30 June 2021

Happy Dominion Day! God Save the Queen!

Well, it's after midnight in Manitoba, so it's Dominion Day in Canada! For the youngsters among you who don't remember the real name, Happy Canada Day! Here's some music to celebrate the 154th birthday of the True North, Strong and (Once) Free!

First the Royal Anthem, in honour of Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada.

O, Canada, in English, with the original lyrics, 'In all Thy sons command', not the bastardised ones Daddy's Little Boy wants people to sing.

O, Canada in French, with lyrics in French and English. I'm surprised Justin 'Bieber' Trudeau hasn't tried to Islamicise the lyrics to this version. 

And, The Maple Leaf Forever, the 'unofficial national anthem' for decades before O, Canada was adopted.

Not music, but the 'I Am Canadian' rant from the Molson's beer commercial. A classic!

And no Dominion/Canada Day would be complete without a mention of THE Canadian, Stompin' Tom Connors. Here is the last letter he wrote to his fans, just before his death.

Charles Thomas "Stompin' Tom" ConnorsOC (February 9, 1936 – March 6, 2013) 

Hello friends, I want all my fans, past, present, or future, to know that without you, there would have not been any Stompin' Tom.

It was a long hard bumpy road, but this great country kept me inspired with its beauty, character, and spirit, driving me to keep marching on and devoted to sing about its people and places that make Canada the greatest country in the world.

I must now pass the torch, to all of you, to help keep the Maple Leaf flying high, and be the Patriot Canada needs now and in the future.

I humbly thank you all, one last time, for allowing me in your homes, I hope I continue to bring a little bit of cheer into your lives from the work I have done.


Canada Day, Up Canada Way.
by Stompin' Tom Connors

Take Me Back to Old Alberta
I wasn't born in Alberta, but as I say, I'm a Kansan by birth, and an Albertan by choice.

Blue Berets, honouring Canada's
Peace Keepers

Believe in Your Country

So Long, Stompin' Tom
A song written by Mike Plume, a fan of Stompin' Tom's, on hearing of his death.

Settled Science?

From FishEaters Twitter feed:

Be wary of anyone who says "science says..." Science has no larynx; science says nothing. Some scientISTS might say certain things. And others might say something different. Studies and observations might support a hypothesis, and others might contradict it. But science is mute.

This Protestant Dogma Helped Open My Eyes to the Truth of the Catholic Church

And speaking of Luther and his 'editing' the Bible,  'If Sola Scriptura is true, then there cannot be any certainty about what Scripture is.'

From the National Catholic Register

By Matt D'Antunuo

My conversion to Catholicism was marked by many small, imperceptible movements of the Holy Spirit, as is the case for all conversions, but there are some big moments and realizations that help me trace the path that got me from there to here. A “giant leap” in my journey was the realization that one of the fundamental dogmas of my Protestant faith was not only false, but self-refuting.

At the time, Trent Beattie (now a writer and interviewer) and I had been exchanging emails in a debate that lasted more than a year. The question of the Holy Eucharist came up, and I was put in the position of having to defend my belief that the bread and wine are meant only to be symbols of the body and blood of Christ. So I turned to my Protestant apologetics books and was surprised to find essentially no place where the Bible positively says the Eucharist is only a symbol.

It occurred to me that the next place to look would perhaps be the Church Fathers since they were the closest to the Apostles. Surely some remnant of what the original Church did was still present in the writings of these first generations of Christians. I was surprised to find that they all supported the Catholic belief in the Real Presence.

I should point out that this process took months, and it would have taken longer had I not already been reading some of the Church Fathers.

In defense of my conviction about the symbolic nature of Communion, I attempted to brush aside the testimony of the Church Fathers with the thought, “Why should I rely on the Church Fathers anyway? They are not authoritative. I believe in Sola Scriptura.” That last phrase is the Latin for “by Scripture alone,” a fundamental tenet and popular slogan of Protestant theology.

In that moment, it occurred to me to ask myself, “But why believe in Sola Scriptura?” I am sure the question had come up before, but it hit home this time. When I turned to my apologetics books, I found surprisingly few references to Scripture. Instead, the arguments seemed to be something like, “Look at Catholicism. That’s what you get without Sola Scriptura. Therefore Sola Scriptura is true.”

One of the few passages used to justify Sola Scriptura, and a passage I had committed to memory, was 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be fully equipped.”

However, I had begun to study philosophy and logic, and I put that passage to the test to find out that Paul was not saying that Scripture alone should fully equip the man of God, let alone that Scripture alone should be used for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. Rather, Scripture is useful for these activities, and these activities fully equip the man of God. There is no claim that Scripture alone has authority.

In fact, there were a couple of other passages from Paul’s letters that I had committed to memory which contradicted Sola Scriptura: 2 Timothy 1:13 and 2:2. In what is thought to be Paul’s last letter, he appeals to what he has said as the pattern of sound teaching that ought to be handed down.

This was a troubling realization for me, but the work of the Holy Spirit is not always comforting in the way we want it to be.

Since Sola Scriptura is itself not to be found in Scripture, it turned out to be self-refuting. Here was a theological statement, not grounded in Scripture, claiming that all theological statements must be grounded in Scripture. If held to its own standard, the doctrine must be thrown out.

Even when it came to the Bible itself, I came to realize that the list of books that makes up the Bible is not found in the Bible. Sola Scriptura assumes the presence of an authoritative collection of inspired books, but none of those books authoritatively determines exactly which books belong in that collection. If Sola Scriptura is true, then there cannot be any certainty about what Scripture is.

