Judaeo Catholic = Religion. Islam? No. Pope Francis can’t dialogue with Islam.

Thomas Aquinas and Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange and Cardinal Giuseppe Siri have noted that Judaism and Catholicism are but one religion with the same (univocal) Divine Revelation. The Messiah to whom Israel and Judah looked forward is the Divine Founder of the Catholic Church.

Meanwhile, Islam is a Judeao-Catholic heresy. Islam is not a religion but rather error. Error has no rights. Muslims have rights. We are to respect their persons, but not their fake religion. We can offer to dialogue with them as did Pope Benedict XVI in his famous Regensburg Address. But they will say that they cannot dialogue because our logic, our reason, our common sense, our respect for the dignity of the human person is not at all the way Allah thinks. Therefore, no dialogue on any level is permitted.

When Abraham was to sacrifice his son as recounted in Genesis, this was about an immediate resurrection from the dead, an un-slitting of the throat of the boy. If Abraham believed that all his progeny would come through Isaac alone, he had to believe that God would immediately raise Isaac from the dead. Young Isaac, a symbol of the innocent sacrifice that would take away original sin, was not at all innocent, having been subject to original sin like all of us. So, a ram, a symbol of the Lamb of God to come was sacrificed as a temporary symbol instead. Then, Jesus, the Lamb of God, the Messiah, the Suffering Servant, worthy of standing in our place before our Heavenly Father, the Innocent for the guilty, arrived. Catholics are 100% with the Jews on the clear logic of this account in Genesis.

Meanwhile, Islam, the Qur’an, perverts this demonically. Muhammad has it that Abraham was to sacrifice his son not in view of any promised progeny, nor did it have to be this or that son, legit or illegit. For Islam, Abraham was to sacrifice his son merely as an offering to a bloodthirsty Allah. This is not about justice regarding sin, or any propitiatory sacrifice, nor about any symbolism regarding the Messiah to come and what that Messiah would do for us by standing in our place, taking on the punishment of death that we deserve for sin, original and whatever else. It is simply doing what all fallen peoples do in false religions, sacrificing children as bribery of, in this case, hateful “obedience” to a hateful Allah. The bowing the forehead to the ground thing of Islam is about the submission of Abraham’s son to Allah wanting that Abraham’s son get his head cut off, just to do it. Why do you think kids are the ones who are always strapped up with suicide-murder bomb vests?

Try to dialogue with that and you will be killed. Let Islam consecrate Vatican City to Islam and they will rejoice. But that’s not dialogue. Such confusion only brings about discord, you know, wherein children get killed. It’s not right:

death boy gaza

It’s gotta stop. But free speech is being attacked both by secular society and…

10 Comments

Filed under Interreligious dialogue, Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Flowers for the Immaculate Conception (O felix culpa! Oh happy fault! ed.) Question and Answer time.

These are not flowers, but they do represent what I would give to my mom in a huge ceramic vase I made as a Sophomore (wise-fool) in high school for this very purpose. These are out on the ridge of the hermitage, though I’ve never seen them in Western North Carolina in the eight years I’ve been here. Up in Minnesota they are everywhere to be seen. I was fascinated by them as a kid and still am today. I love God’s good creation. That doesn’t mean I bow down to Pachamama. No. But I do think of friends who walk in the Lord’s presence in the Lord’s good creation and praise Him as might a little child for all the good God’s goodness. And after all the Pachamama rubbish, I think it’s imperative to give flowers (at least of sorts) to the Immaculate Conception, Jesus’ good mom.

But if you think all of this is irrelevant to the challenges of today’s society and culture, think again. I had a wild conversation with an unbaptized person the other day who grew up quite entirely unchurched, so to speak. That person had some questions, for which I attempted some answer, all of which is here paraphrased:

QUESTION: Would Mary, having been immaculately conceived, without original sin, have died, whether or not Jesus, the Word Incarnate, came among us.

ANSWER: Mary had to be redeemed like anyone else. Time is a creation of God, who holds time, as it were, in His hands, from beginning to end. If Mary were not to have been redeemed at the moment of her conception (which is indicated in the Hebrew text of Genesis), Mary would have died because of having been subjected to original sin with all of its consequences. Death is specifically pointed out as a consequence immediately in Genesis and then by Saint Paul.

  • Excursus: Saint Augustine, having been inspired by Saint Ambrose, exclaimed “Oh! Happy Fault!” regarding original sin, a bit tongue in cheek, in that this was the occasion for so great a redemption, so that with this, we not only walk in God’s presence once again, but we do so as united to the Mystical Body of Christ, brought through, with and in Jesus before the Father by the fiery Holy Spirit in this way. The great hymn at the Easter Vigil, the Exsultet, fully exclaims: O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem (Oh happy fault, which merited us to have such a great Redeemer!) But Mary’s exclamation is even greater, for not only was she redeemed, but she also became Jesus’ good mom.

QUESTION: So, how is it that Mary died if she still had a pristine agent-intellect (otherwise lost for us by Adam with original sin) that could draw matter to spirit with integrity and therefore have her live forever without dying at all?

ANSWER: Pius XII plainly says that Mary died prior to her assumption. We might split some hairs by saying that Mary didn’t really “die”, but that, in her assumption body and soul into heaven was rather changed “in the twinkling of an eye” as Saint Paul says for those who are alive when Jesus comes again, their mortal bodies putting on immortality (and so a kind of death to our present state).

But methinks such talk is wrought in fear of offending Mary’s immaculate conception: she was not subject to original sin and its punishment of death, so SHE DIDN’T DIE! But Jesus, the innocent and divine Son of the Living God died for us, right? What about that? Jesus came into this world to take our place, the Innocent for the guilty, so that having suffered our own punishment for sin even while being innocent, He could, in His own justice, justly have mercy on us: “Father, forgive them!” But He rose from the dead as one cannot keep the very Author of Life down. He didn’t have to die. Not only could He have kept aggressors at bay (Do you think that I cannot call upon my Father and He will not provide me at this moment with more than twelve legions of angels?”Matthew 26:53), but He could also have kept His body with full integrity by way of His pristine agent intellect. But He chose not to do this, in obedience to the Father (see John 3:16). He let Himself die on purpose.

In my not so humble opinion, although Jesus would have eventually died from the scourging and crucifixion, what precipitated His death is what happened in the Garden of Gethsemane. The sweating of blood indicates a trauma of such magnitude that it would be accompanied by a massive heart attack, so that even the pericardium, part of the heart surrounding the heart, would break. That would fill with blood, which in turn would separate into red blood cells and plasma, and gush out when Jesus’ heart was pierced the next day. Jesus’ dies from his broken heart beginning in Gethsemane, with the trauma coming about because of not wanting his good mom to see His sufferings. But: “Not my will, but Thine be done.” He did that for us. For us. That’s very good and kind of Him. Thank you, Jesus.

