.” [“Our Lady” of Bayside aka "Our Lady of the Roses", June 18, 1988 from Our Lady of the Roses (Blue Book), p. 108.]

Where was this Ball of Chastisement prior to the year 2000 (aka the last year within the century of when the above prophecy was uttered)?

I could post more but frankly, even one of these false prophecies is enough to discredit Bayside and Veronica Leuken.

And, how come a former Bishop, in the New York area, told a Nun that The Apparitions were never condemned??

There is a lot of circumstantial statements there. I am privy to a communique from the Secretary To Public Information of the Diocese of Brooklyn who stated frankly that (paraphrased):

"'Bayside' was and is absolutely condemned by Bishop Mugavero and confirmed by the 2 subsequent Bishops. Stay away from it! Yes, it's OK to Pray the Rosary but (DIS)OBEDIENCE is the key word at play here. etc."

And there is of course these words from Bishop Mugavero circa 1986 (reaffirmed by the current diocesan bishop of Brooklyn in March of 2014):

"No credibility can be given to the so-called "apparitions" reported by Veronica Lueken and her followers...Because of my concern for their spiritual welfare, members of Christ's faithful are hereby directed to refrain from participating in the "vigils" and from disseminating any propaganda related to the "Bayside apparitions." They are also discouraged from reading any such literature. Anyone promoting this devotion in any way, be it by participating in the "vigils," organizing pilgrimages, publishing or disseminating the literature related to it, is contributing to the confusion which is being created in the faith of God's people, as well as encouraging them to act against the determinations made by the legitimate pastor of this particular Church (c.212, para. 1)."

I am aware of proponents of this "apparition" who try and claim that the bishop did not use a proper process or something along those lines but even if that claim was true, it would not justify disobedience. If there is a case that the bishop acted contrary to canon law, then the proponents of Bayside should appeal to Rome and in the meantime be obedient to the decision of the diocesan bishop until directed otherwise by Rome. Failing to do that and merely stating on their own authority that the process was flawed and using this pretext to disobey the bishop's directives and to promote these "apparitions" is an attitude that is neither Traditional nor Catholic.

Points to Ponder:

Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace
Where there is hatred, let me sow love
Where there is injury, pardon
Where there is doubt, faith
Where there is despair, hope
Where there is darkness, light
And where there is sadness, joy

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
To be consoled as to console
To be understood as to understand
To be loved, as to love

For it is in giving that we receive
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned
And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. [St. Francis of Assisi]

Logan Act is the last refuge for the American prosecutorial scoundrel

Briefly...

Watching #NeverTrump folks respond to the complete obliteration of the Russian collusion narrative in the past week by completely ignoring it and moving onto other gripes without pause, reflection, or apology reminds me a lot of what conspiracy theorist douches do when one of their pet hypotheses are demolished. It is a thoroughly disingenuous and unethical way to behave and undermines to no small degree their veracity in general.

Two Special Elections On Tuesday Could Hint At Another Blue Wave In 2020

With the caveats of 538 being among the most accurate political prognosticators out there and special elections being a tough animal to master for many reasons, the purpose of this post is to point out that even the good political predictors out there have their misses and here are two from 538 on CA-25 and WI-7.

"One From the Vault" Dept. on "States' Rights"...

This note was first published in social media on August 26, 2011...

Gotta love pics like these, makes everyone think that the Civil war was all about Slavery.

Of course it was not all about slavery but the latter was a significant  part of the equation. All you need to do to realize this is look at the platform of the Democratic Party in the 1856 and 1860 elections to see the dominance of the slavery theme in that party's view of things.

Since the South separated like sniveling brats after the 1860 election when they did not win, lets look at the platform from 1860 to see what it was that they actually ran on:

Resolved, That we, the Democracy of  the Union in Convention assembled, hereby declare our affirmance of the  resolutions unanimously adopted and declared as a platform of principles  by the Democratic Convention at Cincinnati, in the year 1856, believing  that Democratic principles are unchangeable in their nature, when  applied to the same subject matters; and we recommend, as the only  further resolutions, the following: 

Since the 1860 platform was  mostly that of the 1856 convention with a few addendums, lets look at how many times slavery popped up in the 1856 platform now shall we?