Since that dogma was a foundation of Protestant theology and interpretation of Scripture, I had to back away from my Protestant faith. At this point, I became what I call a denominational agnostic. I no longer gave full assent to any denomination, but I was searching. It was one step in a larger story of conversion, but it was an important one, and I know that this same realization has been a milestone for many other converts to Catholicism.

I eventually came to learn that there would be no Bible (or, at least no New Testament) without the Church. Not only is the Church necessary for the composition of Scripture and the authoritative canon of which books belong in Scripture, but she is also necessary for the authoritative interpretation of Scripture. To reject the Catholic Church is to reject the source of the Bible and wrench it from its rightful context.

Western Elites Still Clueless About Jihadist Attacks

Sorry, Dr Tifkovic, but they are not 'clueless' at all. They are fully aware of what's behind them, but their anti-Western hatred keeps them from naming it.

From Intellectual Takeout

By Dr Srdja Trifkovic

As soon as I heard that a man had stabbed three women to death and wounded seven others in the Bavarian town of Würzburg on June 25, I was near-certain of three key facts of the case: that the attacker was a Muslim, that the powers-that-be would claim to be mystified as to his motives, and that Islam would not be considered as one of them.

It gives me no pleasure to report that I was right on all three counts. Prominent Western leaders and their media cohorts are loath a priori to accept that religious faith is a significant moving spirit in human affairs. Having reduced the Bible and Shakespeare to “narratives” and “metaphors” which merely reflect prejudices of the horrid world of the white patriarchy, the elite class duly treats the jihadist mindset as a curable idiosyncrasy.

The Würzburg attacker, a 24-year-old Somali who came to Germany with more than a million other Muslim migrants during the 2015 migrant tsunami, shouted “Allahu akbar!” as he went on his murderous rampage. And yet the Western media machine wonders what made him do it.

German Knife Attack Motive a Mystery” was the headline repeated in one form or another all over the Western world. A police spokesman claimed that “while the attacker had a criminal record, none of his previous offences were related to terrorism.”

The standard media narrative soon emerged: while the police remained puzzled over the motive, two incidents of the Würzburg attacker’s violent behavior earlier this year supposedly indicate he was mentally ill. Although the attacker had threatened violence in two separate incidents in recent months, including brandishing a knife in the first, prosecutors absurdly declared that “there had been no pattern of increasing problems.” The narrative of “mental illness” is still dominant. The case is in the hands of state prosecutors, not the federal ones who deal with terror cases in Germany.

We have seen it all many times before.

In November 2004, Theo van Gogh (47), a prominent Dutch filmmaker who had made a movie critical of some aspects of Islamic society and culture, was gruesomely murdered in central Amsterdam by a young man wearing a long beard and Islamic garb. The Netherlands’ Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende nevertheless immediately declared that “nothing is known about the motive” of the assassin, and told the public “not to jump to far-reaching conclusions.” Balkenende also referred to van Gogh’s “outspoken opinions,” hinting that he had it coming. Until May 2005 Dutch authorities treated the murder as a regular criminal case and not as an act of terrorism.

After the suicide bomb attacks in central London killed 52 and injured more than 200 others on July 7, 2005, Prime Minister Tony Blair wondered how three “born-and-bred Yorkshire lads” could engage in such murderous activity. As it happens, those “lads” were full-grown men and devout Muslims born to Pakistani parents. But for Blair the mystery remained: what made them do it?

Insanity is the favored answer. Insanity was also initially claimed about Major Nidal Hasan, who murdered 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009. It was also claimed about the Tunisian Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, who killed 86 people with a truck in Nice, France, on Bastille Day 2016. The first incident was long treated as a case of “workplace violence” rather than terrorism, while the latter was chalked up to mental illness rather than religion.

After a spate of murderous attacks by Muslims in Germany in July 2016, which killed 15 people in a week, Angela Merkel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, Peter Ammon, insisted that the attacks had nothing to do with Islam, and that “mental health issues” were the real cause for concern. That the attackers were all Muslims, and that they shouted Allahu akbar! while murdering their German victims, was irrelevant.

Recognizing the undeniable causation between Islam, mass Muslim immigration into Western countries, and terrorist attacks in those countries was forbidden then and it remains forbidden today. To wit, Germany’s deputy finance minister Jens Spahn, told Die Welt after the 2016 attacks, that “we all underestimated… what would come upon us with this big refugee and migration movement.” He did not name the “we”: plainly he excluded those of us who had been forecasting precisely and accurately the consequences of the 2015 migrant onslaught even as it was merely gathering steam.

The neo-Bolshevik mindset of our leaders guarantees the problem of jihad-terrorism in the Western world cannot and will not be solved. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union likewise used to devote a lot of attention to the problem of an inefficient and wasteful economy. Economists, politicians, and managers had tried to square the circle of the principles of command economy, with its central planning, procurement quotas, and state-fixed prices, with the need to motivate producers and to allocate resources more efficiently. The notion that state planning should be abolished, the means of production privatized, and the price of goods and services determined by the market, never entered into the official equation. The problem could not be solved because the solution remained outside the ideological parameters of the decision-makers.

The Western elite class suffers from the same problem. Its vision of the post-national global order demands the creation of new, hybrid identities to replace white European Christian communities and their overseas offspring. The members of that class seek to appease and co-opt Muslim immigrants into the project: first as the means of destroying targeted communities, and then as an ingredient in the new, postmodern mélange.

