Tag Archives: Pope Francis

Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation QUERIDA AMAZONIA of Pope Francis

eucharist pope francis

The Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation QUERIDA AMAZONIA of the Holy Father FRANCIS to the People of God and to All Persons of Good Will, of 12 February 2020, has nothing about female deacons or priests, nothing about non-celibate priests. :-)

Pope Francis: as your Missionary of Mercy, if I can make brave to speak on behalf of the entire Church, we all thank you.

6 Comments

Filed under Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Hey! Pope Francis! Priestly celibacy is doctrinal and necessary for the Church

dove pope francis 2

There are rumors!

  • There are rumors that Pope Francis is going to publish the Amazon Synod “document” or throw-away “dialogue point” this Wednesday, February 12, 2020.
  • There are rumors that priestly celibacy will be thrown away.

If that’s what you intend Pope Francis, you have in that case certainly been coprophagic. Too bad, that. Let me instruct you.

  • We were created male and female, for marriage and the family, as the image of God.
  • We lost that in original sin. To redeem us from that Jesus would marry His bride, the Church, with His wedding vows at the Last Supper: “This is my Body given for you in sacrifice, this is the chalice of my Blood poured out for you in sacrifice.” Those vows are connected to His sacrifice on the Cross: He stood in our place, the Innocent for the guilty, He therefore having the right in His own justice to make us one with Himself, He the Head of the Body, we the members of the Body.
  • The priest repeats those consecrations in Persona Christi. The priest is married to the Bride of Christ, the Church, by the wedding vows he recites in the first person singular at the wedding banquet of the Lamb, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
  • As it says in the Scriptures, we priests are to be married but once. That “one time” refers to the Bride of Christ, the Church.
  • If the priest was already married, say, Saint Peter, then the Church provably, demonstrably, inescapably understood this to be a Josephite marriage (in which Saint Joseph was entirely chaste in regard to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who continued to be a virgin). This is evident in the Councils to follow in those early centuries.
  • To disregard this marriage of Christ so as to have married men in the Amazon and then around the world who are not living a Josephite marriage just so that they can say Mass but not hear Confessions is to disregard the redemption of the image of God in us by way of Christ’s marriage with His Bride, the Church. It is to disregard Calvary. It is to disregard original sin and personal sin. It is to say that Christ is useless and did nothing for us at the Last Supper and upon the Cross. It is to say that Christ is a damn fool.
  • Moreover, the priesthood must therefore be male. A woman-priest would be the symbol of transgenderism and of lesbianism, a woman married to the Bride of Christ. How sick is that?

Is that what you really want, Pope Francis?

  • Speak to us instead about the redemption of the image of God in us, about the redemption of marriage and the family by way the Last Supper and Calvary.
  • Speak to us instead about who priests really are as they offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as they forgive sin of those who are repentant.
  • Speak to us not of your own personal version of a Jesus who has zero power to sanctify people, making all lost hope, throwing them into despair, but speak to us instead of the Divine Son of the Living God, immortal, holy, who can bring us to a love which is consonant with truth, and to a morality which is the splendor of the truth, you know, the Veritatis splendor.

I hope you are not offended by my making brave to say such things, but it is out of love for you. You are the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ.

I am not your “yes man.” I am not your sycophant. I am your good servant, but God’s first.

Stop scandalizing the entire Church and the entire world. We want a holy Holy Father.

Just to say, it is when priests do not know that they are married to the Church that all problems start. When marriage is not open to life, it tends to be sex tending to death. If it’s just sex, then the door is open to homosexuality. If priests don’t even know they are married, and are therefore not open to the forgiveness of sin, and have no hope of anything about redemption and salvation, they turn to sin. Look at the history of it, since the rejection of Human vitae on late July, 1968. Get it? Wake up!

The worst case scenario: After getting rid of priestly celibacy, the worst case scenario would be that executive power in the Roman Curia would be reserved only to the Pope, who can only handle a case or two a day, so that all other cases of that which would have involved Rome now will be dealt with only by the local bishop. In that case all hell will break out. Zero governance. Zero discipline. Good priests will be assigned to nothing, then lose their salary, then lose their insurance, then be dismissed from the clerical state as useless creatures who only offer liability. You know the drill: pro bono ecclesiae.

Oh. I forgot. Pope Francis already promised long ago to take away executive power from the Roman Curia just after finishing publishing the “document” of the Amazon Synod.

2 Comments

Filed under Holy See, Marriage, Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis, Vatican

Grey, the new black: New Evangelization, the New Proselytizing. Pfft. I love Jesus.

chess board robert van der steeg impossible world

A reader writes:

“When you have time, would you please explain what the New Evangelisation is? I hear/read the term a lot. Pope Francis has said on various occasions that Catholics are not to proselytise (not to convert people to the Catholic Faith) but I thought evangelisation (sharing the Gospel) involves proselytising. Hence, I am confused. Am I misunderstanding the terms “to proselytise” and “to evangelise” or is the “New Evangelisation” something different?”

Saint Pope John Paul II continuously used the phrase “New Evangelization” from the very beginning and throughout his pontificate. Benedict XVI followed suit. As did Francis. What they all mean exactly has been the subject of doctoral dissertations. I have to wonder if any of them actually settled on any kind of accurate description. But none of that matters. It’s how it’s used today, right now. And I have no idea what it’s all about.

Obviously, it’s all purposely unclear when no one defines the terms while causing world-class confusion and ambiguity and obfuscation and rancor and division and dissension on a continuous basis in the face of grave objections from basically everyone on the face of the earth. Since you can make of such confusion and ambiguity and obfuscation whatever you want, in the end it doesn’t mean anything at all. It’s just a tool for those considering themselves to be clever to bully others. And therefore it is to be ignored. There is nothing reasonable that one can do with… nothing. And whatever you do, don’t try to understand error as error is unreasonable by definition, and therefore cannot be understood.

On the one hand, maybe Pope Francis is simply calling to mind the admonition of Jesus:

  • “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.” (Matthew 23:15)

On the other hand, maybe Pope Francis really hates the idea that anyone would get to know and love Jesus, Christ our God, our Savior, Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception.

I don’t know. He’s not clear. And, yes, that’s really annoying. For about 10 seconds. Then I get over it by ignoring it, because nothing means… well… nothing.

Meanwhile, for my part, in the worst case scenario, even if I were to be dismissed from the clerical state and excommunicated because of my wanting to share my love for Jesus (call that proselytizing or evangelizing or being just plain friendly), I will still share my love for Jesus in any way I can.

It is Jesus’ love which is stronger than all things, even death, bringing us to heaven.

It’s all so sad, I’ll grant you that. However, we are to be joyful in speaking of Christ’s good friendship. And if there are those who object of whatever class or rank, let them do their thing. For my part, I will continue to love Jesus and introduce others to Jesus.

