Showing posts with label Catholicism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catholicism. Show all posts
Friday, July 11, 2008
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Bl. Karl
Likely to become Saint Karl.
Pray for us, pray for peace, pray for the return of Christiandom.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/an_inconvenient_miracle/
And yet people idolize Wilson as a hero. Hopefully, he'll now be remembered as the man that went to war with a Saint.
Pray for us, pray for peace, pray for the return of Christiandom.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/an_inconvenient_miracle/
And yet people idolize Wilson as a hero. Hopefully, he'll now be remembered as the man that went to war with a Saint.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
More on the Pope and the Jews
Seems like SSPXers fall into a few camps. First, those who outright reject the changes to the prayer. Second, those who are waiting for Fellay to give a statement. Third, those who have accepted it.
I think the prayer is good and just worded differently.
The first camp us split into three groups: Those who reject it for tradition, those that reject it for ambiguity, and those that reject it because of the circumstances.
The latter group makes me confused. Reject it based on why it was written and not content? Not a good excuse. I don't like why, but still accept it as perfectly orthodox.
I see no ambiguity in the prayer. They're likely just looking for something that's not there and inerpreting it wrong. Kind of like looking for shapes in clouds. (False analogy! Piss off...)
Based on tradition? Well, argumentfrom tradition. We don't do something because it's tradition. We have tradition based on a solid point. For example, we shouldn't recieve the Eucharist on the tongue because it's tradition. Instead, we should because of the possibility of abuse. Tradition exist because there's a reason to have it. We sholdn't do it for Tradition, but for the reason. The reason for the prayer for the Jews? To convert them! The changes are okay because the reason is kept and it's just re-worded.
Then there's those waiting for the SSPX's Bishops to speak about it. I absolutely don't like that. The Pope is the leader of the Church. We would't wait for a Duke to tell us if the King's law is good or not! We have to follow the Pope in all things but sin. That's the one time we could be disobedient. Instead of following the Bishop and SSPX, follow the Pope. The prayer change isn't sinful at all.
Then again, those awaiting the SSPX's position are the ones that are most likely to call him a Modernist while still claiming he's the Pope (Fr. Morrison aside, of course)
I think the prayer is good and just worded differently.
The first camp us split into three groups: Those who reject it for tradition, those that reject it for ambiguity, and those that reject it because of the circumstances.
The latter group makes me confused. Reject it based on why it was written and not content? Not a good excuse. I don't like why, but still accept it as perfectly orthodox.
I see no ambiguity in the prayer. They're likely just looking for something that's not there and inerpreting it wrong. Kind of like looking for shapes in clouds. (False analogy! Piss off...)
Based on tradition? Well, argumentfrom tradition. We don't do something because it's tradition. We have tradition based on a solid point. For example, we shouldn't recieve the Eucharist on the tongue because it's tradition. Instead, we should because of the possibility of abuse. Tradition exist because there's a reason to have it. We sholdn't do it for Tradition, but for the reason. The reason for the prayer for the Jews? To convert them! The changes are okay because the reason is kept and it's just re-worded.
Then there's those waiting for the SSPX's Bishops to speak about it. I absolutely don't like that. The Pope is the leader of the Church. We would't wait for a Duke to tell us if the King's law is good or not! We have to follow the Pope in all things but sin. That's the one time we could be disobedient. Instead of following the Bishop and SSPX, follow the Pope. The prayer change isn't sinful at all.
Then again, those awaiting the SSPX's position are the ones that are most likely to call him a Modernist while still claiming he's the Pope (Fr. Morrison aside, of course)
Sunday, February 10, 2008
The fightin' 14th
Here's the fellow running against Ron Paul:
http://www.chrispeden.org/
Keeping the idea of a "noble America" alive and...well...on life support. We can't cut funds to NASA! Those evil Chinese are going into space! We need to claim space for ourselves! We need to keep our honor by not surrendering to those Islamo-fascists! Fred Reed certainly knows what honor really is...
I believe he says Ron Paul believes 9/11 happened because of America whie he believes it's Islamo-fascist terrorists. No doubt terrorists did it, but they didn't do it because we're free or prosperous. Some may want to make us submit to their laws, but most of the radicalized Muslims really just want to be left alone. Don't we all? Well, except Americans. We don't mind being taken care of by the government.
Anyhoo, here's to Ron Paul's congressional campaign!
I'm waiting for "Catho-Fascism" and the Pope being called a Theocrat and Terrorist. Just think about it. He wants Catholic Culture to spread. He's against the US' interventionist wars (yes, he is Catholic Neocons) and might be in league with the terrorists! After all, he regularly talks to middle eastern countries! Even Iran!
http://www.chrispeden.org/
Keeping the idea of a "noble America" alive and...well...on life support. We can't cut funds to NASA! Those evil Chinese are going into space! We need to claim space for ourselves! We need to keep our honor by not surrendering to those Islamo-fascists! Fred Reed certainly knows what honor really is...