The resulting populace will not possess any clear cultural identity or group coherence other than the embrace of multiculturalism, antidiscrimination, and all other elements of woke dogma. They do not realize, however, that the inassimilable Muslim multitudes pouring into Europe and North America from the greater Middle East, Africa, and the Indian Sub-Continent do not want to be some pliant tools in the making of the post-national liberal Utopia.

Being untouched by the self-loathing of the Western elite class, firm in their beliefs, contemptuous of their hosts, Muslim immigrants have no incentive to accept the Western liberal creed. Two decades after 9-11 they have seen ample evidence of our rulers’ lack of rational reasoning and moral fiber. After the June 25 Würzburg attacks they have additional reason to believe that one day they will supplant the enfeebled natives and take over their candy store with its busted lock.


[1] One shows, of course, by clear testimonies from Scripture that the Holy Spirit is true God. For to none but God is a temple consecrated, and so the Psalmist speaks of “God in His holy temple” (Ps. 10:5). Yet there is a temple assigned to the Holy Spirit, for the Apostle says: “Or know you not that your members are the temple of the Holy Spirit?” The Holy Spirit, therefore, is God. This is especially clear since our members, which the Apostle calls the temple of the Holy Spirit, are the members of Christ. For just above he had set down: “Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ?” (1 Cor. 6:19, 15). It obviously would be awkward (since Christ is true God, as is clear from the foregoing) to have the members of Christ a temple of the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit were not God.

[2] Again, holy men do not give the cult of adoration except to the true God, for Deuteronomy (6:13) says: “You shall fear the Lord your God, and shall serve Him only.” But holy men serve the Holy Spirit, as the Apostle says: “We are the circumcision who serve the Spirit of God” (Phil. 3:3). And although some books have “who serve in the spirit of the Lord,” the Greek books and some Of the more ancient Latin ones have: “who serve the Spirit of God.” And from the Greek itself, this clearly must be understood as the cult of adoration which is due to God alone. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is true God to whom adoration is due.

[3] Further, to sanctify men is the proper work of God, for Leviticus (22:32) says: “I am the Lord who sanctify you.” It is, of course, the Holy Spirit who sanctifies, as the Apostle says: “You are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11). And in 2 Thessalonians (2:12) one reads: “God has chosen you first fruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the Spirit and faith of the truth.” Necessarily, therefore, the Holy Spirit is God.

[4] And further, just as the life of corporeal nature is from the soul, so the life of justice of the soul itself is from God; and so our Lord says: “As the living Father has sent Me, and I live by the Father, so He that eats Me, the same also shall live by Me” (John 6:58). Of course, this kind of life is from the Holy Spirit, and so our Lord adds in the same place: “It is the Spirit that gives life” (John 6:54); and the Apostle says: “If by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live” (Rom. 8:13). Therefore, the Holy Spirit is of the divine nature.

[5] Our Lord, furthermore, when arguing His divinity against the Jews who could not bear the fact that He made Himself equal to God, asserts that there is in Him a power of raising to life. He says in John (5:21): “As the Father raises up the dead and gives life, so the Son also gives life to whom He will.” The power of raising to life, of course, belongs to the Holy Spirit; as the Apostle says: “If the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you; He that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of His Spirit that dwells in you” (Rom. 8:11). Therefore, the Holy Spirit is of the divine nature.

[6] Again, creation is the work of God alone, as was shown above. But creation belongs to the Holy Spirit; as the Psalmist says: “Send forth your Spirit, and they shall be created” (Ps. io3:30); and Job (33:4) says: “The Spirit of God made me”; and Sirach (1:9) says of God: “He created her,” meaning wisdom, “in the Holy Spirit.” Therefore, the Holy Spirit is of the divine nature.

[7] The Apostle says, further: “The Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knows, but the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:10-11). But to comprehend all the deep things of God is not the act of a creature. And this is clear from our Lord’s words: “No one knows the Son but the Father, neither doth any one know the Father but the Son” (Mat. 11:27). And Isaiah (24:16) says in the person of God: “My secret to Myself.” Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not a creature.

[8] What is more, in the comparison by the Apostle just given, the Holy Spirit is to God as the spirit of man is to man. Now, the spirit of man is intrinsic to man and is not extraneous to him in nature, but is of his nature. Therefore, the Holy Spirit as well is not by nature extraneous to God.

[9] If one further compares the just quoted words of the Apostle with those of the Prophet Isaiah, he will see clearly that the Holy Spirit is God. For Isaiah (64:4) says: “The eye has not seen, O God, besides You, what things You hast prepared for them that wait for You.” And the Apostle, indeed, when he had introduced these words (1 Cor. 7:9) adds the words just mentioned, to wit, that “the Spirit searches the deep things of God” (1 Cor. 2:9-10). Manifestly, therefore, the Holy Spirit knows those deep things of God “which He has prepared for those that wait for Him.” Therefore, if none sees these besides God, as Isaiah says, clearly the Holy Spirit is God.

[10] Isaiah, once again (6:8-9), says: “I heard the voice of God saying: Whom shall I send? And I said: Lo, here am I, send me. And He said: Go, and you shall say to His people: Hearing, hear, and understand not.” Now, Paul ascribes these words to the Holy Spirit; and thus we are told that Paul said to the Jews: “Well, did the Holy Spirit speak... by Isaiah the Prophet, saying: Go to this people and say to them: With the ear you shall hear and shall not understand” (Acts 28:2526). Manifestly, therefore, the Holy Spirit is God.