4 Comments

Filed under Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

POTUS March for Life 2020 & VPOTUS

Thank you very much and thank you, Jeanne. It is my profound honor to be the first president in history to attend the March for Life. [applause] We are here for a very simple reason: to defend the right of every child, born and unborn, to fulfill their God-given potential. [applause] For 47 years, Americans of all backgrounds have traveled from across the country to stand for life. And today as President of the United States, I am truly proud to stand with you. [applause] I want to welcome tens of thousands – this is a tremendous turnout – tens of thousands of high school and college students who took long bus rides to be here in our nation’s capital. And to make you feel even better, there are tens of thousands of people outside that we passed on the way in. If anybody would like to give up their spot, we can work it out. [laughter] We have a tremendous group of people outside. Thousands and thousands wanted to get in. This is some great success. [applause] Young people are the heart of the March for Life. And it’s your generation that is making America the pro-family, pro-life nation. [applause] The life movement is led by strong women, amazing faith leaders, and brave students who carry on the legacy of pioneers before us who fought to raise the conscience of our nation and uphold the rights of our citizens. You embrace mothers with care and compassion. You are empowered by prayer and motivated by your unselfish love. You are grateful and we are so grateful – these are incredible people – to be joined by Secretary Alex Azar and Kellyanne Conway. [applause] And thanks also to Senators Mike Lee and James Lankford who are here. Thank you, fellas. And Representatives Steve Scalise, Chris Smith, Ralph Abraham, Warren Davidson, Bob Latta, John Joyce, Lloyd Smucker, Brian Fitzpatrick, and Brad Wenstrup. Thank you all. I have to say – and I look at it, and I see it exactly – we have many more politicians in the audience. But if you don’t mind, I won’t introduce them all. All of us here understand an eternal truth: Every child is a precious and sacred gift from God. [applause] Together, we must protect, cherish, and defend the dignity and the sanctity of every human life. [applause] When we see the image of a baby in the womb, we glimpse the majesty of God’s creation. [applause] When we hold a newborn in our arms, we know the endless love that each child brings to a family. When we watch a child grow, we see the splendor that radiates from each human soul. One life changes the world – from my family, and I can tell you, I send love, and I send great, great love – and from the first day in office, I have taken historic action to support America’s families and to protect the unborn. [applause] And during my first week in office, I reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy and we issued a landmark pro-life rule to govern the use of Title X taxpayer funding. I notified Congress that I would veto any legislation that weakens pro-life policy or that encourages the destruction of human life. [applause] At the United Nations, I made clear that global bureaucrats have no business attacking the sovereignty of nations that protect innocent life. [applause] Unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House. [applause] As the Bible tells us, each person is wonderfully made. [applause] We have taken decisive action to protect the religious liberty – so important – religious liberty has been under attack all over the world and frankly, very strongly attacked in our nation. You see it better than anyone. But we are stopping it. And we’re taking care of doctors, nurses, teachers, and groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor. [applause] We are preserving faith-based adoption and to uphold our founding documents, we have appointed 187 federal judges, who apply the Constitution as written, including two phenomenal supreme court justices – Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. [applause] We are protecting pro-life students’ rights to free speech on college campuses. And if universities want federal taxpayer dollars, then they must uphold your First Amendment right to speak your mind. And if they don’t, they pay a very big financial penalty, which they will not be willing to pay. [applause] Sadly, the far left is working to erase our God-given rights, shut down faith-based charities, ban religious leaders from the public square, and silence Americans who believe in the sanctity of life. They are coming after me because I am fighting for you and we are fighting for those who have no voice. And we will win because we know how to win. [applause] We all know how to win. We all know how to win. You’ve been winning for a long time. You’ve been winning for a long time. Together, we are the voice for the voiceless. When it comes to abortion – and you know this, you’ve seen what’s happened – Democrats have embraced the most radical and extreme positions taken and seen in this country for years and decades, and you can even say, for centuries. Nearly every top Democrat in congress now supports taxpayer-funded abortion all the way up until the moment of birth. Last year, lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb right up until delivery. Then, we had the case of the Democrat governor in the state of Virginia, the commonwealth of Virginia. And we love the commonwealth of Virginia, but what is going on in Virginia? What is going on? The governor stated that he would execute a baby after birth. You remember that. Senate Democrats even blocked legislation that would give medical care to babies who survive attempted abortions. And that’s why I’ve called on Congress – two of our great senators here, so many of our congressmen here – I called upon them to defend the dignity of life and to pass legislation prohibiting late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in their mother’s womb. [applause] This year, the March for Life is celebrating the 100th anniversary of the 19th amendment, which forever enshrined women’s rights to vote in the United States and given by the United States constitution. Such a big event. Today, millions of extraordinary women across America are using the power of their votes to fight for the right and all of their rights as given in the Declaration of Independence – it’s the right to life. [applause] To all the women here today, your devotion and your leadership uplifts our entire nation and we thank you for that. The tens of thousands of Americans gathered today not only stand for life – it’s really here that they stand for it so proudly together. And I want to thank everybody for that. You stand for life each and every day. You provide housing, education, jobs, and medical care to the women that you serve. You find loving families for children in need of a forever home. You host baby showers for expecting moms. You make – you just make it your life’s mission to help spread God’s grace. And to all the moms here today, we celebrate you and we declare that mothers are heroes. [applause] Your strength, devotion, and drive is what powers our nation. Because of you, our country has been blessed with amazing souls who have changed the course of human history. We cannot know what our citizens yet unborn will achieve. The dreams they will imagine. The masterpieces they will create. The discoveries they will make. But we know this: every life brings love into this world. Every child brings joy to a family. Every person is worth protecting. And above all, we know that every human soul is divine and every human life, born and unborn, is made in the holy image of Almighty God. [applause] Together, we will defend this truth all across our magnificent land. We will set free the dreams of our people. And with determined hope, we look forward to all of the blessings that will come from the beauty, talent, purpose, nobility, and grace of every American child. I want to thank you. This is a very special moment. It’s so great to represent you. I love you all. [applause] And I say with a true passion, thank you, God bless you, and God bless America. Thank you all. Thank you. [applause]

11 Comments

Filed under Pro-Life

Dear Pope Francis: *Noli timere!* Missionaries of Mercy of USA rejoice

wp-15797939276597965307950041391340.jpg

Many others wanted to come but logistics were made difficult for them because of last minute scheduling due to the delay of the international meeting in Rome this year. So, this was our first national meeting, but in future we voted to include the few Missionaries of Mercy that there are in Canada.

Just some random thoughts, not in any particular order:

This was a get-together that was most encouraging, most inspiring. The priests were wonderful. Honestly, I learned a great deal about the desires of Pope Francis for the Missionaries of Mercy. In presenting the thoughts of our break-away session group to the gathering at large, I was able to phrase things in such a way about the desire of Pope Francis that quite the round of applause was made in agreement. This was most heartening.

Also, I was able to make and renew friendships. This was much different than the international meeting, which has its own character and purpose, what with being ad limina Apostolorum, but this national meeting was much more personal, much more – how to say? – allowing much greater freedom of expression. Those who made presentations were most animated, passionate, highly expert in the fields in which they have dedicated themselves to be Papal Missionaries of Mercy.

There was, in fact, some indications of the desire to add the appellation Papal to the title “Missionaries of Mercy.” Indeed, our local Vicar Forane in this Diocese, heavily into his Canon Law studies, not a Missionary of Mercy, says that the closest thing in Canon Law that might describe our place in the Church is Papal Legate. This would have to do with the special faculties for absolution. However, there were some who were into international aspects of going out into the peripheries which caught my attention, having me immediately think of analogies for other types of ministry much needed in the Church and which would benefit from this Papal freedom to go out to those in need more easily. I will attempt to follow up on this bit of thinking outside the box, something I think Pope Francis would not only allow but encourage.

There was time for networking. One priest in particular who is well known to and highly respected by Father Gordon MacRae let me know some of the finer points of international law, speaking with the highest authority. A revelation. He was able to answer questions which I’ve had for very many years. Great!