I believe he says Ron Paul believes 9/11 happened because of America whie he believes it's Islamo-fascist terrorists. No doubt terrorists did it, but they didn't do it because we're free or prosperous. Some may want to make us submit to their laws, but most of the radicalized Muslims really just want to be left alone. Don't we all? Well, except Americans. We don't mind being taken care of by the government.
Anyhoo, here's to Ron Paul's congressional campaign!
I'm waiting for "Catho-Fascism" and the Pope being called a Theocrat and Terrorist. Just think about it. He wants Catholic Culture to spread. He's against the US' interventionist wars (yes, he is Catholic Neocons) and might be in league with the terrorists! After all, he regularly talks to middle eastern countries! Even Iran!
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Papa, you have the support of this Traditional Catholic!
Pope Benedict XVI has released the revised Prayer for the Jews. I've stalked around message boards and seen a mixed reaction on some and complete hatred on others.
I quite like it. Nothing has changed except the language. It's become softer, in a good sense. The way some are reacting you'd imagine it to be
No, it's basically the same in a more charitable language. It's not watered down. It's not a mush. It's the same prayer in a different tone. What the Pope ultimately did was change the words and not the content. It seems like they're trying to criticize anything the pope does that doesn't involve:
1. Lifting the Excommunication
2. Getting rid of the NO overnight
3. Have some sort of Godly power where he can hear every litergical abuse ever.
4. Everything in Latin. Everything. Inclusing the picnic (okay, I'm joking, but I'm sure there's a Sede or two that believe this)
5. Cannonizing Archbishop Lefebvre
Anyway, I quite like the prayer. I don't care about the circumstances.
I glanced over a post where the US Bishops praised the Pope and affirmed what the prayer said. Wasn't one of the complaints about the old prayer? There we go, same substance, different language, the Latin Mass is even more free!
Anyone reading this (yeah right): don't say that this makes non-SSPX Latin Masses phoney.
P.S.
I wrote this because of a post I saw where a protestant was praised for bashing the Pope.
I quite like it. Nothing has changed except the language. It's become softer, in a good sense. The way some are reacting you'd imagine it to be
Dear [insert god here],
Please let the Jews come into a Church, but if they don't, we'll let them be. Give Christians the strength to read the talmud and possibly convert.
Thanks!
No, it's basically the same in a more charitable language. It's not watered down. It's not a mush. It's the same prayer in a different tone. What the Pope ultimately did was change the words and not the content. It seems like they're trying to criticize anything the pope does that doesn't involve:
1. Lifting the Excommunication
2. Getting rid of the NO overnight
3. Have some sort of Godly power where he can hear every litergical abuse ever.
4. Everything in Latin. Everything. Inclusing the picnic (okay, I'm joking, but I'm sure there's a Sede or two that believe this)
5. Cannonizing Archbishop Lefebvre
Anyway, I quite like the prayer. I don't care about the circumstances.
Let us pray also for the Jews.
May our God and Lord enlighten their hearts, so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, savior of all men.
Let us pray.
Let us kneel.
Arise.
Almighty and everlasting God, who desires that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, mercifully grant that, as the fullness of the Gentiles enters into Thy Church, all Israel may be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.
I glanced over a post where the US Bishops praised the Pope and affirmed what the prayer said. Wasn't one of the complaints about the old prayer? There we go, same substance, different language, the Latin Mass is even more free!
Anyone reading this (yeah right): don't say that this makes non-SSPX Latin Masses phoney.
P.S.
I wrote this because of a post I saw where a protestant was praised for bashing the Pope.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Traditional Conservatism: Altar and Throne
I firmly believe that Altar and Throne governments are better than any other forms. The Cult of Liberty stands in direct defiance of this, and is always self-destructive. I hear people quote Ben Franklin imploring us to never give up liberty for safety. The ideas of liberty were new then. Perhaps early American liberty actually worked for a while, but French liberty degraded to bloodshed and hatred.
We must not give up liberty for protection and safety, but we shouldn't give up the Altar and Throne for liberty.
American liberty died during Lincoln's presidency, and quite possibly before then. Soon, protecting it became the reason the government should expand. One can't have liberty if they're poor, uninsured, jobless, etc. The very thing that was supposed to limit government made it expand.
Altar and Throne politics never did this. The state never expanded to a monsterous size to protect it.
I think it's the best position since the Church exists for two reasons. First and most important, the spiritual. The Church is in charge of the Salvation of Souls. Second, the secular. The Church has a power to limit government. I don't think it's a coincidence that France became dictatorial and violent after the French Revolution. It's certainly not a coincidence that dictators rose after the Papal States were destroyed. The 20th century was the Church's weakest period since She was persecuted in Rome. Communism and Fascism rose because the Church was not in place to keep a check on government powers.