The first part of the platform is basically the Jeffersonian model discredited both in the early Republic as well as by example in how things were generally governed prior to that point in time. The second half of the platform contains these references to slavery:

Resolved,  That we reiterate with renewed energy of purpose the well-considered  declarations of former conventions upon the sectional issue of domestic  slavery, and concerning the reserved rights of the states—

1.  That Congress has no power under the constitution to interfere with or  control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that all  such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to  their own affairs not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts  of the Abolitionists or others, made to induce Congress to interfere  with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation  thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous  consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to  diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and  permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend  of our political institutions.

I am sure the slaves were happy about the arrangement. Moving on...

2.  That the foregoing proposition covers and was intended to embrace the  whole subject of slavery agitation in Congress, and therefore the  Democratic party of the Union, standing on this national platform, will  abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the  compromise measures, settled by the Congress of 1850—"the act for  reclaiming fugitives from service or labor" included; which act, being  designed to carry out an express provision of the constitution, can not,  with fidelity thereto, be repealed, or so changed as to destroy or  impair its efficiency.

So first Congress has no authority on the matter and now they claim they will follow the compromise measure from 1850 set forth by that same Congress. To paraphrase the milk campaign: Got hypocrisy?

3. That the Democratic party will  resist all attempts at renewing in Congress, or out of it, the agitation  of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may  be made.

Gee, there is sure a lot of talk about slavery for a party and a group of the country that did not fight to protect slavery is it not? And we are not done yet though...

4. That the Democratic party will  faithfully abide by and uphold the principles laid down in the Kentucky  and Virginia resolutions of 1792 and 1798, and in the report of Mr.  Madison to the Virginia legislature in 1799; that it adopts these  principles as constituting one of the main foundations of its political  creed, and is resolved to carry them out in their obvious meaning and  import. 

Translation: The Democratic Party embraced sedition. Even Madison eventually wised up and recognized how utterly illogical and stupid his involvement in that enterprise was. Jefferson never did except when he was president he expected an even greater fealty to his government than the Washington and Adams administrations{1} demanded of them. Again, got hypocrisy?

And  that we may more distinctly meet the issue on which a sectional party,  subsisting exclusively on slavery agitation, now relies to test the  fidelity of the people, north and south, to the constitution and the  Union— 

For the sake of economy, from that point on in the platform there were three additional numbered resolves, all of which  specifically mentioned slavery or involved slavery and one of the final two resolutions which also dealt with slavery. Geez, more on slavery.  But nah, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the Civil War and only  "ignorant people" would claim otherwise right xxx? ;)  There is more, let us look at the 1860 platform which as I said reaffirmed everything from the 1856 platform with a few more addendums:

2. Inasmuch as  difference of opinion exists in the Democratic party as to the nature  and extent of the powers of a Territorial Legislature, and as to the  powers and duties of Congress, under the Constitution of the United  States, over the institution of slavery within the Territories,

Resolved,  That the Democratic party will abide by the decision of the Supreme  Court of the United States upon these questions of Constitutional Law. 

But in the first part of the 1856 platform, they rejected a central bank which the very same Supreme Court they were now claiming to reverence had declared over forty years previously was constitutional.{2} So they laud the court on Dred Scott but explicitly reject it in areas where the Court  had already settled constitutional questions decades ago. Again, got hypocrisy?

Resolved, That the enactments of the State  Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law,  are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and  revolutionary in their effect.

Yeah, we do'nut want them blacks gettin' all edjucated and free.

But nah, those who talk about slavery being a major factor{3} in what brought about the Civil War, they are the "ignorant ones."

Bottom line: the South had some good  arguments to make on some issues but they chose an absolutely heinous and evil idea around which to pitch the center pole of their ideological tent. Furthermore, they proved after 1865 that all this talk about  respecting the Constitution and respecting the Courts was a bunch of  horse shit. Cases in point: the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments which southern states tried to flout at every turn in various  ways once Reconstruction was over for nearly a century.

Im really sick of people thinking that The Stars and Bars stand for Slavery and Oppression when in fact its quite the Opposite to the Union considering the Union is all for Centralized Big Gov. Interference.