I cannot emphasize enough that I was entirely surprised by joy, by truth, by a deeper introduction to the very Heart of our Lord by the Bishop from the New Evangelization. He made many interventions, took down our suggestions – one of which, from yours truly, he will provide to the Holy Father in a few days from now (though he wants me to provide my suggestion also in written form that he might send this along in different ways (also useful in the Holy See, he said). He also provided a conference (rather technical, as might be expected) and then a more at ease homily (which I am most happy to say was surely the best homily that I have heard, by far, without comparison, on the new evangelization, using the example of Saint Marianne of Molokai (January 23, 1838 – August 9, 1918), the great friend of Saint Damian the Leper. This homily was so stunningly beautiful, simple, profound, far reaching, spiritual, that is, pointing to the Lord Jesus through one of Jesus’ saints, that I rejoiced in that… [well, you get the point…]

We all very much hoped that we would have another such encounter, perhaps in the year following the international get together planned now for 2021 in the Vatican.

There are certain presentations – captured on video – that I think would be great for the Church at large to hear, but they were most personal, and it just wouldn’t be right for me to share them.

In sum, I think these days were very good for me, healing, really. So, very happy.

5 Comments

Filed under Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Priestly Celibacy, Jesus, Pachamama BS

crucifix drawing john of the cross

People put forward all sorts of “nice” arguments in favor of priestly celibacy, economic, logistical, practical, in favor of availability for anything and everything from missionary work to being moved from parish to parish and so on. I don’t buy any of those arguments. All of those could be overcome in one way or another. Putting priestly celibacy on the level of expedience is the fastest way to get rid of celibacy altogether, as these are all disciplinary. The debate – dialogue if you want – would be unending.

Forget all that rubbish! Let’s talk about doctrine. Let’s talk JESUS. He’s never mentioned in this except for things like – and this is truly stupid – “Jesus was celibate.” Yeah, well, He’s a special case isn’t He? So, drop that dumb argument as well.  Along the same lines, forget the bit about the Apostles not being married. They were in special circumstances as well.

On the other side, with Peter being married (remember the mother-in-law having the fever account?), that doesn’t hold either, as it seems from what we can surmise from Matthew 19:12 (I’ll get to that) and Paul’s letter to Titus, Peter surely became celibate. Not only would Peter be following up on Matthew 19:12, but he would be in line with this continuing tradition as spoken of later by Saint Paul, the the clergy are to be married but once, that is, to the Church. It would be insanity to say that “married only once” only refers to not being divorced and remarried, or to polygamy that they did not practice at that time. So, again:

Let’s speak of Jesus:

  • Jesus stood in our place, Innocent for the guilty, having the right in His own justice to have mercy on us, redeeming us from original sin and personal sin.
  • If we want, He forgives us, sanctifies us, makes us one with Himself, with the Body of Christ, Jesus the Head of the Body, we the members of the Body, as St Paul says.
  • We were created as the image of God, male and female, marriage and the family, as is eloquently pointed out in Genesis.
  • Jesus redeems that image and saves us by it by way of His own marriage with His bride the Church, as spoken about countless times explicitly throughout Old and New Testaments.
  • The marriage vows of Jesus, rendered in mercy founded on justice, are recited by the priest in the first person singular at the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Last Supper united with Calvary, at the Consecrations, those wedding vows:
    • This is my Body being given for you… in sacrifice
    • This is my Blood being poured out for you… in sacrifice
  • The priest is married to the Church by the Sacrifice he daily offers at the altar. How dare anyone say that a priest is NOT married. What an insult to both Jesus and the priest. How dark and hateful is that insult. How damnable.

Having said all that, let’s mention a few hateful assertions:

  • The stupid man says: “Priests should get married because that will cut down on abuse.” No, that superstitiously throws one sacrament at another sacrament as if that’s going to solve grave psychological issues and sin. All you are going to get is more incest.
  • The stupid man says: “Let’s ordain priests to say Mass but nothing else.” No, that just sets up people going to Holy Communion without any opportunity to confess their sins and be forgiven, which is the point of the Sacrifice of Jesus in the first place.
  • The stupid man says: “Let’s have women priests.” No, that just sets up an anti-image of God anti-redemption. Jesus redeems with a marriage, Himself with His BRIDE the Church (as we see throughout all the Scriptures). This is to redeem the image of God in us as at creation: male and female as the image of God in marriage and the family. The image of God is NOT lesbian, nor homosexual.
  • The stupid man says: “Let’s have temporary priests.” No, that’s like a self-serving divorce, the ol’ “Here for the good times, gone for the bad times.” This is about not sticking around as a father of the family. No father =  extreme high risk of bad kids. The stats are insane on that. Check them out. I’ve always seen the same in revolving door parishes where the priests are changed out even multiple times a year, where priests are not pastors, just administrators, just there for the quicky, so to speak, and then gone, leaving their parishes entrenched in clericalized power groups wanting to kill each other. Really, that’s NOT what Jesus wants.

Having said all that, what does Jesus want?

  • Jesus wants a priest after His own Heart, who is humble of heart, who has integrity and honesty, who loves the truth and virtue and goodness and kindness, shunning evil and corruption and wickedness and lies and all manner of darkness.
  • Jesus wants a man who is a tabernacle of the Holy Spirit.
  • Jesus wants a man who will sacrifice himself for his family of faith, not counting the cost, even life.
  • Jesus wants a man who will rejoice to see Him, Jesus, exercising His own ministry of High Priest in the parish, letting Jesus take the lead, no matter what.
  • Jesus wants a man who knows full well and rejoices in the fact that he recites his own wedding vows daily to his Bride the Church as he recites in the first person singular the wedding vows of Jesus to His Bride the Church at the Consecrations at Holy Mass: my body being given for you… in sacrifice, my blood being poured out for you… in sacrifice.

By the way, just to say, if priests would only be who they are supposed to be in being fathers of their parish families, knowing they are married to the Church, encouraging people to go to Confession and doing the same himself, providing for them what Christ Jesus and the Church have always wanted to be provided with Truth and Morality (the splendor of the Truth), there would never have been such an abuse crisis, or financial corruption, or seeking after “power”, or whatever other self-centered rubbish fallen human beings can come up with.

But I’ll tell you this, no liberal jerky-boy Bishop wants to speak of Jesus when it comes to priestly celibacy as that would destroy every bit of liberal agenda they have on any given topic. Destroy priestly celibacy, destroy the Church (as everything about the Sacrifice of Jesus will be ignored. We will have no understanding of marriage, or the redemption of the image of God. Nothing.

And don’t think that procrastination in dealing with already married Anglican clergy or the practice of some in the “Orthodox” churches is that which bears doctrine. It doesn’t.

  • That’s a lot of fallenness to deal with, you say? Sure. What did you expect. This goes to the absolutely heart of our faith, to the Sacred Heart of our Lord Himself.
  • This is about Jesus, so let priests know that they are married to the Church.
  • And, please, don’t be so afraid to share this and similar posts.

4 Comments

Filed under Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis, Priesthood, Priestly Celibacy, Priestly Celibacy Series, Spiritual life, Vocations

Pope Francis: you with him or against? But that’s actually not the question.

That cute comment coming from a lady who once lived in these WNC mountains actually sidesteps the question as to whether one is with him or against him. But that’s not actually the question either.

This isn’t a matter of being for against someone, or whether they are cute or not, as Saint Paul says (Ephesians 6:12):

  • “Our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens.”

The question comes down to whether or not we prayer for the Successor of Saint Peter as both Jesus and His good mom prayed for Peter. Praying for someone doesn’t mean we agree with any word or action, just that they follow the will of God. Everything is right about that.

If we don’t pray for him, I would make brave to say that all our judgments for or against are about as relevant as to whether someone thinks the Pope is cute. Having said that, I think my one-time parishioner is cute in saying Pope Francis is cute.