[11] It is further apparent from sacred Scripture that it is God who speaks by the Prophets. For from the mouth of God, Numbers (12:6) says: “If there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I will speak to him in a dream.” And a Psalm (84:9) says: “I will hear what the Lord God will speak in me.” But it is plain to see that the Holy Spirit has spoken in the Prophets. One reads in Acts (1:16): “The Scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David.” And in Matthew our Lord says: “How do the scribes say that Christ is the son of David. For David himself says by the Holy Spirit: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit you at My right hand.” And in 2 Peter (1:71) we read: “For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time, but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit.” Therefore, one plainly gathers from the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit is God.

[ 12] Again, that the revelation of mysteries is a proper work of God is shown in Scripture, for in Daniel (2:28) it says: “There is a God in heaven that reveals mysteries.” But the revelation of mysteries is seen to be a work of the Holy Spirit, for we read in 1 Corinthians (2:10; 14:2): “To us God has revealed them, by his Spirit”; and: “By the Spirit He speaks mysteries.” The Holy Spirit, therefore, is God.

[13] What is more, to teach within is a proper work of God, for the Psalmist says of God: “He who teaches man knowledge” (93:16); and Daniel (2:21): “He gives wisdom to the wise, and knowledge to them that have understanding.” ]out that such is the proper work of the Holy Spirit is plain, for our Lord speaks in John (14:26): of “the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name: He will teach you all things.” The Holy Spirit, therefore, is of the divine nature.

[14] Furthermore, those who are identical in operation must be identical in nature. But the operation of the Son and the Holy Spirit is identical. For Christ speaks in the saints, as the Apostle shows in the words of 2 Corinthians (13:3): “Do you seek a proof of Christ that speaks in me?” This also plainly appears to be a work of the Holy Spirit, for we read in Matthew (10:20): “It is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.” There is, then, an identical nature in the Son and the Holy Spirit and, consequently, the Father, since it has been shown that the Father and Son are one nature.

[15] Moreover, to dwell in the minds of the saints is the proper work of God, and so the Apostle says: “You are the temple of the living God; as God says: I will dwell in you” (2 Cor. 6:16). But the Apostle attributes the same thing to the Holy Spirit, for he says: “Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” (1 Cor. 3:16). Therefore, the Holy Spirit is God.

[16] Once again, to be everywhere is proper to God, who says in Jeremiah (23:24): “I fill heaven and earth.” This belongs to the Holy Spirit, for we read in Wisdom (1:7): “The Spirit of the Lord bath filled the whole world,” and the Psalmist says: “Whither shall I go from your Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from your face? If I ascend into heaven, You are there,” and so forth (Ps. 138:7-8). Our Lord also says to the disciples: “You shall receive the power of the Holy Spirit coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost parts of the earth” (Acts 1:8), from which it is clear that the Holy Spirit is everywhere; He dwells in those existing in every place. The Holy Spirit, therefore, is God. [17] There is more. Scripture expressly names the Holy Spirit God, for Peter says: “Ananias, why did Satan tempt your heart, that you should lie to the Holy Spirit?” Later on, he adds: “You hast not lied to men, but to God” (Acts 5:3-4). The Holy Spirit, therefore, is God.

[18] We read again, in 1 Corinthians (14:2, 21): “He that speaks in a tongue speaks not unto men, but unto God; for no one hears. Yet by the Spirit He speaks mysteries,” from which he gives one to understand that the Holy Spirit was speaking in those who spoke with different tongues. Later on, of course, he says: “In the Law it is written: In other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people; and neither so will they hear me, says the Lord.” Therefore, the Holy Spirit who speaks mysteries with diverse lips and tongues is God.

[19] Furthermore, after a bit, this is added: “If all prophesy, and there come in one that believes not, or an unlearned person, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all. The secrets of his heart are made manifest; and so, falling down on his face, he will adore God, affirming that God is among you indeed” (1 Cor. 14:24-2-5). Clearly, of course, from what he had previously set down, “the Spirit speaks mysteries,” the manifestation of the secrets of the heart is from the Holy Spirit. And this is a proper mark of divinity, for we read in Jeremiah (17:9-10): “The heart of man is perverse... and inscrutable, who can know it? I am the Lord who search the heart and prove the reins: And so from this indication even an unbeliever (cf. 1 Cor. 14:24) is said to consider carefully that He who speaks these secrets of hearts is God. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is God.

[20] Again, a bit later, the Apostle says: “The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the God of dissension, but of peace” (1 Cor. 14:32-33). Of course, the graces of the Prophets which he named “the spirits of the prophets” are from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, he shows that the Holy Spirit who distributes graces of this kind in such wise that from them follows not dissension but peace is God by these words: “God is not the God of dissension, but of peace.”

[21] Furthermore, to adopt as sons can be the work of no other than God. For no spiritual creature is called son of God by nature, but by the grace of adoption. Hence, the Apostle attributes this work to the Son of God who is true God: “God sent His Son that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Gal. 4:4-5). But the Holy Spirit is the cause of the adoption, as the Apostle says: “You have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father)” (Rom. 8:15). Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not a creature, but God.

[22] Again, if the Holy Spirit is not God, He must be a creature. Plainly enough, He is not a bodily creature, And neither is He a spiritual creature, for no creature is infused into a spiritual creature, since a creature is not participable, but rather participating. The Holy Spirit, of course, is infused into the minds of the saints, as it were participated by them, for we read that Christ was full of Him (Luke 4:1) and even the Apostles (Acts 7:4). The Holy Spirit, therefore, is not a creature but God.