Kings are rulers of their state, but they are all part of the "Kingdom of Christiandom" ruled by Christ the King.
There are three other forms Altar and Throne politics can morph into: Throne and Altar, Throne, and Altar.
Although I admire him quite a lot, Louis XIV tried to make France a Throne and Altar state. The king was above the Church. He led France out of the realm of Christiandom by allying with the Ottoman Turks. Modern day protestants try to make America into a similar state, although their government will be astronomically larger than the "absolute monarch." What this form ultimately does is divinize the state and/or the ruler.
America and most other Republics are Throne states. The Altar is completely out of the picture. As I've mentioned, America did fairly well but fell into tyranny. Without the Church, the State can grow into a parasite. It sucks away life and freedom from the host (the people). Like Throne and Altar, the state becomes divinized. Unlike it, though, it's a secular church with no checks and balance from an outside faith. They'll petition religioud leaders to support their endeavors but know that patriotism runs deeper than faith in most people.
Altar governments are the most dangerous. The ruler, state, policies, and laws are divine. People turn a blind eye to corruption because the rulers are either gods or prophets of a god.
And yet I upport Ron Paul who talks about liberty and the constitution. Why is this? Well, in the 18th century we would be opposed to eachother (I am an economic anarchist though). Like I said in my last blog post though, we are allied against the enemy-the Neocons. We both believe in limiting the power of the state. We both believe in peace. We just disagree on the way to keep it.
Nonetheless, he is the best candidate I've seen. I am proud that I voted for him and would do it again and again. I consider the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party my allies and would vote for one if I like them.
We must not give up liberty for protection and safety, but we shouldn't give up the Altar and Throne for liberty.
American liberty died during Lincoln's presidency, and quite possibly before then. Soon, protecting it became the reason the government should expand. One can't have liberty if they're poor, uninsured, jobless, etc. The very thing that was supposed to limit government made it expand.
Altar and Throne politics never did this. The state never expanded to a monsterous size to protect it.
I think it's the best position since the Church exists for two reasons. First and most important, the spiritual. The Church is in charge of the Salvation of Souls. Second, the secular. The Church has a power to limit government. I don't think it's a coincidence that France became dictatorial and violent after the French Revolution. It's certainly not a coincidence that dictators rose after the Papal States were destroyed. The 20th century was the Church's weakest period since She was persecuted in Rome. Communism and Fascism rose because the Church was not in place to keep a check on government powers.
Kings are rulers of their state, but they are all part of the "Kingdom of Christiandom" ruled by Christ the King.
There are three other forms Altar and Throne politics can morph into: Throne and Altar, Throne, and Altar.
Although I admire him quite a lot, Louis XIV tried to make France a Throne and Altar state. The king was above the Church. He led France out of the realm of Christiandom by allying with the Ottoman Turks. Modern day protestants try to make America into a similar state, although their government will be astronomically larger than the "absolute monarch." What this form ultimately does is divinize the state and/or the ruler.
America and most other Republics are Throne states. The Altar is completely out of the picture. As I've mentioned, America did fairly well but fell into tyranny. Without the Church, the State can grow into a parasite. It sucks away life and freedom from the host (the people). Like Throne and Altar, the state becomes divinized. Unlike it, though, it's a secular church with no checks and balance from an outside faith. They'll petition religioud leaders to support their endeavors but know that patriotism runs deeper than faith in most people.
Altar governments are the most dangerous. The ruler, state, policies, and laws are divine. People turn a blind eye to corruption because the rulers are either gods or prophets of a god.
And yet I upport Ron Paul who talks about liberty and the constitution. Why is this? Well, in the 18th century we would be opposed to eachother (I am an economic anarchist though). Like I said in my last blog post though, we are allied against the enemy-the Neocons. We both believe in limiting the power of the state. We both believe in peace. We just disagree on the way to keep it.
Nonetheless, he is the best candidate I've seen. I am proud that I voted for him and would do it again and again. I consider the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party my allies and would vote for one if I like them.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
¡Viva españa! ¡Arriba españa!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,,2194235,00.html
Nonetheless, the communists have regained control, and it's about time there's another revolution led by another Generalissimo! Let's hope Catholicism will overcome Communism once again.
¡Viva españa! ¡Arriba españa!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQcSTGz3XyY
The song isn't to Franco, but the Falange.Rallies banned at Franco's mausoleum
Paul Hamilos in Madrid
Thursday October 18, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
The basilica in which General Franco is buried will no longer be used to
hold political rallies in celebration of Spain's former dictator, according to a
new law to be voted on at the end of the month.
The foundation that runs the
Valley of the Fallen, a vast memorial to Franco topped with a giant cross
visible for miles around, will also have to provide information on "all of those
who died during the civil war and who suffered repression", not just the victims
of the republicans.