I believe that Mary also died in this way. She dies from the same kind of broken heart for having seen all the sin of all mankind from Adam until the last man is conceived by way of looking upon her Son tortured to death on the cross. That’s all of our sin written out in His wounds. She understood what His death meant, what with her purity of heart and agility of soul following upon her immaculate conception. We have no idea, but she saw our need perfectly. She was in perfect solidarity with her Son’s purpose. She interceded for us perfectly. She had in order to do this, to be in perfect solidarity with her Son.

This is only right in justice: if she is to ask for what Jesus gives to us because of her maternal solidarity with her Son, she then has to see what she is asking for, which means she has to suffer all the horrific trauma this will bring to her maternal and now literally broken heart, which means that she has to see it through to the end, all the trauma, all the death, no giving up, no compromise, no being a mother merely part-time or only until it gets rough. Mary lasted until Pentecost, but I don’t think long after that at all.

  • Excursus Question: Couldn’t Jesus have saved Mary, or vice-versa?
  • Excursus Answer:
    • The shorter answer is that they wouldn’t have done this, as everything about the manner of our redemption requires that mercy is founded on justice, with God the Father’s Son, with Mary Immaculate’s Divine Son, standing in our place, the Innocent for the guilty. God is the one who works miracles, not us, not even the Immaculate Conception.
    • The longer answer that when the saints work miracles, it’s not them, but God happily following up on their intercession for others or even for themselves. Jesus often said: “Go your way; your faith has saved you.” We have no integral agent intellect, but Jesus does, and by living faith we become, as Saint Paul says, living members of His Body, the Body of Christ, or as Pius XII says, the members of the “Mystical Body of Christ.” The Person of the Divine Son of God Incarnate works the miracle also through His human nature.

So, that’s a pretty intense Q and A, don’t you think? Remember that this is with an unbaptized, quite entirely unchurched person. Methinks that the Lord’s little flock is hungry for the truth of the Son of the Living God, Jesus, so much so as also to want to know something of Jesus’ good mom. That’s as it should be. The weight of the glory of God bears down on us all in this sorry world, bringing us hopefully to our knees before Mary’s Son, Jesus.

Back to flowers for the Immaculate Conception, and looking at the milkweed above, and to use Jesus’ own parables: when the seed goes withersoever the wind blows, to that dark storm on Calvary, it is finally planted deep in the earth, and then bears much fruit, having witnessed to its vocation unto the end. And then Jesus rises and ascends to heaven. And then Mary, who gave Jesus His human nature, is rightly also assumed into heaven. All a pledge for us, that we are intended to go to heaven as well.

O felix culpla! O happy fault!

5 Comments

Filed under Flores

Hanging off of Jesus, listening (Luke 19:48)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

If bible translators would stop dumbing down the Scriptural text and just give us exactly what’s there we would all be a lot better off. I think that a lot of the lack of preaching about Jesus, the lack of friendship with Jesus among so many in the Church today is because we don’t know Jesus, because we have not been properly introduced to him. Ideology gets in the way. Lets take a look at Luke 19:48 for a good example:

  • From the Greek: ὁ λαoς γαρ ἅπας ἐξεκρέματο αὐτοῦ ἀκούων.
  • Pedantic translation: for all the people were hanging off of Him, listening. [This is very personal. Jesus is important. He is Emmanuel, God with us. That’s most important. Now that we are enthralled by that, let’s also listen to Him! The message is important because of the Messenger.]

Among dozens of translations, I found a few with versions of that exact translation. It is possible. It’s right there. It’s not difficult. But most have something quite different:

  • For all the people were hanging upon his words. [But not Him. We wouldn’t want that, I guess. Better something academic, that we can consider as the mature people we are and reject or not, just words, an ideology, but not at all something so serious as God among us. Right?]
  • For all the people listened with admiration. [Again forgetting about Jesus.]
  • For all the people were suspended by his words, listening. [Really about the message. Intensely. But the Messenger?]
  • For all the people were suspended, listening to him. [I guess they were all hanging from trees, listening anyway?]
  • For all the people were suspended from his lips. [That’s the one I like the best. I guess that translator was from the Mursi tribe in Africa.]

5 Comments

Filed under Jesus

Flowers for the Immaculate Conception (Keto, edition)

img_20191117_164019~29134200737755612119..jpg

Diverse from the generations of plants and animals, human beings were supposed to be immortal. Aquinas grapples with this. The anthropology of original sin, if you will, described in the Hebrew text of Genesis was unknown to him, nor was, therefore, our actual original condition in its entirety.

With original sin, death entered the world for all of us as a punishment for that original sin. So, we’re really connected one with another. The Hebrew text goes into all of that. The flip side, of course, of that closeness with the first Adam, is the closeness that we now have with the second Adam. We’ll see that more clearly when we, as we hope, get to heaven. Right now, we’re in the midst of the just consequences of original sin, but with the grace, the friendship of our Lord enabling us to do what is right and just and to walk in His presence even in the midst of our fallen human nature.

As longtime readers know, I’ve been wanting for some 12 years now to do up a popular version of the thesis on Genesis, speaking to all of this. I was able to write a 45 min conference back in 2013 for IVE up in Silver Spring. That conference developed some points in the thesis on the flip side of original sin, that is, on the immaculate conception of the Mother of the Redeemer. With that we also know more clearly how we stand before God and neighbor after redemption, though having been subjected to original sin. And that’s immensely helpful.

Not being immortal, health has declined a bit since then, and I’ve been wanting to get back on track for the specific reason of writing on Jesus’ good mom. It’s my one goal in life. But, being Jabba the Hut, it’s not easy. Being overweight brings a myriad health pitfalls. Writing in an intensely academic manner requires great health. What to do?

A young couple introduced me to the Keto diet. Today’s my second day. So far, so good. But I’ve yet to hit the transition – the Keto flu – if I do indeed get it. That signals the body’s transition from depending on carbs (that’s almost exclusively what my diet was) to depending on the melting of one’s body fat into a kind of sugar, if you will, for the blood. They’re giving me lots of encouragement. “Power through it, Father George!”

For me, writing about the Immaculate Conception, would be my flower for the Immaculate Conception… given to me to give back. It may not be possible. I would like it to be. But that’s me. What do I know? That may not be God’s will. I just want to do God’s will. There’s so much to write about, including… “Abraham’s three children.” Sigh. More on that later. I’ve much to say on that. Perhaps I’ll start with some incisive edited chapters of Jackass for the Hour edited to emphasize that topic. Speaking the truth about that, about anything, is also a flower for the Immaculate Conception.