[23] But, if one says that the aforesaid works which are God’s are not attributed to the Holy Spirit in principalship as to God, but in ministry as it were to a creature, he says what is expressly false. And this is clear from the words of the Apostle: “There are diversities of operations, but the same God, who works all in all.” Afterwards, when the Apostle had enumerated the different gifts of God, he adds: “All these things one and the same Spirit works, dividing to every one according as He will” (1 Cor. 12:6, 11). Therein clearly he has set forth that the Holy Spirit is God: not only by saying that the Holy Spirit performs the works which he said before that God performs, but also by proclaiming that the Holy Spirit performs them according to a decision of His will. Manifestly, therefore, the Holy Spirit is God.


Stop Gaslighting Parents on Critical Race Theory

CRT is code for a policy designed to destroy our hard-won Western Civilisation and Culture. We all need to educate ourselves about it so we can successfully fight back!

From RealClear Policy

By Max Eden

Proponents of Critical Race Theory are resorting to semantic gaslighting to defend a dogma that most Americans instinctively abhor.

Some pundits claim that CRT is exclusively a school of thought taught in legal academia. On her MSNBC show, Joy Reid claimed that “law school is really the only place it is taught. NBC has looked into everywhere.” Former Lincoln Project co-founder George Conway tweeted: “I don’t think critical legal studies should be taught in elementary schools, and I am ready to die on that hill[.]”

Some journalists, informed by other “experts,” contend that CRT is synonymous with “talking about racism.” NPR defined CRT as “teaching about the effects of racism”; the New York Times called it “classroom discussion of race, racism.” NBC News labeled it the “academic study of racism’s pervasive impact.”

These definitions are, of course, mutually exclusive. But they both serve to paint parents into a corner. If CRT is defined just as talking about racism, then parental objections to it must be rooted in racism. If CRT is defined just as a thesis discussed in law schools, then parental objections to it must be rooted in ignorance.

There’s no doubt that CRT has become a politicized term. Manhattan Institute senior fellow Chris Rufo forthrightly explained his strategy on this issue as follows: “The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think ‘critical race theory.’ We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.”

Liberal writer Freddie DeBoer has argued that CRT is now a “completely floating signifier.” Conservatives label a host of things they don’t like as CRT. Liberals, then, “feel compelled to defend CRT because conservatives attack it,” and defend it by claiming that it has nothing to do with any of the bad things conservatives say.

But words have meaning. Parents and policymakers should understand CRT not as conservatives or liberals define it, but as it defines itself. Here’s a definition from a 2001 book, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefanic, widely credited as key architects of CRT:
The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up, but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, context, group- and self-interest, and even feelings and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.

Although CRT began as a movement in the law, it has rapidly spread beyond that discipline. Today, many in the field of education consider themselves critical race theorists who use CRT’s ideas to understand issues of school discipline and hierarchy, tracking, controversies over curriculum and history, and IQ and achievement testing. Political scientists ponder voting strategies coined by critical race theorists. Ethnic studies courses often include a unit on critical race theory, and American studies departments teach material on critical white students developed by CRT writers. Unlike some academic disciplines, critical race theory contains an activist dimension. It not only tries to understand our social situation, but to change it. (Emphases added.)
Several points here deserve restatement: CRT defines itself in opposition to traditional civil rights and even Enlightenment rationalism. It defines itself not simply as a “Theory,” but also as movement of activists who seek to transform society. Many educators consider themselves to by Critical Race Theorists, and CRT ideology has had a profound impact on a wide range of education policy and pedagogical issues.

Anybody who tries to peddle the line that CRT is just “talking about racism” is either gaslighting or being gaslit themselves. And anyone who maintains that CRT is simply an academic theory discussed in law school, at best, is ignorant of what CRT really is.

By contrast, parent intuitions about CRT are spot on. Given that CRT informs so many aspects of education policy and pedagogy, the real crux of the issue for parents is, as Andrew Sullivan adroitly put it, “not teaching about critical race theory; it is teaching in critical race theory.” (Emphases in original.)

Public schools may be commonly assigning Critical Race Theorists like Kimberlé Crenshaw. But they have embraced a host of policies and practices that are rooted in Critical Race Theory. When parents hear terms like: “Equity,” “Anti-Racism,” “Cultural Competence,” “Culturally Responsive Education,” “Restorative Justice,” “Ethnic Studies,” “Equitable Math,” “Whiteness,” they would be fundamentally correct to go to a school board meeting and complain about Critical Race Theory. All of these practices are influenced by and have the same politicized purpose as CRT, which – to reiterate – defines itself not merely as a “theory” but also as an activist practice.

School boards that are implementing CRT-infused programming should not follow the media’s lead and gaslight parents by claiming that they are “not teaching CRT” on the grounds that they are not assigning academic journal articles by self-avowed Critical Race Theorists. Because the more parents look into it, the more may realize that although their schools might not assign canonical CRT academic journal article, they are teaching “in” CRT.

That will further heighten alienation and distrust between schools and families – alienation and distrust that is unavoidable so long as schools educate students through a “lens” intended to train children to oppose the foundations of our liberal order.

Hungary Protects Minors From Perverse Content

God bless Hungary, Victor Orban, and the Hungarian Parliament. Please pray for them as they are attacked on all sides for attempting to adhere to Christian morality.