And  I am really sick and tired of "Lost Cause" sorts who make excuses for both the evil of slavery that they propagated prior to the war and the state of third class citizenry they sought to impose on an entire race of people. Thanks to the later segregation numbnuts, the states rights cause was stunted for over half a century while we saw a lot of federal overreach. It is after all kind of hard for a philosophy to be given credence by average people when that exact same philosophy was used to justify retaining slavery prior to 1865 and then regularly used to flout three duly ratified Constitutional amendments and the rights of American citizens after that point for nearly a century.

Notes:

{1} Which he and Madison agitated against back in 1798.

{2} Based on arguments that more than twenty years before that had convinced most of the Founders as well as President Washington. (And which President  Madison later on would come to recognize himself.)

{3} Arguably the most significant factor.

Points to Ponder:

A cigar numbs sorrow and fills the solitary hours with a million gracious images.[George Sand]

It looks like President Obama ordered up phony RussiaGate scandal

So Obama's Administration was "scandal free" they said? Yeah and Jenna Jameson is a virgin!

Strip club owner sues NY Governor over shutdown

Presumably by the Law Office of Glenn Quagmire. (Giggity!)

Papal War? What Papal War?

Briefly...

It seems to me a lot of folks are making the mask wearing thing more complicated than it needs to be. Basically, you need not wear it at home, in your yard, or in your car except when pulling up to a drive in. You also need not wear it when in public when you are not around people or when you are but you can keep a respectable distance away. But going into a store or walking in a crowd is a different situation and the common courtesy of masking there would be appropriate. That need not mean full on mask at all times though.

If I am in public and likely to run into people inside of say ten feet, I keep my black mask on my chin and only pull it over the nose when in close proximity to other folks. Otherwise, the mask is in my pocket.

Seriously folks, this really is not that hard!

Rosenstein-Mueller scope memo: Probe Russia collusion we kinda already know didn’t exist

Exclusive: 1996 court document confirms Tara Reade told of harassment in Biden’s office

More in Brief on Third Parties in General and the American Solidarity Party in Particular:

The following was posted over two months ago to one of the social media platforms and is a continuation of sorts to the overall subject of third parties in American politics. Without further ado...

That is the problem with other parties: unless its a Perot type situation where someone can come into the race with a visible and undeniable chunk of support, it is a fools errand. (And I say this as someone who voted for Perot the first time he ran.) But then I suppose if kids can believe in the fantasy of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, there are some adults that can believe in certain economics fantasies as long as said fantasies unlike communism remain in the realm of make believe and do not hurt other people. (It would not be the first time adults believed in fantasies and I am sure it will not be the last.)

However, I have been known to throw a bone to local third party candidates and declared independents from time to time. (I used to vote for folks like Mike the Mover back in Washington State in years past as well as a smattering of Libertarian, Reform Party, and various proclaimed Independent candidates.) So if there is an ASP local candidate in Westchester County in the Yonkers/Mount Vernon vicinity, I could seem myself voting for them in spite of the distributist nonsense. I could even forgive Carroll of that foolishness if that was the only glaring problem he had as I do like principles such as solidarity and subsidiarity. But the thought that Carroll once supported communist lover Bernie Sanders as recently as four years ago (and not as an idealistic misguided young man but instead as an older fellow) as well as that he buys into that "kids in cages" political propaganda? Sorry, that's three strikes. [Circa 3/7/20]

My father in law Frank Barone passed away yesterday morning. If those who read these words would say a prayer for him and his family, it would be appreciated.

Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him...May his soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen

For my father in law Frank Barone I pray...

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
[Dylan Thomas (published 1951)]

Instant reaction: Thoughts on Seattle's draft

To post just a bit from the thread above...click on the link for more...

Seahawks 2020 draft class

R1 — Jordyn Brooks (LB)
R2 — Darrell Taylor (EDGE)
R3 — Damien Lewis (G)
R4 — Colby Parkinson (TE)
R4 — Deejay Dallas (RB)
R5 — Alton Robinson (DE)
R6 — Freddie Swain (WR)
R7 — Stephen Sullivan (TE)

Thoughts on Seattle’s 2020 draft

The Seahawks know they need to be tougher.

They’re no longer the bully in the NFL. They’re not even the bully in the NFC West.

The attitude, intensity and swagger of the LOB era is missing. Their run defense is poor. Their pass rush is poor. They miss tackles. They struggle to defend the perimeter.