Also, to be “WITH” Pope Francis shouldn’t be a matter of being sycophants, parrots of whatever he says and does, as if he were a commandant of puppets, robots, cogs of a Promethean machine.

Just because someone offers a critique of this or that writing, this or that “document,” this or that action, does not mean that one is “AGAINST” Pope Francis. That would be absurd bullying. Pope Francis says he doesn’t want “Yes men.” So let me oblige in whatever helpful way I can.

It does seem, however, that there is a culture (to abuse that term) of those who are self-appointed bullies of all those who are not mini-versions of Pope Francis, thinking that they are currying favor with him by smashing down those who they think are his enemies. How very sad. It’s very much the dialectical materialism I’ve personally witnessed in many countries right around the world.

Jesus is the one who is neglected by these princes of the Church, just as Jesus was abandoned by the Apostles as He hung on the Cross. Outside of a handful such as Sarah or Burke et al., NO ONE but NO ONE speaks a word about Jesus.

Sinner that I am, I’m with Jesus, and with God’s grace, I will not leave His side.

The question isn’t about being with or against Pope Francis. That’s stupid. The question is about whether or not we are with Jesus, and are willing to be crucified with Him so as to give witness to many, so as to bring many souls to heaven… for eternity…

2 Comments

Filed under Pope Francis

Dear Pope Francis: Space greater than time – Resolution for the New Year

Apparently there are those who troll the world by messing with the understanding of time. Let’s be pedantic.

  • I grew up in one house until I was a year and a half years old. I remember pretty much everything about that house until this day.
  • I celebrated my second birthday when I was – wait for it – two years old, in another house to which we moved. I remember that birthday. There’s a picture – me with my dad – that I include here.
  • It seems to me that…
    • I was zero years old the day I was born
    • I was one year old at my first birthday a year later in the first house
    • I was two years old when I was… two years old when I was in the second house.
  • But there are those who say that…
    • I was one year old the day I was born
    • I was two years old at my first birthday a year later in the first house
    • I was three years old when I celebrated my second birthday
  • I’m going to ignore another system in the very Far East which has it that one is one year old the day of birth since they start counting with time already done in the womb. I like that system. Very pro-life. But that’s not what’s behind the trolling of those trying to make people dumber for a laugh.

When I moved houses after my first birthday but before my second, I moved, it is said, when I was one year old. Yes, but, at the same time, I was half way through working on the completion of my second year after my first birthday. Although the first year was gone, kaput, long assigned to history, never to be retrieved, it was still said that I was a one-year-old even though I was more than one year old, partially two, as it were.

Soon I will turn 60. But I’m already working on the completion of my 60th year. I’m pulling 50 and pushing 60 right now. But soon I’ll be pulling 60 and pushing 70. So within a nanosecond one goes from pulling 50 to pushing 70. [!]

The picture included here was taken in 1962. That’s right, the 1900s. But that was called the twentieth century, you know, working on the completion of that 20th century. Remember 20th Century Fox way back in the day? Right now, having completed 2020 years since the birth of Christ, we’re into 2021, that is, not in the twentieth century, but in the twenty first century…

Note well, my Jewish friends: What I like about the calendar is that it is all iterated as BC (Before Christ) or AD (in anno Domini: in the year of our Lord). To speak of BCE or CE – Before the Common Era or the Common Era – speaks, ironically, to Christ and the universal (that is, in Greek:), catholic Church. Catholic means universal, or that it’s COMMON, that is, meant for all. “Go forth and make disciples of all nations,” that is, of the chosen people and the gentiles. Anyway…

My resolution for the “New Year”:

Last year my resolution was simply to walk in the presence of Christ in the present moment, not because I can do that by sheer determination, gritting my teeth and really trying hard to do that, but walking in the presence of Christ because – with high hopes – of receiving His grace to do so. That grace comes to us all to do just that in the Confessional. So, it’s all about humble thanksgiving to Christ Jesus. He’s the One. He’s the only One. We just need to be ever more the littlest children of the Holy Family.

This year I have the same resolution, just phrased differently. I want to be able to walk in the presence of Jesus and in His forgiveness for me with the awareness that time is not greater than space. Hahaha! We are to be a “tabernacle of the Holy Spirit” as Saint Paul commands all of us to be by way of his incredulous reprimand (Don’t you know that you are tabernacles of the Holy Spirit? See 1 Corinthians 3:16). That means that space is greater than time, that the Incarnation of the Eternal Word in the “space” of flesh draws all time to that space, so that we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit by being brought to Christ Jesus to be one with Him. Jesus Himself says: “When I am lifted up from the earth [on the Cross] I will draw all to myself” (John 12:32). And that action in that one hour on the Cross in the Eternal Word Incarnate draws all of time, past and present and future, from Adam until the last man is conceived, into that one moment in that one “space” of the Body of Christ. Space IS greater than time. The Eucharist at the One Last Supper, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is greater than time. Time is just another creation. The Body of Christ is the Divine Person of Jesus. Saint Paul says that Jesus is the Head of the Body of Christ and that we are members of the Body of Christ.

No apologies to Stephen Hawking on the one side, nor to Karl Marx on the other side. But many thanks to Saint Augustine in Book 11 of his Confessions, wherein we see that Jesus’ mercy overcomes our suffocating divisory relativity.

It is Jesus, the Eternal Word Incarnate, who is the One, the only One, He who was, who is, who is to come, the Almighty, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the One upon whom all who have pierced Him will gaze, He who will come to judge the living and dead and the world by fire, including all those who would relativize Him merely to a relative time. In Him, space which is greater than time. Amen.

3 Comments

Filed under Pope Francis, Time

Some advice to the excommunicated ultramontanist hermits of Scotland

crucifix drawing john of the cross

Jesus, who was obedient, even unto death, death on a cross.

Apparently some hermits declared some months ago that they were withdrawing their “obedience from Pope Francis” and that they were severing “communion with the Holy See.” “Them’s is fightin’ words” as we say here in the back reaches of Appalachia. Those words are technical, and scream out for an application of canonical penalties involving excommunication. And – no surprise – they were excommunicated. That’s clearly what they desired all along, making a show.

There is simply zero need to do what they have done. They are not brave. They are ignorant ultramontanists. Pope Francis has not done anything ex-Cathedra against the faith, not could he. Ambiguity might be troublesome. Ambiguity might throw one’s own soul into anguish. But that’s no reason to force these excommunications.

Yes, I know, they listed all sorts of things they don’t like about Pope Francis. Fine. Lots of people do that, but not everyone gets excommunicated. The reason they did get excommunicated is because they treat what Pope Francis himself calls a dialogue instead as ex-cathedra dogma. It’s not. And that’s disingenuous for them to treat such things in that manner. But this is what they ultra-tradition-al-ism-ists have always done. They can get as huffy as they want, but they talked themselves into getting excommunicated. No one would have batted an eye had they said that they disagree with Pope Francis, even if they said this very strongly. And I don’t think Pope Francis could have possibly cared less even if they called him a heretic, which apparently they did. That’s not the issue. They went over the line only when they said that they were withdrawing obedience and severing communion with the Holy [Apostolic] See. That’s the kicker. The kicker-outer terminology.

Here’s the deal: whenever you run across ambiguity from any ecclesiastical superior or anything downright wrong, one’s duty is to do what the Church has always taught be done, with the attitude that one simply doesn’t understand the commands of one’s temporary ecclesiastical superior. Period. And this is NOT disobedience. It is supreme obedience. One will likely suffer for it, but won’t get excommunicated for it. And to such as think they are entitled never to suffer in such manner, never to follow our Lord by taking up their cross, to them I say: Get a life! Don’t be such tender snowflakes! March on behind our dear Lord Jesus.