From FSSPX News

The Hungarian Parliament has passed a sex crimes law making it illegal to provide pornography and content promoting gender reassignment and homosexuality to anyone under the age of 18.

Supporters of the law stressed the need to protect children and support parents, citing the need to ensure “the protection of the rights of the child.”

The Principal Measures

The law states that “pornography and content that depicts sexuality for its own purposes or that promotes deviation from gender identity, gender reassignment, and homosexuality shall not be made available to persons under the age of eighteen years.”

In addition, sex education classes, “should not be aimed at promoting gender segregation, gender reassignment, or homosexuality.” Apart from school teachers, only officially registered individuals or organizations can teach sex education classes.

Finally, television channels will have to affix an “18 years or over” warning on films and shows whose content deviates from the law, limiting their broadcasting time between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. Hungary’s media authority will take action if these rules are violated.

Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó said that “the protection of our children is more than a question of zero tolerance for pedophiles, while the education of minors in matters of sexual orientation is the sole right of parents.”

The bill also creates a public database of sex offenders. The bill was approved on June 15 by 157 votes to 1. Most opposition parties abstained.

Opponents of the new law staged protests that drew several thousand people.

Dunja Mijatovic, the Council of Europe's human rights commissioner, called for the rejection of the legislation, criticizing measures she said, “limit human rights or stigmatize ... some members of society.” She claims that young people have the right to receive comprehensive sex education, including discussion of LGBT issues.

Budapest Pride called on U.S. LGBT groups, political leaders and government officials to call on President Joe Biden to raise the issue of this law in meetings with NATO and EU leaders on July 14-15, reports BBC News.

The United States Embassy in Hungary criticized the law. “The United States stands for the idea that governments should promote freedom of expression and protect human rights, including the rights of members of the LGBTQI + community,” the embassy said.

The law is consistent with the Hungarian constitution which recognizes the family and the nation as “the principal framework of our coexistence” and declares “our fundamental cohesive values ​​are fidelity, faith, and love.”

“Hungary shall protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman established by voluntary decision, and the family as the basis of the nation’s survival,” it says.

Finally, it affirms that “every child has the right to receive a Christian upbringing” and “every child has the right to live according to his sex at birth.”

Off the Menu: Episode 199 - Make Orwell Fiction Again

A fascinating discussion! Topics include Charles' and Vinnie's favourite martyrs, integralism, and Marshall Petain.

0:00 Intro 0:10 Imperialistic 7:20 What's New 15:04 Gratuitous Book Plug 16:20 Memes of Production 17:35 Death by Platitudes Part Deux 22:54 Charles Impressions 28:00 Real Estate Question 36:00 Favorite Martyrs 42:30 U.N. Revisited 48:50 Integralism 1:01:50 India 1:11:30 Marshall Petain 1:21:00 Finishing Up 1:24:10 Donut Providers

Conservatives Betrayed by Supreme Court. Again.

Where were the three 'conservatives' that Trump appointed? With Thomas and Alito they make a majority of the Court.

From Creative Minority Report

By Matthew Archbold

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a high-profile case concerning whether a transgender student was legally entitled to use the bathroom of his choice at school.

This refusal is a huge victory for LGBTQ advocates as it leaves a lower court decision in place that went against the school.

The high court denied the school board’s petition on Monday without explanation. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, however, made clear that they were in favor of hearing the case.


“The school board had argued that the case would give the Supreme Court an “ideal, timely vehicle” to determine whether Title IX applies to discrimination on the basis of gender identity and saying schools dealing with “the question of how best to respond to a teenager who identifies with the opposite biological sex is often excruciatingly difficult.”

“On the one hand, the teenager deserves and needs everyone’s compassion,” the school board wrote in their petition to the court. “On the other hand, allowing the teenager to use multi-user restrooms, locker rooms and shower facilities reserved for the opposite sex raises what this Court has acknowledged to be serious concerns about bodily privacy.”

This was not a school board that was being divisive. The school even offered the kid a private bathroom. They were trying to do what was right for the vast majority of their students. Let’s be honest, this is not an issue that anybody had any issue with up to about five years ago.

The Supreme Court’s punting on this issue could have national implications. Politico called it a “major victory” for transgender rights.

So, other than Alito and Thomas, what happened to the other “conservative” justices? What about the right of our daughters not to have boys entering into the bathroom with them?

The good news is that if Catholic schools have any guts at all, they will stand out like a beacon of sanity in a world drowning in cowardice and virtue signaling.

Why Did Martin Luther Remove Inspired Books From the Bible?

Because he put himself above God and His Holy Church. He got rid of Scriptures that contradicted his beliefs, such as II Mach. 12:46, 'It is, therefore, a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.'

From the National Catholic Register

By Angelo Stagnaro

Amid all the damage Martin Luther did in rending the body of Christ, perhaps his most deeply ingrained legacy is his shortened canon of Scriptures.

Many people seem to believe Catholics “added” books to the Bible. They don’t seem to realize that Luther removed seven entire books and parts of three others from it for no other reason than that they didn’t fit his idea of “what God really wanted.” Luther claimed they celebrated Judaism and because he wanted to justify his challenging the authority of the Catholic Church, he threw them out.

The Protestant Bible consists of only 66 books ― 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament. The Catholic (i.e., the original canon) settled upon in the 4th century is contains 73 books including Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (i.e., Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees ― what Protestants call the Apocrypha.