They’re trying to fix the problem.

They added a thumping, physical linebacker, a speedy edge rusher who plays with attitude and a violent run blocker with their first three picks. They followed it up with more pass rush help, a big move TE and a fierce running back.

They’re going to keep trying to create the team they want. They crave to be the punishing, physical, take-your-soul team that they used to be.

Smart, tough, reliable.

It makes sense. It’s reasonable. It’s something they’ll need to reclaim if they’re going to get back to the top.

If you take a step back and acknowledge, rightly, that the Seahawks were never going to blow your socks off with this class — you can look at it through a positive lens. It wasn’t realistic to address the large collection of needs they had. They needed to do more in free agency for that to be the case. They’ve added fast, physical tough guys with upside and potential. That’s a good thing.

There are also issues though.

They didn’t draft a defensive tackle to help anchor or provide pass rush. In a reasonable DT class, that’s disappointing.

They drafted two pass rushers but they still require the veteran proven quality of a Jadeveon Clowney or Everson Griffen. It’s an absolute must that they secure one of those two as soon as possible.

They’ve not added a nickel corner. They need one. Ugo Amadi is not a guaranteed solution.

They’ve not added a developmental left tackle or further competition for Brandon Shell.

They’ll need to add at least one more running back to the stable.

There’s so much that still needs to be done.

While there’s nothing this draft class could really do to change this — the Seahawks have not moved the needle this off-season towards winning a Super Bowl. San Francisco added two first round picks then stole Trent Williams from Washington. The Cardinals nabbed DeAndre Hopkins and Isaiah Simmons.

In comparison, the Seahawks have been strangely quiet. They’ve padded their depth. Their biggest investment so far is on a linebacker — despite the fact Bobby Wagner and K.J. Wright are taking up $25m in cap space this year.

Russell Wilson keeps Seattle a contender of sorts but his presence shouldn’t be taken for granted. You can’t pretend that this team isn’t dragged along by the quarterback. It is. And there’s been a lack of aggression this off-season. Failing to land the pass rushers in free agency or improve the front seven forced them to prioritise both areas in a draft that was superior at offensive tackle and the skill positions early.

Russell Wilson called for superstars. They haven’t been added.

The roster, currently, is good enough to once again make the playoffs. Taking the next step — being a genuine contender and reaching a Super Bowl — requires more talent. Whether it’s developed or added. There’s still an awful lot of work to do.

The problem is — they no longer have the benefit of draft picks and a heap of cap space to work with. They are somewhat limited — even if they start cutting the likes of Justin Britt to create space.

The next few weeks are vital. They have to find a way, somehow, to add more...

Day two review: Seahawks make two quality additions

Points to Ponder:

I ask if anyone is truly learning anything from what we are all going through with this pandemic. Sadly, if the feeds are at all an accurate indicator, the answer is no.

Far too many of you continue to play politics with this pandemic, whether from the #Resistard left or the #Trumpbot right trying to manipulate various and sundry kook conspiracy narratives for some perceived political payoff. FFS, knock it off! There is a time for everything and now is not the time for politics.

The bottom line is, more places will start opening soon because they have to. Deal with it. There will be correspondingly greater restrictions on public gatherings of any sort for some time and social distancing, masks, gloves, etc will be the new norm for an indefinite while. Deal with it. If you flout safety protocols because you have a retarded notion of "muh liburty" that endangers the common good, then you will be made to pay for it. Again: Deal with it.

You are guaranteed to see some things in how we move forward that you do not like. Deal with it. Stop acting like whiny brats and grow up. It is not all about you and never has been. [Circa April 24, 2020]

NFL scout praises Seahawks pick LB Jordyn Brooks: 'He brings the juice'

NFL draft analysis: Three reasons the Seahawks picked Texas Tech’s Jordyn Brooks

Seahawks select Jordyn Brooks out of Texas Tech in the first round

Points to Ponder:

You are the agent of your own destiny, whether you realize it or not, whether you act it or not. [Mike Mentzer]

"One From the Vault" Dept.

The following is a flashback to the archives of this website from 2003...