Also, I suggest they look up what Saint Thomas Aquinas said is always the motivation for division in the Church.

I’ve tagged this post also with “Missionaries of Mercy” because I think it is a mercy to assist those who have purposely removed themselves from communion with the Church to reenter. Their choice. But I think I’ve given them a way to save face and come back to the fold.

9 Comments

Filed under Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Happy Merry Christmas *because* God came among us, is with us, Immanuel

The Christmas blessing Urbi et Orbi (to the City and the World). There’s a plenary indulgence with this, even through, by concession the modern means of social communication.

Happy Merry Christmas!

2 Comments

Filed under Christmas, Pope Francis

Co-Redemptrix unnecessary for faith? Un-architecting “relational signifiers”

jesus faces

A rather anthropologically inhumane comment arrived to the blog stating “co-redemptrix as a title […] is not necessary for the faith,” and that “‘Co’ seems to be too strong of a relational signifier.” – That’s from a doctor of philosophy in theology, as it were, so to speak, who’s trying to architect Catholic faith with big words. Oooo! Big words! So, he says:

  • The “‘Co’ [of co-redemptrix] seems to be too strong…”

I guess he’s a man of his time. Are we all supposed to be absolute individualists, with no “relational signifiers” that are, you know, too strong, nothing that would disturb our faith so much as to be, like, actually related to others, to God?

Bwahahahaha…. Sorry. This is actually sad.

Let’s see what Saint Paul says about what kind of “relational signifiers” are appropriate:

  • “He gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers, to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the extent of the full stature of Christ, so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming. Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body’s growth and builds itself up in love. So I declare and testify in the Lord that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds; darkened in understanding, alienated from the life of God because of their ignorance, because of their hardness of heart, they have become callous…” (Ephesians 4:11-19 nab)

Get that? No? Try this:

  • “He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he himself might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile all things for him, making peace by the blood of his cross (through him), whether those on earth or those in heaven. And you who once were alienated and hostile in mind because of evil deeds he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through his death, to present you holy, without blemish, and irreproachable before him, provided that you persevere in the faith, firmly grounded, stable, and not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, am a minister. Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church, of which I am a minister in accordance with God’s stewardship given to me to bring to completion for you the word of God, the mystery hidden from ages and from generations past. But now it has been manifested to his holy ones, to whom God chose to make known the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; it is Christ in you, the hope for glory. It is he whom we proclaim, admonishing everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. For this I labor and struggle, in accord with the exercise of his power working within me.” (Colosians 1:13-29 nab)

Let’s see, Christ the Head, we the members, one Body of Christ, Mystici corporis Christi.

But all those “relational signifiers” – like “he” – are jussst toooo haaaard!

But wait, that one line there… “Filling up what is lacking…”

Let’s pray about this:

“And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all to myself.” (John 12:32)

I mean, that’s on Calvary, during the Redemption, Jesus on the Cross, and we’re supposed to be with Him on the Cross. We, with Him, on the Cross. What’s Jesus talking about? It’s as if while He is laying down His life, the Innocent for the guilty, so that He might have the right in His own justice to have mercy on us – He is also laying down our lives, like His whole Body, Head and members. There’s a highly “relational signifier” if I ever saw one. But, here’s the methodology of it: “Blessed is he who takes no offense at me” (Luke 7:23), and “He must deny himself and take up his cross daily” (Luke 9:23 – passim…)

But let’s go back to the outrageous Saint Paul, just to make sure we understand and it’s not tooooo haaard. I mean, “relational signifiers” is certainly tooooo haaard for me.

  • God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to bring to light the knowledge of the glory of God on the face of (Jesus) Christ. But we hold this treasure in earthen vessels, that the surpassing power may be of God and not from us. We are afflicted in every way, but not constrained; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our body. For we who live are constantly being given up to death for the sake of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but life in you.” (2 Corinthians 4:6-12 nab)
  • Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take Christ’s members and make them the members of a prostitute? Of course not! (Or) do you not know that anyone who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For “the two,” it says, “will become one flesh.” But whoever is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Avoid immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the immoral person sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore, glorify God in your body.” (1 Corinthians 6:15-20 nab)

So, let’s go back to Genesis, where the Mother of the Redeemer is singled out in battle with Satan. Then there is a parallel of sorts in the battle between her Seed and Satan’s seed, that is, her Son and those who belong to Him, over against Satan and those who belong to him. Lot’s of “relational signifiers” going on there. If you want to know about who crushed the serpent on the head, see my conference and thesis.

It really is the Mother of the Redeemer’s Son.

Sometimes the “relational signifier” was in the feminine, so that the Mother of the Redeemer is presented as crushing the head of the great deceiver. This points to how our lives are laid down with that of the Redeemer, whose heel is crushed (and He dies) and we with Him. One Bread One Body. All that.

I would love to see an advance in artwork. I would like to see Mary crushing the serpent on the head with her heel (not just a gentle caress with a couple of toes), and I would like to see how the serpent’s head is being crushed even while that serpent is crushing the heel of Mary in all violence. More on that in a Flower for the Immaculate Conception…

Anyway, to those who think they can quote Cardinal Ratzinger from the Seewald interview, think again. At the time the great Cardinal was burdened with his utter rejection of original sin, and therefore his complete misunderstanding of the import of the Immaculate Conception. You can read about that in a homily reprinted in In the Beginning…’: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall. Get the German. For him, at that time, it’s all about original sin not as original sin, not with propagation, but by way of imitation. This isn’t hard. Moving ahead – and this is all a long story which deserves to told at length – now Pope Benedict XVI gave his Angelus address in Lourdes on Sunday, September 14, 2008, Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross. Suffice it for now to say that he reversed a lifetime of thought about original sin and the immaculate conception. Follow the French. Stare at it long and hard, repeatedly. It’s inescapable. Really. This goes to the heart of a lifetime of thought for him. This is not a small thing. He just didn’t get how close it is that Christ makes us members of His Body. But since then, he does. A gentleman. A scholar. Does he himself quote Saint Paul as I have. Yes. But, at that time, a bit from the outside. But no longer.

Look. Christ is our Redeemer, alone. I know that. But try to go deeper into the intimacy in which He unites us with Himself, His Body. There’s a couple of pages in the thesis dedicated to the great Cardinal. I made it easy for you in the link above. You don’t have to go to the Pontifical Biblical Institute to peruse it, after you get your degrees there.

I can’t resist, one more from Saint Paul, as I just can’t get over this guys usage of “relational signifiers”:

  • “For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. So (also) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the Church. (Ephesians 5:23-32 nab)

Talk about “relational signifiers”… HAH!

When someone says that such closeness with humanity is just too much, I think of Islam, which is scandalized by the Cross, for God could NOT love the world so much as to send His only Son so that He might make us one with Himself to give us as a gift to our Heavenly Father, through, with and in Himself, again… He having stood in our place, the Innocent for the guilty, so that He might have the right in His own justice to have mercy on us:

  • For the sake of His sorrowful passion (justice)
  • Have mercy on us and on the whole world (mercy)

For Islam, God is tooooooooooo hoooooooooly for such love. But God is love. Jesus does make us one with Himself. When He lays down His life, he lays down our lives with His.

To think any other way is to prostitute oneself to the world. And by the way, the prostitute doesn’t need to be accompanied in her “job”, she needs to be gotten out of that.

And that’s, analogously, why I write such things, also for Pope Francis. I had the time to study at the Pontifical Biblical Institute. He didn’t. We help each other out.