But I need energy. The thing is, once the body finally goes into ketosis, one is full of energy and thinking more clearly. Yes. That is what I need. Keto! Keto! Keto!

8 Comments

Filed under Flores

DNA results updated: great distraction

DNA

DNA is entirely interesting and distracting and therefore such a temptation to escape into that which simply has nothing to do with the daily anti-Catholic smash-downs of the faith or anything else that is oppressing you in your daily life.

Do DNAers have pitfalls to avoid. Sure. Like everything else. The fearful might say DNA is all about mere identity politics and leads to racism and violence. Some who are a bit more cheerful might say DNA is all about saying how ignorant identity politics and racism and violence is. Chesterton smartly destroys any effort to manipulate “race” as being about “race.” I love Gilbert Keith.

Ancestry is the one I did. That one is great for telling you where happenstance participants around the world are close relatives. Mine are concentrated in southern Poland. That’s been re-emphasized in the revision – not of the DNA mind you – but of the database behind any DNA sampling. Southern Poland!

However, trace ancestry that was once mentioned when I signed up, Nordic countries for example, was all entirely ignored in the next revision, but then came back stronger than ever in the most recent revision the other day. I’m not all that convinced that Ancestry is good for anything more than three or four generations. The reason for that is their doing both mother’s and father’s lines conjointly. My use of terminology may not be exact.

I would like to do both my dad’s and mom’s lines separately. Any well established trusted companies for that? Or are you better at resisting temptation than I am? ;-)

 

4 Comments

Filed under Nature

Keto Diet Day 1: The outlook is easy now

jabba the hut

Have you ever tried to diet? The other year I tried counting calories. I lost something like 20 pounds if I remember correctly, just eating less and better. The problem with being a priest is that everyone wants to take you to dinner. I almost never ever go, but if it’s not one thing it’s another. We also have socials after Sunday Masses. All sorts of people drop off freshly prepared meals at church and at the rectory also during the week.

It’s easy to fail with a system that merely counts calories regardless of where they come from as everyone says just to cheat with this (whatever they are offering) and then just not eat some other thing later on. Grrr. I survived a mere two months and never went back to the diet and put all the weight back on, having caved in fully to Jesus’ words to His disciples about eating what is put before you, but of course, in an exaggerated and fallen human nature kind of way. Now I’m lost.

Now I’m too big, too unhealthy, and Jesus surely doesn’t want that at all for His priests.

But then I was introduced to the keto diet. I was told to check with my doctor. You have to know, I have the coolest doctor in the world. Not only did he instantly confirm I was fit carrying a carry (a one-time law in this state – don’t know if it still is) – he also being a gun guy – but he and his wife are also keto-dieters. He said my kidney function and all else is just fine and that I’m quite the good candidate for the keto diet. Great!

There are so many things to watch out for, not only calories but also carbs and fats and protein. Since this can only be managed by the person who is actually doing the dieting, it is the perfect excuse to give to those who want to load me up with all sorts of food on any and every occasion. And no one’s feelings are hurt. Great!

The one draw back, which is actually very healthy, but difficult for me because I’m in my car really a lot, is that one has to drink really a lot of water to flush out all the chemicals and horror that has been building up in one’s body. I’ve added water to my daily intake schedule to make sure I get through the volumes required. I’m starting with just over a half ounce per pound of weight. I confess that I’ve been drinking very very little. Which is really bad. But now… Well… We’ll see…

It’s said that malaise will grip one’s heart and mind and one’s very soul – to death – for about three days or so, either fairly quickly, or about a week or two into it. But once getting over that, it’s said that one’s energy levels will be much better. But there’s also the practicalities of travel! But, I don’t want to be stopped before I start. As it is…

 – the outlook is easy now –

12 Comments

Filed under Diet, Missionaries of Mercy

Flowers for the Immaculate Conception (“working” on virtues, edition)

While technically these red bits may not be flowers, exactly, precisely… still… this is a bit of exterior bark that could be chipped off and put with other things to give to Jesus’ good mom. Creation is by definition thinking outside the box, you know, there being no box to begin with. So, why be limited by definitions of beauty when the freedom of the children of God in such things should rule the day. Mary might roll her eyes at such efforts, but – hey! – getting Mary to roll her eyes and perhaps laugh a bit is good.

I saw these almost microscopically tiny “flowers” yesterday, driving in the car after having been at the hermitage, when, after doing some priest stuff on the “Day Off”, and more priest stuff, and more priest stuff, I eventually wound up there to do up…

  • the FBI “agent” tactical pistol course (getting a bit better at distance pistol shooting)
  • the pre-2001 Federal Air Marshal tactical pistol course (sharpening some of the stages)
  • the “failure drill” (slower than usual, but more accurate)

The advice of an Army / CIA friend has stuck with me: “Aim small = shoot small.” For the FAM course I put out Styrofoam pie plates on “pig-tail” wires, many times smaller than the standard target size.

Working on that “virtue” of aiming small, if you will, helped me to examine the forest with laser eyes to find the even much tinier flowers for the Immaculate Conception in the cold and gray dreary dead of winter mountain-top forest. I mean, a good hundred of those “flowers” could fit in just one bullet hole.

Virtues work together. Sharpen one, the others are sharpened with it. There’s a nexus of virtues. The driving force of virtue isn’t us so much “working” on anything like some sort of self-saving Pelagian as it is being awed by the wounds of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, so much so that we are indignant at being unvirtuous in whatever way.

It is the mistake of many to “work” on just one thing before moving on to another.

  • “I’ll ‘work’ on stopping beating my wife and then, after that, I’ll ‘work’ on not drinking myself into a rage.” It doesn’t work that way. It’s both or neither.
  • “I’ll ‘work’ on my prayer life, and then, after that, I’ll ‘work’ on loving my neighbor too.” No. It doesn’t work that way. It’s both or neither.

And it’s not so much us “working” on anything as it is Jesus, when lifted up on the Cross, drawing all to Himself. Jesus, who is God, who is love, who is truth, is the driving force behind whatever virtue we have. And with Jesus, if one virtue of “ours” is lifted up, all of “our” virtue is lifted up.

Hmmm… How to say it? Maybe a picture would get the idea across. Our Lord would have us be virtuous in, say, lifting a hand in praise of Him, but He is really lifting up all virtues, our whole persons…

And, yes, it’s a virtue to give flowers to Jesus’ good mom. I think He did it all the time whilst He walked this earth. I think He continues to do it all the time in heaven as well. If Jesus draws you up to give a flower to His good mom, go along with it. It will help you out in all sorts of ways. Jesus is like that.