I found myself focusing on a radio ad this morning which was targeted against youth smoking. The ad was actually well done; however it revealed of course the kind of absurd double standards that many who crusade in that field utilize. The line that began the ad was "there is no such thing as a safe cigarette." And the ad built on that theme with the usual statistics approach. I found myself substituting the word "sex" for the word "smoking" when listening to the ad -knowing that those who promote "safe sex" amongst the youths would never run such an ad as I envisioned. Think about that for a moment if you will.

The same people who would never accept the argument that "well, you should not smoke but if you do try to smoke a low tar cigarette because that is safer" nonetheless promote condoms under the rationale that "kids are going to do it anyway." Well, if that is the case, there is always the possibility of handing out free low tar cigarettes to the youths who are "going to smoke anyway." Is this going to happen anytime soon??? Do not bet on it if you have any pretentions of being smart.

For the same people who post these ads against youth smoking who like to point to statistics that show that said ads have a positive effect in reducing the number of youths who smoke are not infrequently the same people who get outraged about sex education programs that emphasize abstinence or even (God forbid) do not explain in detail -and with props at that- how various contraceptives actually work.

And do not think that when supporters of such programs point to statistics that show that their programs result in a reduction in the number of youths engaging in sexual activity that these statistics are going to be accepted as viable arguments for the program -though for some reason these are viable arguments for the anti-youth smoking commercials. No, in the case of the sex education situation, these kinds of statistics -valid or not- will be swept aside and not honestly interacted with. And this brings us to the notion of consistency and how it must undergird any method which can have a potential claim to be true...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 4, 2003)]

How to Make China Pay

This should be done as soon as possible...

"...In addition to halting any further trade cooperation with Beijing, the administration could also seize the assets of Chinese state-owned companies. Under its Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing reportedly has loaned billions to developing nations in Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America, and then taken over their strategic ports and facilities once the debts fall due. The U.S. could turn this strategy on its head by supporting the expropriation of these assets by legal process and the cancellation of these debts as compensation for coronavirus losses.

Seizing Chinese property would allow the United States to finally use international law to its advantage. Let China try to go to court and claim that the U.S., its allies, and the developing world have violated international rules. Let Beijing try to show that these nations have no right to compensation for its coverup of the coronavirus outbreak. Let the Chinese Communist Party try to claim, outside its own borders, just as it does within them, that it can deny common sense and blame the very victims of its wrongdoing for the worst public-health catastrophe in a century."

Century Links 4/19: Draft Week is Finally Here

Points to Ponder:

Alright, here goes. I'm old. What that means is that I've survived (so far) and a lot of people I've known and loved did not. I've lost friends, best friends, acquaintances, co-workers, grandparents, mom, relatives, teachers, mentors, students, neighbors, and a host of other folks. I have no children, and I can't imagine the pain it must be to lose a child. But here's my two cents.

I wish I could say you get used to people dying. I never did. I don't want to. It tears a hole through me whenever somebody I love dies, no matter the circumstances. But I don't want it to "not matter". I don't want it to be something that just passes. My scars are a testament to the love and the relationship that I had for and with that person. And if the scar is deep, so was the love. So be it. Scars are a testament to life. Scars are a testament that I can love deeply and live deeply and be cut, or even gouged, and that I can heal and continue to live and continue to love. And the scar tissue is stronger than the original flesh ever was. Scars are a testament to life. Scars are only ugly to people who can't see.

As for grief, you'll find it comes in waves. When the ship is first wrecked, you're drowning, with wreckage all around you. Everything floating around you reminds you of the beauty and the magnificence of the ship that was, and is no more. And all you can do is float. You find some piece of the wreckage and you hang on for a while. Maybe it's some physical thing. Maybe it's a happy memory or a photograph. Maybe it's a person who is also floating. For a while, all you can do is float. Stay alive.

In the beginning, the waves are 100 feet tall and crash over you without mercy. They come 10 seconds apart and don't even give you time to catch your breath. All you can do is hang on and float. After a while, maybe weeks, maybe months, you'll find the waves are still 100 feet tall, but they come further apart. When they come, they still crash all over you and wipe you out. But in between, you can breathe, you can function. You never know what's going to trigger the grief. It might be a song, a picture, a street intersection, the smell of a cup of coffee. It can be just about anything...and the wave comes crashing. But in between waves, there is life.