In fact, Luther’s first German translation was missing 25 books (i.e., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes, Jonah, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (i.e., Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. He referred to the Epistle of James as “straw not worthy to be burned in my oven as tinder.” The rest he called “Judaizing nonsense.” Subsequent Protestants, deciding that Luther wasn’t really inspired by the Holy Spirit, replaced most of the books he had removed.

In the third and fourth century, amid a flurry of gnostic nonsense producing dubious gospels left and right, the Council of Nicaea met to determine which books were canon. Some of them were easy to detect. The Gospel of Thomas quoted Jesus as saying that women can’t get into Heaven. The Infancy Gospel according to St. Thomas had a particularly gruesome scene in which the young Jesus killed his little playmates. These stories are, at the very least, uninspired and uninspiring.

The major problem lay with the Old Testament which Jewish scholars limited to 39 books. However, there was also a Greek Old Testament (i.e., the Septuagint) which contained these 39 books and others. All of the New Testament writers wrote in Greek and thus used the Greek Septuagint as source material. The learned scholars and saints who assembled the Bible the Church has preserved believed the Scriptures were divinely inspired. If such were the case, the authors couldn’t have used the wrong source ― that would be ludicrous. Thus, the council wisely included the Septuagint in the books of the Christian Bible rather than the Hebrew Masoretic text.

Luther argued that the Catholic Church had no right to decide matters of canonicity, completely disregarding the fact that he had awarded himself that very right. He held that the internal worth of a book was the chief factor in deciding if it should be kept or not. This argument is silly, because Judaism obviously doesn’t recognize the 27 Christian books either.

Luther’s mistakes are obvious. The reformer’s intention wasn’t to get at the truth of the Scriptures but rather to edit out the “messy parts” that contradicted his new vision of Christianity. So why would anyone trust a man who hated all Jewish references in the Bible so much that he singlehandedly corrupted it?

Though the Hebrew Bible that Jesus read didn’t include these books, he referred to them in his ministry. The New Testament we have today is completely dependent upon the Septuagint and thus, for the sake of continuity, historicity and authenticity, Luther should have kept his unauthorized editing to himself.

Meet COREPER, the Secret Committee at the Heart of Europe

The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.-Benjamin Disraeli, Lord Beaconsfield

From The Post@UnHerd

By Peter Franklin

One of the most powerful EU structures is one you've probably never heard of

Which organisation really runs the European Union? Is it the European Parliament? The European Commission? The European Central Bank?

A useful rule of thumb is that the more visible and democratically accountable the body, the less power it holds.

Therefore the directly elected European Parliament is by the far the weakest of the major EU institutions. The Commission clearly has more power than the Parliament — and is made up of appointees. However, these are high profile appointees. When they screw up badly — as they have over the EU’s vaccine procurement programme — their failures are politically embarrassing. 

This combination of visibility without direct democratic accountability therefore puts a limit on how much power someone like Ursula von der Leyen, or her predecessor Jean-Claude Juncker, can be given. Though it varies from country to country, there is a point at which voters would demand the restoration of effective democracy (as British voters did five years ago). 

To avoid any further crises of this kind, non-accountable power in the EU needs to be wielded invisibly. Hence the importance of bodies like the European Central Bank, whose inner workings are much less obvious to the public than the fumblings of the Commission. 

The most invisible body would be one that no one has heard of. And that’s very nearly true of the Committee of Permanent Representatives, also known as COREPER. This is the grouping that brings together the top diplomatic representatives of each member state to the European Union. In other words, it is a committee of ambassadors and deputy ambassadors.

Writing for Politico, Jacopo Barigazzi provides some much needed insight into this important, but almost unknown, power structure. Indeed, it is by its very nature unknowable. After all, this is a diplomatic organisation that conducts itself according to the discreet practices of international diplomacy. Thus, as Barigazzi describes it, “the committee meets behind closed doors and publishes only sparse summaries of its deliberations.”

COREPER’s role has been greatly enhanced by the pandemic. Emergency decisions have had to be made at a pace that the Commission’s lumbering bureaucracy clearly can’t cope with. Thus it has fallen to the diplomats — used to hammering out agreements against deadlines — to take the reins.

Perhaps as the pandemic subsides, we’ll see the natural order of things restored — with ministers instructing diplomats not the other way round. However, with “ever closer union” the need to make important EU-wide decisions in real time can only increase over the long-term. Furthermore, national governments may acquire a taste for doing politics behind a veil of diplomatic secrecy.

Decisions made through the European Council (i.e. ministers from the member states) are already criticised as lacking the transparency and accountability that these politicians would face at home. However, COREPER adds a thick layer of additional screening from democratic oversight. 

In Barigazzi’s words, it is the “black box within the black box”.

Word of the Day: Death

DEATH. The cessation of the bodily functions of a human being through the departure of the soul. It is part of revelation that, in the present order of divine providence, death is a punishment for sin. According to the teaching of the Church, death is a consequence of Adam's sin, as declared by St. Paul: "Sin entered the world through one man, and through sin death" (Romans 5:12). In the case of those justified by grace, death loses its penal character and becomes a mere consequence of sin. All human beings, therefore, are subject to death, although in the case of Christ and his Mother, because of their freedom from sin, death was neither a punishment for sin nor a consequence of sin. Yet, as they were truly human, death was natural for them.

Death is also the end of human probation or testing of one's loyalty to God. It ends all possibility of merit or demerit.

Properly speaking, only the body dies when separated from its principle of life, which is the soul. However, the Bible speaks of a second death (Revelation 20:6), referring to the souls in hell, who are separated from their principle of supernatural life, which is God.