And don’t worry how small the virtues are. Don’t worry how small the flowers are. Or even if they are flowers, technically. ;-)

3 Comments

Filed under Flores

Prejudice: macro- & micro-evolution

Fox News’ Charlotte Edwards writes about amateur archaeologist / fossil hunter and medical student Aaron Smith finding 185 million year-old ‘golden snitch’ (iron pyrite) with ancient sea creature inside. The Sun Quidditch ball shaped fossils are just some of the many discoveries that have been made by amateur archaeologist Aaron Smith.

The only thing I’d like to add to that story is that it doesn’t look like this creature has gone through neither macro- nor micro-evolution, but is that which through 185 million years of generations has stayed exactly the same. Hmm… So, I guess that conditions on earth have never changed in 185 million years. I mean, one would expect such a creature to surely turn into a salamander, and then a monkey, and an ape, and a man. Right?

We can say the same for alligators and sharks and all the bugs we’ve found in amber. Right?

And then what about the myriad entirely different birds that we find on tropical islands, wherein the same conditions exist but the birds are absolutely different one from another? I mean…

There has been plenty of conjecture for ideological reasons, but there has been a case of macro-evolution demonstrated.

People have been trying to train chimps to think beyond what a human baby can do at a some months old, with zero success. A wall is confronted, but not a wall. It’s that the entire premise is mistaken.

There is, of course, micro-evolution, that which happens to any species under wildly different conditions. I grew up in the forests of Minnesota and saw up close what our very abundant Poison Ivy is all about. I lived in the forests of Western North Carolina for years at the Hermitage, and noted how very much the same but at the same time how very different the Poison Ivy is here. And the same for all the kinds of varmints and vegetation. If the specialized conditions are taken away, the differences disappear and both reset.

Take pigs as an example. Let’s say that domestic porky-pig is let go into the wild. Within just a few generations over just a few years, the snouts elongate and tusks sprout, turning little porky-pig into a small bulldozer. But domesticate those wild boar and after a number of generations over a few years they will revert to cute porky-pig once again.

Take salamanders as an example, you know, the ones which have become blind over the years in their sunless caves. But they had eyes at one time. Put them back in the sun and, I betcha, the eyes will become unveiled once again. Micro-evolution.

Take mankind spreading out to the various continents. Pigmentation, body-size, etc., are all matters of micro-evolution. Compare Vietnamese and those on the South Pacific Islands. The diets are wildly different. Compare lily white Russians in the frozen North, covered up all the time as they are, and Africans in the South out in the sun. Micro-evolution.

How stupid it is to be prejudiced because of micro-evolution. Actually, micro-evolution proves the rule of no macro-evolution.

4 Comments

Filed under Racism

Update late 2019: Conclave validity review: Francis may not be Pope

amazon synod

You have heard that it was said: the conclave is invalid because so many of the electing Cardinals manipulated the election with quid pro quo dealings, bringing upon themselves automatic excommunication and therefore invalidating their voting. Thus, Pope Francis is not Pope.

Then you have heard that it was said: the conclave was valid because none of those automatic excommunications had external effect on voting because those excommunications were not declared, you know, because the only one able to declare such excommunications on the public record, thus affecting voting, is the Pope. But that’s the point, there is no Pope. That’s what the election, the conclave, is all about. Thus, it is said, the election results were illicit but not invalid. Pope Francis is Pope.

But I put forward this question: The mind of the legislator, the previous Pope, is surely well aware of the declaration thing for automatic excommunications, and that is precisely and exactly the reason why he is obviously overriding such universal canon law for the very specific circumstances of a conclave. Duh! Pope Benedict is not a stupid man. The automatic excommunications, even if not immediately known, invalidate the vote if they are of such a number to affect the outcome. An investigation is necessary.  Pope Francis is Pope, or he is not Pope.


I’m not a canon lawyer and I’m well aware of those canon lawyers who go apoplectic when non-canon-lawyers make such commentary. But I would ask them to go easy on me since, in fact, I’m only asking a question, with sincerity, willing to be guided. But I am willing to ask the question. I think it is a valid question. Disabuse me of my ignorance.


So, after I wrote this, I spoke with a canon lawyer on the “day off”. He said that it may be that such a specified automatic excommunication may have to “determined” and somehow manifested in the Conclave itself. And now we’re wading into canon lawyer territory and hypothetical conditions inside a given conclave. So…

8 Comments

Filed under Pope Francis

Dear Pope Francis: Stop soliciting sin. Mocking God, leading between grace & sin is a crime. It needs to stop now.

pope francis--

I’ve commented at length on this question and it’s full context just recently here:

Pope Francis sums up his heresies

I’d like to comment just a bit more on his imperative command that “the pastors must lead their flock between grace and sin, because this is evangelical morality.” Let’s see that paragraph again:

  • “But they say: the Pope is a communist… Ideologies enter into doctrine and when doctrine slips into ideology that’s where there’s the possibility of a schism. The pastors must lead their flock between grace and sin, because this is evangelical morality. {I pastori devono condurre il gregge tra la grazia e il peccato, perché la morale evangelica è questa. // Los pastores deben guiar al rebaño entre la gracia y el pecado, porque ésta es la moralidad evangélica.} There’s the ideology of the primacy of a sterile morality regarding the morality of the people of God. Instead, a morality based on such a pelagian. ideology leads you to rigidity, and today we have many schools of rigidity within the Church, which are not schisms, but pseudo-schismatic Christian developments that will end badly. When you see rigid Christians, bishops, priests, there are problems behind that, not Gospel holiness.”

For my response in what I hope is a dialogue instead of my just getting smacked down, I would like to use the woman caught in adultery at the beginning of John chapter 8, what with Jesus evangelically forgiving her and, we cannot deny, evangelically commanding her NOT to sin again.

This has always been my practice of mercy in the Confessional as a priest and Missionary of Mercy. If someone, a penitent, is in fact repentant and has a firm purpose of amendment of life according to the Good News, there will be an absolution immediately provided. One may sincerely try to live in grace. But one may fail. But one may return to the Confessional for more needed guidance and understanding of what repentance and amendment of life practically entails. But one may also then be ready for absolution and that is then provided.