Somewhere down the line, and it's different for everybody, you find that the waves are only 80 feet tall. Or 50 feet tall. And while they still come, they come further apart. You can see them coming. An anniversary, a birthday, or Christmas, or landing at O'Hare. You can see it coming, for the most part, and prepare yourself. And when it washes over you, you know that somehow you will, again, come out the other side. Soaking wet, sputtering, still hanging on to some tiny piece of the wreckage, but you'll come out.

Take it from an old guy. The waves never stop coming, and somehow you don't really want them to. But you learn that you'll survive them. And other waves will come. And you'll survive them too. If you're lucky, you'll have lots of scars from lots of loves. And lots of shipwrecks.

From all appearances, I have finally finished the project I mentioned earlier in the week. Essentially, when I was researching my archives for material to use in the magisterium project published on Ash Wednesday, I noticed some glaring problems with the template that was reflected across many past postings. Most dialogues had a colouring scheme that worked with the old templates but with the new one did not work at all and made in many cases differentiating who said what difficult.

To address this apparently longstanding problem, I undertook a restoration of colouring schemes for all the posts in the Dialogues main threads so that problem was fixed. I then applied the same scrutiny to the Expository Musings main threads and then waded through the Miscellaneous Threads/Brief Musings main threads. In the process, I found some threads with two main thread tags and fixed them so that each only had one main tag. I also reclassified some main tags to more accurately reflect the nature of the particular posting in question. Also in the process, I made sure any noticeable spelling or grammar glitches in the applicable threads were also fixed as well as making sure the threads were more uniformed going back to January 1, 2003. There was a process of finding a uniform approach to footnoting, source citing, etc, in postings that gradually took hold by some time around mid-2004.{1} However, prior to that, there was some variegation going back to the very beginning of this site's founding. I sought to iron a bunch of that out as well. I had to pick a hard delineation point for the sake of time and my sanity so I chose January 1, 2003 for that purpose.

Prior to January 1, 2003, there was a lot of postings numerically to an extent that was not replicated much past that time{2} that made tending to them in that fashion far more daunting than I cared to undertake. I did however where applicable in those postings still fix colour differentiations and glaring spelling or grammar glitches in those postings too but uniforming the whole site was impossible. But I did what I could to fix the majority of the site archives in the areas above and make sure all postings on the site had only one main tag delineation which was my intention all along but for reasons of complexity{3} was not always achieved previously.

Notes:

{1} It was so gradual that it was hard to find a definitive point where things were permanently what they eventually became. The same issue presented itself the last time I undertook an archival restoration project somewhat similar to (but by no means as extensive) as what I just undertook over the past week.

{2} It was a mixed bag in 2003 in this respect but at least moving in the direction of what I settled on eventually whereas 2002 was all over the map as this site gradually found its footing.

{3} See the threads HERE and HERE for an explanation of this process as I originally envisioned it being.

Points to Ponder:

Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged. [James v,9]

My mother in law Raffaelina Barone passed away last night. If those who read these words would say a prayer for her and her family, it would be appreciated.

Eternal rest grant unto her soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon her...May her soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen

On the Last Supper, the Crucifixion, the Atonement, Etc.

This is the text of a dialogue from social media circa September 9, 2012

Jesus paid it ALL...and nothing more is needed! You see, Christ is our high priest, eliminating ANY need for an earthly priest.

As Vincent Serpa OP, explains so succinctly on this matter:

"Hebrews states that the ideal high priest would have to be holy, innocent and uncontaminated (by sin). He would not have to offer sacrifices every day, as other (Levitical) high priests did, first for their own sins, and then for those of the people. Christ has done this once and for all by offering himself. (Heb. 7:20-28) This is no way excludes those men he has chosen to share in his priesthood. The key to all this is the Eucharist. He deliberately shared this with his Apostles in the upper room. When the Protestants dropped the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist, it quite logically became a symbolic meal and no more. Can you imagine what dropping the sacrificial aspect of Christ’s death would do to Christianity? 