All this is encouraging me to do up the popular version of the thesis. I know that the time has come when people say that it is imprudent to speak of the Redeemer and the Mother of the Redeemer.  (More “relational signifiers” there, btw.) /// end of rant

7 Comments

Filed under Mary, Pope Francis

Dear Pope Francis: Your scandal is making non-Catholics hate Catholics

img_20191214_175207~25291545608086102310..jpg

Dear Pope Francis,

John 3:16 is the rallying cry of non-Catholic Christians here in my parish territory in the remote mountains of Western North Carolina. They want to love Jesus. However, you, Pope Francis, are making this difficult. You are putting obstacles in front of people.

What you do in promoting Islam and and satanic idol devil worship and homosexualism and with financial who-knows-what – continuously something more horrible day by day – makes it easy for these non-Catholic Christians to hate us all. It baits them into hating. Certainly Islam hates us all the more for the idol worship. We are all weak in this world. We don’t need you provoking hatred among anyone. You make us all targets of hatred, not because the Cross is a sign of contradiction, but because no one sees the sign of contradiction when they have a right to see this because of what Jesus did for us. The things you do are, objectively, hate crimes against the Church, against Jesus, are they not? Your sycophants, “Yes men”, your ideologues, such as + Paglia, condemn true believing as ideology of rigid ideologists. No, sincere believing is of the Holy Spirit. So, is the condemnation of those who sincerely believe similar to the condemnation of the spirit within Jesus?

  • “‘Amen, I say to you, all sins and all blasphemies that people utter will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin.’ For they had said, ‘He has an unclean spirit.'” (Mark 3:28-30)

And it’s not only non-Catholic Christians and others such as Islamists who despise us. Catholics are defecting. So many. This is so sad. When, O when will you turn and confirm your brethren in the faith? Can you tell Jesus’ good mom why you do this?

pieta

Your Holiness, I realize that you can punish me in a thousand different ways, say by taking away my faculties as your Missionary of Mercy (which I use frequently), or by having me punished in some way by my bishop, even to have me dismissed from the clerical state, but I beg you to see that I’m not being a “Yes man” because I stand in solidarity with you in your being the Bishop of Rome. It’s the most difficult vocation to live out. You are the most attacked by Satan. I know that. I pray for you, offer Mass for you, have others pray for you. I’m trying to be a good son of the Church, and to think with the Church: sentire cum ecclesia. I know that where you are, there is the Church: ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia.

Why do I write such things? Because I know how much Jesus and how much the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God have done for me, personally. I am grateful to them. I want all to know my great joy, the joy of gratitude to Jesus and Mary, the joy of thanksgiving. But what you do, Pope Francis, smothers this, drowns this, frustrates this. Please, Holy Father, please confirm your brothers in the faith.

//// I really hope that those reading this blog in the Holy See will pass this on to Pope Francis. Do it.

2 Comments

Filed under Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Peter’s Pence: Pope’s official… what?… charity?

I was always under the impression that Peter’s Pence was used exclusively for the poor and suffering. For instance, under Pope Saint John Paul II, one year it was used for building a hospital for cancerous kids of the Ukraine following the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown.

Now we find out that 90% is used for covering costs in the Vatican. We would be happy to help pay for the costs of any necessary bureaucracy for 1.3 billion people, you know, if it was all actually Catholic and not used for an overall continuous attack on God and man in every conceivable way. But that use should be public knowledge. Support of the Vatican will be necessary for future Popes who want to do something for the good but have only ashes to work with. But that’s in the future.

For right now, all we’ve heard is that Peter’s Pence is used for the poor and suffering. Should we mention that it was also used for specious real-estate investments wherein the Vatican lost tens of millions of dollars just recently. And didn’t we just find out that the Vatican invested in a gay porn movie with that money meant for the poor and suffering?

In our parish, we gave up taking a collection for Peter’s Pence and instead take up a collection for our food basket, which actually does go to the poor and suffering. That has something do with the great principle of subsidiarity.

We do the same thing when it comes time for the collection for Catholic Relief Services, which is not Catholic, not for relief, and has nothing to do with services.

We do the same thing when it comes time for the collection for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, which is not Catholic, not any kind of Campaign, and is not used for Human Development.

Sometimes canon lawyers say that taking up mandated collections is in Canon Law and that I really must do it. But these collections fund abortion, marxist propaganda, gay-whatever… The anti-human list is long.

Will I take these collections? Over my dead body.

11 Comments

Filed under Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Pope Francis rejects seven popes on Co-Redemptrix

I’m going to offer a critique of Pope Francis’ impassioned rejection of Mary as Co-Redemptrix at Mass in Saint Peter’s Basilica for the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe the other day, December 12, 2019. The video above is the entire homily.

And yes, I’m aware through second hand information – I know, “second-hand” – and from a private conversation with then Cardinal Ratzinger – I know, “private” – that the then Prefect’s opinion of the title co-redemptrix could be misleading, but not that it was wrong in itself. Analogously, that’s what Saint John Henry Newman said about Papal Infallibility, right? It’s entirely correct, but maybe that wasn’t the best time to be proclaiming that truth of the Gospels in Matthew 16, what with the sum of all heresies running rampant in both the Catholic Church and the Anglican get-togethers at that time (it’s no different today). I would counter that the best time to preach the truth is all the time: “Proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient [in season or out of season]; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2).

Anyway, that objection of “it’s correct but the wording could be misinterpreted” is all a far cry from Pope Francis’ putting the absolute worst spin on that title for Mary – Co-Redemptrix – that he could possibly ever dream up in some nightmare, having it that not only is it misleading, but wrong, he even saying that efforts with this are “stupidities.”

Lets see what he himself says at 2’17”:

  • “Fiel a su Maestro, que es su Hijo, el único Redentor, jamás quiso para sí tomar algo de su Hijo. Jamás se presentó como co-redentora, no: discípula.”
  • “Faithful to her Master, who is her Son, alone the Redeemer, she never desired to take something of her Son for herself. She never presented herself as co-redeemer, no: disciple.”

Well, that’s all true:

  • She was faithful to her Master, who is her Son, He alone being the Redeemer.
  • She never desire to take something of her Son for herself.
  • She never presented herself as Co-Redeemer. [nor does she have to for this to be true.]
  • She was, in fact, a disciple.

The problem is that Pope Francis contrasts all this with the title Co-Redemptrix, attacking the historical interpretation of that title by, say, the “Servant of God” (first step toward canonization) Sister Lucia of Fatima, and by, say, Pope Saint John Paul II, who used that title a half-dozen times (and also a few more times for all the rest of us, by the way, inasmuch as we are to be evangelizers of the redemption). The title was also used by Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII. Anyway, let’s move on:

In the video, at 2’55”:

  • “Nunca robó para sí nada de su Hijo. Lo sirvió porque Madre. “
  • “She never robbed anything from her Son, but she served Him, because she is Mother.”

Fine. That’s all true as well:

  • She never robbed [stealing by way of arrogant violence] anything from her Son.
  • She served Him as Mother.

But that has nothing that contradicts her being Co-Redemptrix. With overwhelming irony, all that misses the point of her being the woman and mother that she is, as we will see. Let’s move along…

Then, at 6’07” (he’s mumbling a bit…):

  • “Quando vengan con historias de que de declarala esto a ser trato como un dogma o esto – non la perdamos in tonteras.”
  • “When they come with stories of having to declare this [Mary as Co-Redemptrix] to be a dogma or whatever – let’s not lose her in stupidities.”