Such is entirely different from what Pope Francis proposes here with his talk of leading the flock between grace and sin, with the operative word being merely leading, always leading, but never putting such a soul face to face, heart to Heart with Jesus, always and only between grace and sin, so that the dialogue, the process is the soul having arrived, with there being nothing beyond the dialectical ideology of thesis and anti-thesis. Grace is no longer a friendship with Jesus, walking with Jesus, heart to Heart with Jesus. Grace is instead an ideological goal, and idea, a “horizon statement” to which one never arrives. “Go ahead, adulterous woman, go ahead and sin again! Go ahead, sin and then go up to receive Holy Communion! Never actually repent!” That is what Pope Francis is saying.

And now we know what that not so ambiguous footnote in Amoris laetitia certainly means: active adulterers are to be encouraged to continue their adultery and to go to Holy Communion. 

Good thing Pope Francis called Amoris laetitia a dialogue in the opening paragraphs of that screed. But here he clarifies that supposed ambiguity. It’s now certain what he means.

The presumption in all of this is that all penitents are incapable of living a moral life, a life of grace, that Jesus’ love and Jesus’ truth, that Jesus’ friendship, that Jesus Himself is powerless before sin. This presumes that we are all lost, all going to hell, and we’re just somehow trying to please everyone and be praised ourselves for just going along with sinfulness and encouraging everyone to do the same. What a dismal, dark, anti-evangelical view. To me, it seems like a blasphemy against what Saint Paul describes as the Body of Christ, the Head of the Body and the members.

The technical word for encouraging people to remain in sin, when used specifically for a Confessor who is “guiding” a penitent in this way, is solicitation. This is a crime in Canon Law, the code of law of the Church.

In other words, the priest is encouraging a penitent to continue sinning in whatever way. This turns a possible sin of weakness into a sin of real corruption, but even worse. The sinner who was guilty of a sin of weakness is now encouraged to purposely go ahead and sin. This is a direct mockery of God and a sin against the Holy Spirit.

Pope Francis is encouraging all the priests in the world and all penitents – everyone in the world – to mock God and sin against the Holy Spirit. Talk about being Promethean and Pelagian and self-referential and self-absorbed…

Never letting Jesus’ little flock get close to Jesus, always keeping that little flock in a life of sin, telling them with jaw-dropping condescension that they can never actually live a life of grace and morality and friendship of Jesus, taking away their hope altogether, creating in this way an ideology out of the person of Jesus, making Jesus a mere “horizon statement” a mere “ideal” that we can never really reach, all of this is, objectively, a sin against the Holy Spirit.

Dear Pope Francis, what you are doing is Pelagian: You are forcing people to think that they have to trust in their own strength which they do not have, and so lead them to frustration and, losing hope and giving up, lead them to a life of sin, but, oooh!, always trying harder with the strength they do not have, which none of us has. How cruel of you, Pope Francis. Instead we are to lead people to humility, to know that they, that we have no strength of our own, and that we are therefore to depend on the strength of Jesus, not in the sense that Jesus just helps us out and we continue to depend on our strength that we do not have, but rather in the sense that amidst all our weakness Jesus will draw us up into His strength, His love, His truth, so that however weak we are of ourselves, we can still live in grace, by grace, heart to Heart with Jesus, always carrying the cross but always looking to Jesus. He’s the One. He’s the only One. Not us! But Jesus!

Meanwhile, Jesus, putting His own life on the line, standing in our place, the Innocent for the guilty, forgives our sin, and then we, seeing His great love, with humble thanksgiving and in reverence before Him and in all good friendship, we are open to hearing His reprimand to us, ever so lovingly given: “Do not sin again!” He tells us that not just as some sterile command for a sterile morality, as Pope Francis thinks, but with grace, that is His presence, with the indwelling of the Most Holy Trinity, having us be Tabernacles of the Holy Spirit, offering our bodies as living sacrifices so different from this fallen world, so different from our fallen flesh, so different from the fallen angels, we being living sacrifices of purity of heart and agility of soul, aflame with love of God and self-sacrificing love of neighbor. Jesus who is alive, who is love, who is truth, is the Jesus I know, before whom I am thankful. He has forgiven me so much. Thank you, Jesus. I promise not to sin again.

And, yes, this priest loves to go to Confession.

Go to Confession!

And that means you too, Pope Francis.

I’ll be your very own Missionary of Mercy if you like.

3 Comments

Filed under Confession, Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

The greatness of nothing and useless: judgment and entering into life eternal

img_20191117_163851~2554773512553303069..jpg

This statement of accomplishment is nailed up next to the main entrance of a parishioner to whom I frequently bring Holy Communion. He an Air Force Veteran full of stories and laughter. He looks at sickness and not-all-that-distant death as just another task that he’s obliged to do, you know, like Jesus says:

  • “When you have done all you have been commanded, say, ‘We are useless servants. We’ve only done what we were obliged to do.'” (Luke 17:10)

When we of ourselves, apart from the Lord, dream up all sorts of things to do which are not His will for us, we’re actually just doing nothing. So, we’re pretty useless. At least I can dream up all sorts of distractions to be distracted with.

Meanwhile, if we set out to do the Lord’s will for us, He’s not merely going to help us, He’s going to do it, meaning, He will draw us up into His love and goodness and kindness and truth, and this… He… will be the driving force accomplishing what we have to do, what we obliged to do.

What an honor to be able to say that we’ve only done what we were obliged to do, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else, just the Lord’s will, glorious, majestic, with honor, with honor, with honor.

My goal in life, so to speak, as it were, is to do nothing of my own, to do only what I’m obliged to do. That would be a dream come true. St Paul says, crucified to ourselves so as to live for Christ.

1 Comment

Filed under Jesus

Flowers for the Immaculate Conception (’cause leaves are the new flowers, ed.)

img_20191029_175814~24277594267958342785..jpg

When I was a kid, if there weren’t many flowers to pick for my mom, I would get whole branches of leaves to put in a big pot. I would do the same for Jesus’ good mom. So I will. There’s the above, and the below:

img_20191031_114134~24743929337393898504..jpg

The great dragon, the ancient serpent, the devil and Satan, call it Pachamama and Consort, are not representative of the Immaculate Conception. No.

Pachamama and Consort be damned.

These leaves, the new flowers, are only for the Immaculate Conception, who, with her Divine Son Jesus, also conquered, crushing the heads of all idols just by holding her Son:

pieta

4 Comments

Filed under Flores

Homily Sunday 33 Apocalyptics

JESUS I AM

Perfect love casts out all fear. Do not be afraid. Do not be terrified.

Listen, folks: This is about Jesus. He’s the One. He’s still and always will be the only One. Only He is the Divine Son of God, the Way, the Truth, the Life. Only He is the Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception. He always will be. Pachamamas be damned.