In that eternal moment when Jesus struggled to take his last breath and failed, he died and gave us life at the same time. All of humanity was redeemed by that moment of sacrifice. While that moment transcends all time, the Eucharist is that moment IN time. It brings the reality of that moment into our lives in a concrete, sacramental way. The Apostles were the first to be made privy to this and were actually given the power to 'do this in remembrance of Me.' (Lk. 22:19) 

The Eucharist completes his Incarnation. Through the Eucharist he not only joins us in our humanity, through it he concretely permeates our bodies as well as our souls, nourishing us with his divine life. If one can accept and grasp the reality of this most holy sacrament, then the priesthood of Jesus becomes quite necessary and understandable. In the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, 'It (the Eucharist) was the fulfillment of ancient figures and the greatest of all his miracles, while for those who were to experience the sorrow of his departure, it was destined to be a unique and abiding consolation.' (Opusculum 57, in festo Corporis Christi, lect. 1-4) How sad it is that so many Christians go without such a consolation!"

Protestants deny the need for priests because they have stripped the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist away fifteen hundred odd years after Christ's time without any authority whatsoever to do so. When you understand that ancient and apostolic principle as established by Jesus at the Last Supper, the need for a priest becomes obvious.

So JJJ, with all due respect, those who follow what was commanded of them by Jesus Christ are not heretics. Instead, it is those who refuse to believe and follow what Jesus said and who decided to go against the unanimous consensus of Christian belief from the apostolic days through the first fifteen hundred odd years after the resurrection to ignore and reject this command of the Lord Jesus Christ who are the real heretics.

The Eucharist Re- Crucifies Christ...

TTT, this is one of the stupidest statements I have ever seen! Need I remind you that JESUS instituted the Eucharist? And that he instituted it prior to the crucifixion as the means whereby HE commanded of His apostles to offer His one sacrifice in perpetuity?

The mistake you are making is confusing Jesus' death with his sacrifice. Sacrifice is not the killing of the victim but the offering of the victim to God. Jesus in an unbloody manner offered Himself to the Father at the Last Supper -the only place in Scripture where he acted in a priestly capacity. On the cross, He was the victim. But the priestly offering (of which again He commanded to be offered by His followers) was again not made on the cross but instead it was made in the Upper Room. And like the Passover which foreshadowed it, the Last Supper (which itself was part of a Passover seder) was (i) instituted prior to the death of the First Born the following day and (ii) to be made in perpetuity thereafter.

The Eucharist is a non bloody re-presentation of Calvary. It was prophesied by Malachi:

"[F]rom the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts." [Malachi 1:10-11]

The pure offering made from the rising of the sun even unto the going down by the non-Jewish nations as prophesied by Malachi only has one possible fulfillment and that is in the Eucharist. For nearly 2,000 years there has been no other event that could possibly explain this. If the fulfillment of this is not in the liturgical eucharistic offerings of the Apostolic churches west and east since the days of the apostles, then Malachi was a false prophet!

Now I can understand to some extent that the manner of looking at these things outside of earthly time can make for a perspective that is difficult to grasp and that is ok. But at the very least, if you deign to speak on something at least have some familiarity with what you are talking about ok?

While Giving Mary & The Pope Glory????

What on earth are you talking about? Do the Orthodox Churches also give the pope glory through their daily liturgical offering of the Eucharist in obedience to the command of the Lord Jesus and in fulfillment of the prophecy of Malachi? By your "logic" they would but I will wager if you asked them that question that they would knock your block off! As far as Mary goes, how does the Eucharist give Mary glory?

I am unaware of any liturgy in the west or the east which gives glory for the offering of Jesus to anyone but the Father. In fact, if I was in an ornery mood, I would call you out on your assertions and demand that you demonstrate your assertions and then mock you incessantly when you failed to do so. However, I am actually in a good mood and besides, I know already that you not only cannot do this but furthermore, I doubt that you would even try to. But either way, need I remind you that bearing false witness is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments?

It's a Free Gift of GOD,

God's grace indeed is free. However, He has the right to prescribe how His grace is ordinarily to be received.

Paid In FULL By The SON Period!!!!

No one has claimed otherwise.

Offered To All!!!

Offered to all but offered as He saw/sees fit to do so. Those who knowingly reject His grace (in the manner whereby He has instituted it to be received) reject Jesus no matter how much they run around invoking His name and you would do well to remember that.

A 2020 Lenten Recapitulation Thread:

This is a series of threads posted during the Lenten season spanning from Ash Wednesday through Good Friday in order from oldest to most recent. Without further ado...