“Stupidities.” This, of course, is not a named, but is nonetheless a direct attack on seven previous popes, as well as, it seems to me – and this is perhaps to the point – on Mark Miravale, who has made this title of Co-Redemptrix a life project. He’s done a lot of excellent work on this. What Pope Francis does is simply offensive. If he wants to pick a fight, he should name his adversaries who are alive today instead of hiding behind a bully pulpit. All stupidities about Mary? Really?

Let’s do some reasoning about this:

Pope Francis considers the title Co-Redemptrix to be falsely assigning Mary a function which she steals violently from her Son, as if being a woman and mother wasn’t enough for any woman, including Mary, to have dignity.

But this is missing the point altogether. It’s so dark, so dismal, so unable to see goodness and kindness in being a woman, a mother. Here’s the deal:

  • It is because Mary is a faithful woman, mother and disciple that she is Co-Redemptrix. Only she could be so faithful, such a mother, and such a disciple.

Let’s unpack that a bit…

  • Mary is free of original sin as we know from Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28 (see my thesis on Genesis and Ignace de la Potterie’s study on Luke 1:28).
  • That means she has purity of heart and agility of soul and clarity of vision such that she sees the contrast between God’s goodness and our sin. In looking upon her Son on Calvary, she sees all the sin of all mankind wrecked upon her Son. As a woman, as a mother, as His mother, she is in solidarity with Him while He accomplishes our Redemption, He alone our Redeemer. In her immaculateness, with her clarity of vision, seeing what we need perfectly, she perfectly intercedes for us in that solidarity, heart to Heart, with her Son.
  • Here’s the point: it is entirely fitting in justice that one of us mere human beings (only she is capable what with her being free from original sin) asks for all that we need in Redemption. Her request, in all justice, and her Son’s answer as a command to His Heavenly Father (Father! Forgive them), makes of them co-workers in our Redemption. She asks. He provides. That’s what the title Co-Redemptrix for Mary is all about. Nothing more. But nothing less.
  • Being Co-Redemptrix is the flourishing of her being a woman, a mother, His Immaculate Virgin Mother, and ours. She’s not brutally, violently stealing anything from Son to make herself look good. No. How sick is that? Instead, she serves Him in unimaginable suffering as only a good mother could. How could anyone look into her eyes and insult her that her motherhood is not flourishing here under the Cross?

We are also to be co-redeemers of sorts, co-workers with the redemption, evangelizing the redemption. Is that so bad, so blasphemous? No. It isn’t.

I have much to say about this connection between the motherhood of Mary and her title of Co-Redemptrix, foundationally in my thesis, and then more precisely and especially  in the conference on Mary, Mother of the Church Militant, which I gave back in 2013:

So, we pray for Pope Francis and for each other, doing this as, um… co-redeemers… and we ask Mary to show us all her motherhood, you know, as the Co-Redemptrix:

Monstra te esse matrem! Show yourself to be a mother!

9 Comments

Filed under John Paul II, Mary, Pope Francis

Pope Francis and my “rabbit” mom

just me 04

On December 12, 2019, Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, in Saint Peter’s Basilica, Pope Francis denounced a title of our Lady, with an edge. I started to write about all that to defend that title used many times by Saint Pope John Paul II and which has a history in the Church. But the only thing I could think of was Pope Francis’ deep hatred for women and mothers. I forgive him. I do. But I’ve never heard him repent of what he said.

I know, I should be even more forgiving, especially of Pope Francis, and maybe not ask him for repentance, just a condescending permission for me to “accompany” him. After all, I’m his own Missionary of Mercy, right? I use those particular faculties all the time. I accompany people right to Jesus, not to sin. I hope I don’t lose those entirely useful faculties for NOT being a “Yes man”. Pope Francis doesn’t want “Yes men.” He said so. Therefore, NO. Pope Francis needs to repent like anyone else, with sincerity.

What came to mind for me during Pope Francis’ Guadalupe Mass homily about Mary the other day were comments he made on Monday, January 19, 2015, during the in-flight press conference from the Philippines to Rome, in which he demonstrated just how much he despises mothers and motherhood. Sorry, but that’s the way my heart and soul and mind work, that is, with reality.

Pope Francis said: “I believe that the number of three [children] per family, which you [the reporter] mentioned, is important, according to the experts, for maintaining the population. Three per couple.” Then, after citing an example of a woman having more than three children he says that this is a “form of irresponsibility.” Would that be a sin, perhaps an ecological sin that he’s accusing that woman of committing, publicly? And then he speaks of rabbits: “Some people believe that – pardon my language – in order to be good Catholics, we should be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood.”

So, any woman who has more than three children is irresponsible, perhaps sinful, and a rabbit.

That makes my mom an irresponsible rabbit. Mom had two daughters with her first husband, and then, when he was killed in plane crash, she remarried and had two boys, including me, the last. That makes me child number 4. Last time I checked, 4 is more than 3. So, my mom is an irresponsible beast, and I’m the son of an irresponsible beast, according to Pope Francis. And she was probably sinful in her irresponsibility.

I thought it was bad enough when my “Shadow” called my mom a “b*tch.” A “b*tch” is a female dog. I’m not so sure how that’s so different from a rabbit. But this is the Pope.

So, that seals it then, right? He’s the Pope.

So, my mom is surely the most god-damnedest irresponsible beast.

Is that right, Pope Francis?

How about an apology?

There are plenty who follow this blog in the Holy See. They can give this to Pope Francis, who, as it happens, follows American blogs through his minions closely. I don’t want a phone call with an apology. I want to see him publicly repent of his remarks.

Now, I’ll set about writing about how a particular woman, Mary, can be more than a birth-robot. Stay tuned.

12 Comments

Filed under Mary, Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Pope Francis 50 years a priest Dec 13 ’19

pope francis young

50 years a priest. We pray for you, Pope Francis. We pray for you. Hail Mary…

4 Comments

Filed under Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Fr Byers: excommunicated heretic? Daring + Paglia to do it.

Paglia

Judas is in hell. There, I said it. According to + Paglia, that makes me an automatically excommunicated heretic. For all of us merely automatically excommunicated heretics, that’s not enough. I want my automatic excommunication declared and publicized for all the world to hear. + Paglia has the ear of Pope Francis. Regardless of any Canon Law, declaring my excommunication from on high can easily be forced through. I insist! I entrench! I’m contentious! I’m obstinate. I’m persistent. Do it!

But will + Paglia slit my throat? Pffft. He’s just full of bluster and is a coward and would never do such a thing. He won’t because he knows that if he does, I’ll be able to appeal, which means I’ll be able to defend myself. I happen to have a bit more expertise in these matters, even on a jesuitical level, having degreed out at the Jesuit’s most academic of all their institutions in the world, the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome and Jerusalem. I would really enjoy this. I would move to Rome and write a study on this as a response and defense, using all the libraries in Rome, particularly that of the Biblicum. The conclusion of all that will be about the abuse of office of + Paglia throwing around cowardly threats. The conclusion of all that will be about how + Paglia needs to have his heresy and therefore his automatic excommunication declared. Pfft.

But there’s more, much more.

Not that there’s necessarily any connection at all, but I find it striking that + Paglia connects his thoughts about Judas Iscariat being a saint with priests who “accompany” people – holding their hands – people who are in the very act of committing suicide (which accompaniment is scandalous to all involved, sending the wrong message].

To the priest writing this blog, such a connection by + Paglia is stunning because of an incident related to Terri Schiavo [Theresa Marie Schiavo (née Schindler)], who was put to death with the full encouragement of her bishop down in Florida. Remember that? At the time, I sent a message to that Bishop stating the case for Terri and saying that he, the bishop, was clearly a Judas for encouraging her murder. He objected, saying that, after all, he had thought about it. I’m sure Judas also thought about his own part in the murder of Jesus.