7 Comments

Filed under HOMILIES

Flowers for the Immaculate Conception (The Dead of Winter, edition)

img_20191116_093345~22032374855159192636..jpg

Just because it’s the dead of winter in so many ways and on so many levels, that’s no reason not to give flowers to the Immaculate Conception. Here are some frosty Jasmine in the back yard of the rectory, with seeds that looks to have downy like feathers perhaps to help them fly a bit to spread out in a wider area. And that’s a good thing: more flowers for the Immaculate Conception.

Would that these would spread all the way to the Vatican, and that someone there would get the good idea to give flowers to Jesus’ good mom, but NOT to Pachamama of death. The truth of the matter is that Jesus appreciates flowers being given to His own good mom, and specifically NOT to Pachamama.

4 Comments

Filed under Flores

Vatican Gardens St Michael purposely failing against Satan, mocking Jesus

Saint Michael Vatican Gardens.png

There are things you just don’t want to see and so don’t see. I thought it was good that a statue of Saint Michael the Archangel was installed in Vatican Gardens a while back. The pictures I saw at the time were fuzzy and from odd angles. I thought it was all a bit “soft,” but, at least St Michael was there, thought I. But I didn’t see what was actually going on. Because of all the idiocy going on in Vatican Gardens these days, I wanted to write a post contrasting the presence of Saint Michael with this other rubbish. But what I saw was not good. Now I know that it’s all a piece. In that presentation of Saint Michael…

  • Saint Michael misses the mark. Instead of piercing a spear into Satan, he contorts himself, going out of his way kind of pole-dance with the spear, ending up piercing – whoops – his own right foot. A bit sadomasochistic, that. Meanwhile, the left foot is… playing footsie… with the genitals of Satan…
  • Saint Michael is presented homoerotically, so that his erect penis is holding up the garment otherwise slipping off his rather sleek look-at-me body. Apparently, he’s so narcissistic that this is why he misses the mark. Or, I guess, that’s on purpose. He’s posing with his friend, Satan. Why hurt Satan when he is the vehicle to present oneself narcissistically?

Because of these two things, there is only one consistent interpretation of the rest of the presentation. The pierced hand of Jesus is reaching out from the gates of hell with the phrase “Non prevalebunt” from “The gates of hell will not prevail against her (that is, the Church)” has the wounds of Jesus as the subject of the verb. But in this context, that can only mean that the demonic Jesus and His useless redemption of us will not prevail against Satan, or against Satan’s friend, Saint Michael. Sigh.

My advice is this: Don’t mock Saint Michael like this. You will NOT get away with it. Mockery will catch up to you.

Update: A priest friend wrote in that Benedict XVI was the inspiration for the initiative for a statue of Saint Michael conquering Satan. But then he was gone as Pontiff. My priest friend was hoping that no one would get the idea from what I wrote above that Benedict was in any way to blame for this fiasco. He’s NOT to blame!

9 Comments

Filed under Pope Francis

Pachamama male-consort-idol

The day before the Amazon “Synod” officially started, there was a pagan worship of idols ceremony in Vatican Gardens. It was bad enough, thought I, that demonness Pachamama idols were displayed for worship, an idol to which children up to puberty are sacrificed in the Amazon. But then I saw one report on some sort of Pachamama consort, another idol that was also displayed directly next to the Pachamamas. I had no idea what he was talking about since everything I had seen about the incident only showed the Pachamamas, but no consort. Maybe I didn’t want to see it. Just too disgusting. Apparently the picture of the consort was rare because it was so very incredibly disgusting. Was it that the POV of the photographers and videographers of the event was such that  the Pachamama Idol Consort was just out of view, perhaps blocked by someone’s shoulder or head in front of the cameras? But that was on purpose. Any picture of the carved idol Consort would be just too damning.

In these months and weeks I’ve been too busy to research much of anything of the idiocies over in Rome, what with Mass and Confessions and Adoration and Hospitals and Nursing Homes and going on Communion Calls, cumulatively putting on thousands of miles in this vast territory of my parish in these months. I’m supposed to be a Missionary of Mercy in these back ridges of Appalachia, right? The days are very long and I have little time for demon worshippers in Rome.

But then, in looking up I think it was boat picture for a post on Pachamama, I saw it, the Pachamama Consort. The picture I saw wasn’t from a private individual, but from Catholic News Service.

It’s said that Pope Francis was caught off guard, that he was confused, an elderly imbecile who didn’t know what to make of all this, even that he was trying to be benevolent by remaining there for the entire and very lengthy ceremony in the Vatican Gardens. No. I don’t buy that. You can’t stare at the male-consort-idol next to Pachamama demonness idols to whom children are sacrificed for so long and not stop the idol worship ceremony, and not walk away from it… immediately…

  • And you don’t then bless the Pachamama idol. And you don’t then allow Pachamamas into a Church near the Vatican.
  • And you don’t then threaten severe prosecution of those upstanding individuals who threw the idols into the river.
  • And you don’t then have Pachamama brought in procession. And you don’t then have a worship ceremony of Pachamama in Saint Peter’s Basilica.
  • And you don’t then have Pachamama set upon the altar in Saint Peter’s for the closing Mass: the plant that is a zillion times more representative of Pachamama than any idol, the bowl having an Inca pictogram of Pachamama etched on the side.

Don’t leave the Church, just don’t follow Pope Francis in his promotion of idols.

UPDATE: By the way, this is a typical Marxist way of behaving. When I was in a parish of an openly and viciously Marxist priest in Eastern Nicaragua, taking note of things, I saw some artwork in his rectory, a painting of Jesus crucified. Jesus, our dear Savior, was also depicted with a ridiculously oversized, well, you know. Typical Marxism.

God will not be mocked.

Jesus will come to judge the living and the dead and world… by fire… Amen.

9 Comments

Filed under Pope Francis

Pope Francis sums up his heresies

I’m only getting to this now as I’m busy with actually being a priest. I think it’s criminal that I or any priest has to waste time answering idiotic statements of Pope Francis, who has totally lost any objective claim to personal honor with the presentation in the Vatican Gardens of the Pachamama Idol and her male-Consort Idol. I make these comments below in a terrible rush early Sunday morning before the 6:00 AM Holy Hour of Adoration with Confessions up in church. My emphasis. [My comments.]