On the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, Obedience, and the Requirements of Faithful Catholics (circa February 26, 2020)

On Clarifying and Retracting Some Prior Statements on the Magisterium (circa March 8, 2020)

Points to Ponder on Obedience From St. Catherine of Siena (circa March 10, 2020)

Spiritual Instruction on Rash Judgment --Part I of IV (circa March 12, 2020)

Spiritual Instruction on Rash Judgment --Part II of IV (circa March 15, 2020)

Spiritual Instruction on Rash Judgment --Part III of IV (circa March 17, 2020)

Spiritual Instruction on Rash Judgment --Part IV of IV (circa March 20, 2020)

Pope Francis Blessing the World (circa March 29, 2020)


Points to Ponder on Obedience From the Bible (circa April 10, 2020)

Points to Ponder:

[O]bedience is better than sacrifices: and to hearken rather than to offer the fat of rams. It is like the sin of witchcraft, to rebel: and like the crime of idolatry, to refuse to obey. [1 Samuel xv,22-23]

Points to Ponder:

The Democratic party is and always will be the party of slavery. The difference is that they have moved from physical slavery to economic and psychological slavery. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 6, 2002)]

Things have been quieter here lately as I have been busy with a project I will post on later. It is not another writing project{1} but something that because of the current stay at home orders over the Covid19 epidemic is something that I would not have time to tend to in any other circumstance. As of this writing, it is about probably 55-60% completed. I will not comment on it again until it is completed.

Note:

{1} Though when I was out undergoing some cigar therapy a few days back, I thought of a subject to write on that considering the virus epidemic we are seeing right now will be rather timely. It is still however in the embryonic stage right now and not even ready to put the first jottings down in draft form.

He walked alone across the empty piazza of St Peter’s, wearing the simple “house cassock” that he favors, through the rain. He did not carry an umbrella. That image alone hit me with the seriousness of the prayer that Pope Francis was about to begin. To pray for the world as he invited the world to pray, on that spot where he says mass and speaks to tens of thousands, alone except for a single aid to help him up the steps. It is an image of these days we share, apart. But Pope Francis was not entirely alone in the rain. To the right, at the foot of one of the great columns of the facade, the icon of “Our Lady, Help of the Roman People,” protected from the rain in a plain plexiglass shrine. It almost never leaves the church of St Mary Major, dedicated in AD 434. Except for the time when Pope St Gregory the Great carried her through the streets of Rome in 593, praying for the end of a great plague, an event that earned the icon the title she has born for almost 1500 years since. To the left, a crucifix at the foot of the other column flanking the entrance. It survived a fire at the church of St Marcello on the Corso in 1519. Three years later, during a great plague it was carried from the rebuilt church through the streets of Rome to St Peter’s. The 600-year-old wooden figure of the crucified stood in the rain, unprotected.

It was between these two ancient images that Francis led the world in a simple prayer. The reading of the account of the Stilling of the Storm in Mark 4:36-41 (read by a lay person), words of reflection from the pope, walking through the rain again to pray before each of the two ancient images, kissing the feet of the crucified Christ.

And then into the portico, the “front porch” of St Peter’s, where the Eucharist was brought to a temporary altar, while the choir inside the church sang Parce, Domine, “Spare Lord, spare your people.” There Francis was joined in silent prayer by just a few of the residents of the Vatican.

And then, while St Peter’s rang every bell it had to let the people of Rome know what was happening, Francis took the monstrance containing the Eucharist in his hands, walked out to the steps, and blessed “Urbi et Orbi.” That blessing, of “The City and The World,” is reserved for two occasions, Christmas Day and Easter Day. It is normally delivered from the pope’s window in the Vatican apartments, using his raised hand. Francis chose this Friday of Lent to bless the world with the True Presence of Christ, from the steps of St Peter’s, in the rain.

There is an ancient tradition of the popes to visit a different church in Rome each day of Lent and the Easter Octave. They are known as Station Churches. Today’s designated church is San Eusebio, the church of the Roman martyr Eusebius. But I noticed on the papal calendar the designation today was changed to “Statio Orbi.” Today, the pope’s church was not San Eusebio, nor even San Pietro where he stood, it was the world. [Fr. Lou Meiman]