The Valley of the Fallen, in the Guadarrama valley north-west of Madrid,
remains a shrine for the small band of followers who still openly support
Franco. But if the new law is passed, they will no longer be permitted to meet
there on the anniversary of his death, when they gather to sing "Cara al Sol",
or "Face to the Sun", the anthem to Franco.
Between 1940 and 1958,
republican prisoners were forced to build the mausoleum under Franco's orders,
and the underground crypt was declared a basilica by Pope John XXIII in 1960.
The change in status of the Valley of the Fallen is one of a number of
amendments made today to the historical memory law, one of the most
controversial pieces of legislation in Spain's 30 years of democracy.
First
proposed by the Socialist government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero last year,
the law has been fiercely opposed by the conservative People's party (PP). In a
surprise move yesterday, The PP supported the amendment on Franco's mausoleum,
but continued to express their opposition to the law. The PP's general
secretary, Angel Acebes, described it as the result of a process intended to
"divide rather than unite the people of Spain".
It was also announced that
the grandchildren of those who were forced into exile, or chose to leave Spain
during the dictatorship, will be able to apply for Spanish nationality. Until
now only those whose parents were born in Spain could apply for citizenship.
According to the governing PSOE, this amendment will affect around 1 million
people, who will have a two-year period from 2009 within which to apply.
Last week it was confirmed that Spain would ban all public references to the
Franco regime, with all statues, street names and symbols associated with the
dictator to be removed. Those churches which still have plaques commemorating
Franco and the victims of his republican opponents risk losing state aid if the
refuse to remove them.
· This article was amended on Friday October 19 2007.
Pope John XXIII rather than Pope John Paul XXIII was Pope in 1960. This has been
corrected.
Nonetheless, the communists have regained control, and it's about time there's another revolution led by another Generalissimo! Let's hope Catholicism will overcome Communism once again.
¡Viva españa! ¡Arriba españa!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQcSTGz3XyY
Friday, October 19, 2007
Priests arrested
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18584.htm
To anyone who says waterboarding isn't torture-get waterboarded yourself and report your conclusions to me.
People can get their children taken away for psychological abuse, but it's cool for the government to do it to extract information. Makes sense to me!
There are better ways to get information. During World War II, soldiers would play cards with prisoners and they got information pretty well. "But what about the extremism!" Well, Americans aren't as attached to their land as Europeans are (or were), so betraying their homeland would be almost like betraying their God.
Maybe we could even win a few of the bad guys over. Get out of everyone's business and stop supporting Israel so much. And maybe even stop abusing them...there's no way we can make them change their mind by having their minds perceive death.
Not everyone worships Aries...
On a lighter note, because laughter is a good sign that things aren't so bad in the world, a joke that's sorta related:
To anyone who says waterboarding isn't torture-get waterboarded yourself and report your conclusions to me.
People can get their children taken away for psychological abuse, but it's cool for the government to do it to extract information. Makes sense to me!
There are better ways to get information. During World War II, soldiers would play cards with prisoners and they got information pretty well. "But what about the extremism!" Well, Americans aren't as attached to their land as Europeans are (or were), so betraying their homeland would be almost like betraying their God.
Maybe we could even win a few of the bad guys over. Get out of everyone's business and stop supporting Israel so much. And maybe even stop abusing them...there's no way we can make them change their mind by having their minds perceive death.
Not everyone worships Aries...
On a lighter note, because laughter is a good sign that things aren't so bad in the world, a joke that's sorta related:
A man walked up to a Franciscan and Jesuit and asked, "How many novenas must you say to get a Mercedes Benz?"
The Franciscan asked, "What's a Mercedes Benz?"
The Jesuit asked, "What's a novena?"
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
O'Reilly the Heretic, part II
He's talking about the cross dressers receiving Our Lord's Body again, and yet he still manages to dig himself further in a hole. He mentioned secular progressives want "unfettered abortion". Is he implying that it's alright in some cases?
He still never apologized for his implied support of birth control.
O'Reilly did make a pretty good point though. He said that the Church didn't condemn them. What O'Reilly doesn't know is the majority of the USCCB is almost schismatic. Emphasis on almost. There's a few good men, and quite a number of them are well intentioned and have been tricked by the bad ones. This is why we have to pray for them.
Will the Pope say anything about it? It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't. He knows how it is over there, he knows that it's not Catholicism anymore.
He still never apologized for his implied support of birth control.
O'Reilly did make a pretty good point though. He said that the Church didn't condemn them. What O'Reilly doesn't know is the majority of the USCCB is almost schismatic. Emphasis on almost. There's a few good men, and quite a number of them are well intentioned and have been tricked by the bad ones. This is why we have to pray for them.
Will the Pope say anything about it? It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't. He knows how it is over there, he knows that it's not Catholicism anymore.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)