/// The full mid-flight papal presser question of Jason Horowitz (NYT) and answer of Pope Francis that I’m using as the basis for this was posted by Edward Pentin of the NCRegister on Tuesday Sep 10th, 2019 at 3:33 PM. ///

Jason Horowitz: On the flight to Maputo you acknowledged being under attack by a segment of the American Church. Obviously, there is strong criticism from some bishops and cardinals, there are Catholic Television stations and American websites that are very critical. And there are even some of your closest allies who have spoken of a plot against you. [Wow. I never heard of that. Is that baiting by the NYT?] Is there something that these critics do not understand about your pontificate? Is there something that you have learned from your critics? Are you afraid of a schism in the American Church? And if so, is there something that you could do – a dialogue – to keep it from happening?

Pope Francis: First of all, criticism always helps, always. When someone receives criticism, that person needs to do a self-critique right away and say: is this true or not? To what point? And I always benefit from criticism. Sometimes it makes you angry…. But there are advantages. Traveling to Maputo, one of you gave me that book in French on how the Americans want to change the Pope. I knew about that book, but I had not read it. Criticisms are not coming only from the Americans, they are coming a bit from everywhere, even from the Curia. At least those that say them have the benefit of the honesty of having said them. I do not like it when criticism stays under the table: they smile at you letting you see their teeth and then they stab you in the back. That is not fair, it is not human. [I use my name. You say you don’t like “Yes men’, Pope Francis, but +Christophe Pierre is demanding proofs of submission to the anti-Christ things that you do on a continual basis.]

Criticism is a component in construction, and if your criticism is unjust, be prepared to receive a response, and get into dialogue, and arrive to the right conclusion. [And there’s the fraud. Your dialogue partner is always wrong and will always have to change his mind, right?] This is the dynamic of true criticism. The criticism of the arsenic pills, instead, of which we were speaking regarding the article that I gave to Msgr Rueda, it’s like throwing the stone and then hiding your hand… This is not beneficial, it is no help. It helps small cliques, who do not want to hear the response to their criticism. Instead, fair criticism – I think thus and so – is open to a response. This is constructive. [That’s seems to be a blatant lie, Pope Francis. Why don’t you answer the Dubia?]

Regarding the case of the Pope: I don’t like this aspect of the Pope, I criticize him, I speak about him, I write an article and ask him to respond, this is fair. [Like the Dubia Cardinals? Pfft.]  To criticize without wanting to hear a response and without getting into dialogue is not to have the good of the Church at heart, it is chasing after a fixed idea, to change the Pope or to create a schism. This is clear: a fair criticism is always well received, at least by me. [That’s not true. You smash people down. You don’t confirm your brothers in the faith.] Secondly, the problem of the schism: within the Church there have been many schisms.

After the First Vatican Council, for example, the last vote, the one on infallibility, a well-sized group left and founded the Old Catholic Church so as to remain “true” to the tradition of the Church. Then they developed differently and now they ordain women. But in that moment they were rigid, they rallied behind orthodoxy and thought that the council had erred. [Such playing with language, turning words into their reverse meaning. The ‘Old Catholics’ (self-referentially inconsistent) were ultra-filthy-filthy liberals, rejecting what was always the truth of papal infallibility in matters of faith and morals.] Another group left very, very quietly, but they did not want to vote. Vatican II had these things among its consequences. Perhaps the most well-known post-conciliar split is that of Lefebvre. In the Church there is always the option for schism, always. But it is an option that the Lord leaves to human freedom.

I am not afraid of schisms, I pray that there will be none, because what is at stake is people’s spiritual health. [So, Pope Francis, why don’t you ever confirm your brothers in the faith?] Let there be dialogue, let there be correction if there is an error, but the schismatic path is not Christian. [And forever dialectical destructive one sided obliteration of the faith is not dialogue, is not teaching, is not confirming one’s brothers in the faith.] Let’s think about the beginnings of the Church, how it began with many schisms, one after the other: Arians, Gnostics, Monophysites… [And now we can add dialectical materialism and idol worship.] An anecdote is coming to mind that I would like to recount: it was the people of God who saved [the Church] from the schisms. The schismatics always have one thing in common: they separate themselves from the people, from the faith of the people of God. And when there was a discussion in the council of Ephesus regarding Mary’s divine maternity, the people – this is history – were at the entrance of the cathedral while the bishops entered to take part in the council. They were there with clubs. They made the bishops see them as they shouted, “Mother of God! Mother of God!”, as if to say: if you do not do this, this is what you can expect… The people of God always correct and help. [And the whole world is crying out for Jesus, the Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception, and you, Pope Francis, give them the demon-goddess Pachamama and her male-Consort in Vatican Gardens. What the hell are you doing, Pope Francis? Are you possessed.]

A schism is always an elitist separation stemming from an ideology detached from doctrine. [That sums up about 100% of what you do and say, Pope Francis. You will never say, with Jesus, to the adulterous woman: “Do not sin again,” will you? And why is that? Are you so much better than Jesus? You don’t trust His grace?] It is an ideology, perhaps correct, but that engages doctrine and detaches it… [But one can believe and be united with Jesus, but that’s exactly what you don’t believe. You think that truth and belief are mutually exclusive.] And so I pray that schisms do not happen, but I am not afraid of them. This is one of the results of Vatican II, not because of this or that Pope. For example, the social things that I say are the same things that John Paul II said, the same things! I copy him. [No, you do not. Look at what you’ve done to entirely destroy the JPII Institute for Marriage and the Family. The bigger the lie, the more believable it is, right?]

But they say: the Pope is a communist… [Yep. I say that. Objectively, that’s what you present. If it walks, talks and acts like a communist…] Ideologies enter into doctrine and when doctrine slips into ideology that’s where there’s the possibility of a schism. [It’s right at the top.] There’s the ideology of the primacy of a sterile morality regarding the morality of the people of God. [Being forgiven, walking with great peace and joy in the grace of our Lord, being introduced by Jesus to purity of heart and agility of soul and profound love of God and neighbor is not sterile. For you to insult those who are tabernacles of the Holy Spirit in such comprehensive terms may edge on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, Pope Francis. You should be careful of pushing such insults of the Holy Spirit.] The pastors must lead their flock between grace and sin, because this is evangelical morality. {I pastori devono condurre il gregge tra la grazia e il peccato, perché la morale evangelica è questa. // Los pastores deben guiar al rebaño entre la gracia y el pecado, porque ésta es la moralidad evangélica.} [“Must.” There it is. So violent. Being lukewarm is the best, you say? The Lord will vomit such out of His mouth, as He said. Always sin and merely pretending one is in friendship with God. How very self-referential, self-absorbed, Promethean, Pelagian…] Instead, a morality based on such a pelagian [For Pope Francis, Jesus is Pelagian.] ideology [For Pope Francis, Jesus is an ideology.] leads you to rigidity [For Pope Francis, Jesus is ‘rigid’.], and today we have many schools[!] of rigidity within the Church, which are not schisms, but pseudo-schismatic Christian developments that will end badly. [There is the school of Pope Francis. That will certainly end badly. Jesus will come to judge the living and dead and world by fire, including your Pachamama and her male-Consort-Idol.] When you see rigid Christians, bishops, priests, there are problems behind that, not Gospel holiness. [They are all damned sinners! Pope Francis is soooooooooo hooooooooooly!] So, we need to be gentle with those who are tempted by these attacks, they are going through a tough time, we must accompany them gently. [How very condescending. Vomit here. Pope Francis claims the moral high ground. He’s so nice! So balanced! But actually, this is exactly when things become violent. When we read of the martyrs who refused to offer worship to idols, we read of the ever so nice and balanced and judicious authoritative figure who begs in all reasonableness that the martyr-to-be simply offer a bit of incense and then all will be nice. But the martyrs went to their death, and, just to say, that authoritative figure who is claiming the moral high ground, and reason, and niceness, is the very one who will instantly and with great violence torture those martyrs to death, burning them alive, cutting them to pieces. Historically, we are at a time when we will start to see such persecution of those who witness to the love and truth of Jesus. More and more are on the run, such as Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, such as Father Paul Kalchik.]