I was frantic to save Terri. Having secured cooperation, I had a moral analysis of the case I had worked up before her murder delivered to the moral theologian guy in the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. That analysis was accepted and taken up. But it was too late. Dear Terri was murdered.

For myself, that means I’m on record for such things, and that record in my own file is open, of course, to all prefects, particularly to + Paglia, who would have it front and center when studying assisted suicide, as it would have been sent to his “dicastery” at the time, with comment, and filed under that topic and in my name.

I’ve put myself on the radar with + Paglia much more recently by making comments on his destruction of the Saint John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family. See, for instance:

With that remote background, take a gander of these bits of a story on LifeSiteNews worked up by Edward Pentin and reported by Diane Montagna. Read the whole thing there. [my comments]


https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abp-paglia-on-judas?utm_source=OneSignal

Vatican Archbishop says those who say Judas is in hell are heretics and priests may accompany assisted suicidesby Edward Pentin – reported by Diane Montagna

ROME, December 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — In a statement difficult to reconcile with Scripture and Tradition, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, has claimed on behalf of the Catholic Church that anyone who says Judas Iscariot is in hell is a heretic.

In an even more disturbing statement, the Italian archbishop also asserted that a priest may legitimately remain at the beside of someone undergoing assisted suicide in order to “hold their hand” and “accompany” them. […]

Archbishop Paglia, who serves as chancellor of the new John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences in Rome (and presided over the former institute’s demolition), said  he […] doesn’t believe that “anyone should ever be abandoned.”

[Speaking out of both sides of his mouth, he said:] “We are against assisted suicide because we do not want to do the dirty work of death [only emotion, then, that we have to heroically overcome? Just. Wow.] and because we are all well aware that, for believers, life goes on,” he continued. [So: “What difference does it make?” That’s frightening. That’s the rationalization of a murderer.] “To accompany and hold the hand of those who are dying” is therefore the “great task“ of every believer [Encouraging murder, participating in murder is the great task of every believer?] he said, along with fighting the culture of assisted suicide, which represents “a great defeat for society.” [But go ahead and encourage and assist suicides? This is like Satan talking.

“We cannot turn [assisted suicide] into a wise choice,” he said. [But it’s a choice that must be respected and accompanied and encouraged and assisted according to + Paglia.]

Archbishop Paglia then clarified: “I always celebrate funerals for those who commit suicide, because suicide is always a question of unfulfilled love. We must also remember that, for the Catholic Church, if someone says that Judas is in hell, he is a heretic.” […] [Copyright 1997-2019 LifeSiteNews.com. All Rights Reserved.]


There’s much more extremely worthwhile commentary on real Catholic doctrine and tradition and the teaching of Sacred Scripture and the Fathers of the Church and the great sainted theologians in that magnificent article of LifeSiteNews. Again, go there and read the whole thing.

8 Comments

Filed under Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis, Pro-Life

Papacy in tatters! Prayers for Pope?

img_20191205_133517~21834438358993561801..jpg

One might think that the pontificate of Pope Francis is in tatters. “Pontificates”, as the term is used, is not about the Papacy in se, just about what the results of that particular successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, happen to be, regardless of whether or not this is to the credit or disgrace of that individual, who, like the rest of us, soon goes the way of all flesh.

In that mind set, one might not think that the pontificate of Pope Francis is in tatters. All the division and darkness and ranker and confusion and greediness and whatever else one might want to add are thought to be purposed, and of good value. I mean, after all these years, always the same totally anti-Catholic, anti-Christ agenda is at work, always one more thing to kick the faithful in the teeth, to gouge out their hearts and trample them underfoot. Hell… But some want that…

The Papal Flag hanging on the rectory is in tatters. One of the neighbors mentioned it, a non-Catholic. He baited me, asking about it, knowing the answer, that the tattered flag is a symbol of what I think is going on. I told him it will stay until either there’s a pope who’s interested in confirming his brethren in the faith, or Pope Francis does this himself. The tattered flag is, therefore, a symbol of hope. I have not given up.

There are other symbols in front of the rectory.

  • A reminder of Jesus’ good mom and ours is still there. Don’t think she didn’t pray for weak Peter when he denied her own Son three times. Don’t think she doesn’t also pray for this successor of Peter, Pope Francis.
  • There’s also a symbol of just another member of the faithful, Saint Anthony of Padua, demonstrating faith in the fact that any of us can still be a saint any time throughout the history of the Church, that is, including us in our own time. That would mean taking the good example of dearest Mary, would it not, in praying for Peter (and his successors)?

“But Father George! You don’t understand! Pope Francis needs our prayers! Therefore, we can’t pray for him! We would besmirch ourselves and agree with whatever we think his agenda is if we prayed for him! We won’t do it! We won’t do it!”

That’s about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. I’ve heard it. A lot.

So, does that mean you also wouldn’t pray for me? I’ve crucified the Son of the Living God with my sin. Without Jesus I am lost forever, going straight to hell, forever. And you won’t pray for me either? Who would you pray for then. Guaranteed, you wouldn’t pray even for yourself.

None of us are worthy of anything. Please, pray for me. I’ll pray for you. And let’s together pray for Pope Francis. Just as I fear the loss of my own soul, I fear for the loss of his soul. He’s very old right now, and really very tired. He’s facing all that he’s done. Perhaps we will see the moment when he repudiates all the rubbish. Do we honestly face all that we’ve done? Will we see the moment when we repudiate all the rubbish we ever done in our own lives? Do we even know what the wounds on the risen Son of the Immaculate Conception mean?

If we had the slightest clue about this, the weight of the glory of God would bring us down to our knees in humble reverence before Him, crushed by the horror of sin and simultaneously in awe of the gracious mercy of God.

On that point of mercy – as I rant along – do we mock mercy as not being conservative enough? It’s still the “in thing” to mock, say, the Divine Mercy chaplet as being damnable pious piffle, isn’t it? Let’s see how it is that mercy is founded on justice:

  • For the sake of His sorrowful passion (that’s justice)
  • have mercy on us and on the whole world (that’s mercy).

Or is there a third part to that prayer that would make it acceptable?

  • except for Pope Francis; just send him straight to hell, you know, God, because I’m the judge of the living and the dead and world by fire.

We all stand before Jesus, looking upon Him whom we have all pierced, as we read in the Book of Revelation, the Apocalypse.

So, I remain hopeful. Life goes on. Justice goes on. Mercy goes on.

Take a hint from the picture above. That bird who built her nest just above the bird feeder did that knowing that any and every kind of even malicious bird would also be at that feeder right next to her nest. And, yes, sometimes optimists get the results they hope for. It’s good to hope. I want to go to heaven. I trust in Jesus. Got hope? Do you trust in Jesus. Do you also pray for Pope Francis? Hail Mary…


P.S. A kind of analogy about persistence in prayer:

Progress is still being made with Keto. Just keep at it. Have hope. Even in the face of opposition, which can be great. I don’t know how many times I’ve had this experience, even with those I thought were friends:

  • Hey! Father George! How’s it going?
  • Great! In fact, I’m now doing the Keto diet and I love it!

And that’s the whole conversation. Some just turn their backs and walk away. Upset. So, I call out to them:

  • What’s wrong?
  • Keto is not what’s to be done. Just eat like everyone else.

And then “the back thing” again.

  • I’ll keep praying for Pope Francis however many friends I lose.
  • I’ll keep doing Keto for the sake of my priesthood on this earth however many friends I lose.

12 Comments

Filed under Diet, Pope Francis

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

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