The purpose of writing all this isn’t to make people have doubts or become cynical. It’s to say that not all are attacking the faith. There are so very many who are still believers. Just because the Pope is personally attacking the faith… well… who cares? That’s too bad for him. But no one needs to think that that’s more important than his own individual person before Jesus. What he says and does is not ever done as something infallible. No. And so, we pray for him, that when he turns, he will confirm his brothers in the faith.

6 Comments

Filed under Pope Francis

On saving idol worshippers

From a second century author…

  • “To make sure that none of us is lost, we must repent from the bottom of our hearts. Since we have been commanded to go out and rescue idolaters and to instruct them, is it not even more important to save souls who already know God? If we are all to be saved, we shall have to help one another and support the weak in their struggle to live a good life. When one of us does wrong, it is for the others to warn him and persuade him of his error.”

But those faithful to Jesus are called idol worshippers because they insist Jesus is Divine and sinless, our only Redeemer and Savior.

3 Comments

Filed under Pope Francis

Challenge to Nuncio + Christophe Pierre

Recently the Apostolic Nuncio to these USA, during the general assembly of the bishops, demanded concrete signs of submission to the “magisterium” of Pope Francis. I took that as a bullying threat because, well, there is no such thing.

Here’s the deal: No Pope has his own magisterium. His teaching is to be the teaching of Jesus, and of Jesus’ Church throughout the ages. For instance, if a Pius IX or a Pius XII pronounces something ex-Cathedra, say, about the Immaculate Conception or about the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that’s nothing different from what the Church has always believed. I would never reduce such teaching merely to the idiosyncratic wierdnesses of some particular individual Bishop of Rome. No. This is Catholic teaching of the ages.

Pope Francis has never pronounced anything in an ex-Cathedra manner. Moreover, the thing most pushed for compliance, for submission, is Amoris laetitia. But Pope Francis called that a dialogue in it’s opening paragraphs. It’s means nothing on the level of teaching or “magisterium.”

If such pressure is given – and the pressure is a green light to not give believing priests assignments, and eventually to dismiss them from the clerical state – it can only refer to insisting on submission to the most unorthodox interpretations.

Thus, I guess it’s being demanded to put Pachamama idols on our altars with the Holy Sacrifice of Jesus. I guess we’re supposed to put Pachamama consort idols of a fully sexually erect man up on the altar as in the Vatican Gardens pagan worship ceremony at which Pope Francis blessed the idol. I guess we’re supposed to say that Jesus sinned against His mother. I guess we’re supposed to say that women with more than two children are rabbits (my mom had four children). I guess…

Should I go on?

My challenge to you +Christophe Pierre, is to come up with a list of things to which we bishops and priests must adhere so as to be counted among the supporters of Pope Francis.

You would think this would be about Jesus.

But no. This is all self-referential. Prometheam. Pelagian. Self-absorbed.

I will not submit to idiocy. I am a Catholic priest. I am priest of Jesus Christ. A priest forever in the line of Melchizedek. I will not submit to Satanic idiocy.

P.S. One might speak of the magisterium of JPII and, for instance, that saints efforts with the JPII Institute for Marriage and the Family. But all that is only hailed because it is reflective of that which is Catholic. It is Catholic. It is the magisterium of the Church. Nothing that Pope Francis has been vomiting out has anything to do with such doctrine, such morality, such integrity, such honesty, such honor.

If there’s no honor, there’s no obedience from me.

Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir. Amen. And Amen.

5 Comments

Filed under Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

What’s that circling about the church? More on my best memory of dad.

img_20191113_144203~24757859813693914230..jpg

Dad was all about USMC Fighter-Attack Corsairs and then jets. I once asked him if he could fly helicopters and, to my delight, he said that he could fly about anything at all that any manufacturer has come up with that goes up in the air. Marines. For God and Country. Yes, both of those in the same sentence. For God and Country. A marine is always faithful, semper fidelis, Semper Fi, because God is first of faithful, so to speak, steadfast in the glory of honor: God so loved the world that He sent His only Son… So, I always wax nostalgic… From a post I put up some years ago, with a few more details:

image

Dad’s the one with his back to you immediately to the left of the propeller. This is on the USS Bataan.

My favorite memory of dad was back in the Autumn of 1962, when I was just 2 1/2 years old, ten years after the picture above was taken. I’d walk up in the Communion line next to him with the rest of the family behind us. The first time I had made brave to follow him the rest of the family threw a fit saying that I should be carried, but I insisted I could make the long trek from the back of the Cathedral up to the front, and dad backed me up. The Cathedral had a gorgeous altar rail with the linens flipped over the top. I was always impressed by the linens getting flipped over the top, just as I was with kneeling there beside my dad, reaching up as high as I could to put my hands under the linens like he was doing. I was pretty small. I was filled with such wonder and awe and reverence as the priest and altar boy with paten would make it over to us. They would start on the Epistle side. We were always on the Gospel side. Everything worked together to instill reverence.

It was good be on my knees with dad before the Lord Jesus. Very good. That’s not just reminiscence with commentary of someone older. No. I was thinking that thought as a tiny little kid. And I can still remember thinking it from my diminutive height, especially so small on my knees. I remember how cold the granite altar rail was below the linens – even in summer. Here I am, thought I, with my dad, before God. I was totally enthralled.

1 Comment

Filed under Eucharist, Military