About the Apostolic Pardon Given to the Dying. Where Fr. Z Admonishes You!

The Ars moriendi, the art of dying well, has always been a part of Catholicism. St Joseph is the Patron of a Good Death. Invoke him!

From Fr Z's Blog

Two recent email exchanges brought up the importance of the Apostolic Pardon (AP).  It is also sometimes called the Apostolic Blessing.

The AP is a special indulgence given by a priest to a person who is dying which remits all temporal punishment due to sins.

The AP does not, itself, forgive sins.   The AP should be received in the state of grace.  Hence, it is generally imparted after sacramental confession of sins (if possible) and/or the sacrament of anointing, and possibly with Viaticum (final reception of the Eucharist).

If there is no priest available at the time, a person can gain a plenary indulgence at the time of death if they are properly disposed and under the usual conditions.  That means you need to be aware of it and be thinking about it when the time comes!  That means you have to be thinking about death NOW, not later.  NOW.  NOW.  NOW.

We have to practice dying, in a certain sense, so that we will be good at it when it comes.

With Summorum Pontificum we have also the traditional form of the AP along with two newer forms.

The older, traditional form of the AP:

“Ego facultate mihi ab Apostolica Sede tributa, indulgentiam plenariam et remissionem omnium peccatorum tibi concedo et benedico te. In nomine Patris, et Filii, + et Spirtus Sancti, Amen.”

“By the Faculty which the Apostolic See has given me, I grant you a plenary indulgence and the remission of all your sins, and I bless you. In the Name of the Father and the Son + and the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

Two newer forms:

“Ego facultáte mihi ab Apostólica Sede tribúta, indulgéntiam plenáriam et remissiónem ómnium peccatórum tibi concédo, in nómine Patris, et Fílii, + et Spíritus Sancti. Amen”

“By the authority which the Apostolic See has given me, I grant you a full pardon and the remission of all your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit.”

“Per sancrosáncta humánæ reparatiónis mystéria, remíttat tibi omnípotens Deus omnes præséntis et futúræ vitæ pœnas, paradísi portas apériat et ad gáudia te sempitérna perdúcat. Amen.”

“Through the holy mysteries of our redemption, may almighty God release you from all punishments in this life and in the life to come. May He open to you the gates of paradise and welcome you to everlasting joy.”

Frankly, that last one seems … meh… let’s just say that the sign of the Cross is important.

Some people have taken it upon themselves to print up cards with the AP along with a statement like, “I am Catholic.  Please call a priest.”, or words to that effect.

Finally, it is amazing that there are priests who to not know about this.

Feasts of Early July


Devotion to the Sacred Heart

The last post of the Month of the Sacred Heart. The Month of the Precious Blood begins tomorrow, tho' I don't know if I'll be able to find a daily post.

Devotion to the Sacred Heart, as we know it, began about the year 1672. On repeated occasions, Jesus appeared to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, a Visitation nun, in France, and during these apparitions He explained to her the devotion to His Sacred Heart as He wanted people to practice it. he asked to be honored in the symbol of His Heart of flesh; he asked for acts of reparation, for frequent Communion, Communion on the First Friday of the month, and the keeping of the Holy Hour.

When the Catholic Church approved the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, she did not base her action only on the visions of Saint Margaret Mary. The Church approved the devotion on its own merits. There is only one Person in Jesus, and that Person was at the same time God and Man. His Heart, too, is Divine — it is the Heart of God.

There are two things that must always be found together in the devotion to the Sacred Heart: Christ’s Heart of flesh and Christ’s love for us. True devotion to the Sacred Heart means devotion to the Divine Heart of Christ insofar as His Heart represents and recalls His love for us.

In honoring the Heart of Christ, our homage lingers on the Person of Jesus in the fullness of His love. This love of Christ for us was the moving force of all he did and suffered for us — in Nazareth, on the Cross, in giving Himself in the Blessed Sacrament, in His teaching and healing, in His praying and working. When we speak of the Sacred Heart, we mean Jesus showing us His Heart, Jesus all love for us and all lovable.

Jesus Christ is the incarnation of God’s infinite love. The Human Nature which the Son of God took upon Himself was filled with love and kindness that has never found an equal. He is the perfect model of love of God and neighbor.

Every day of His life was filled with repeated proofs of “Christ’s love that surpasses all knowledge” (Eph 3:19). Jesus handed down for all time the fundamental feature of His character: “Take My yoke upon your shoulders and learn from Me, for I am meek and humble of Heart” (Mt 11:29). He invited all, refusing none, surprising friends and rivals by His unconditional generosity.

The meaning of love in the life of Jesus was especially evident in His sufferings. Out of love for His Father He willed to undergo the death of the Cross. “The world must know that I love the Father and do just as the Father has commanded Me” (Jn 14:31).

The love that Jesus bore toward us also urged Him to undergo the death of the Cross. At the Last Supper, He said, “There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (Jn 15:13)

The Heart of Jesus never ceases to love us in heaven. He sanctifies us through the Sacraments. These are inexhaustible fountains of grace and holiness which have their source in the boundless ocean of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. –  Via EWTN

Mad Monarchist Q&A

Another YouTube Q&A that either MM or YouTube has removed, so I've no idea what questions he answered.

From The Mad Monarchist

30 June, Antonio, Cardinal Bacci: Meditations For Each Day

St. Paul the Apostle

1. St. Paul was by nature fiery and zealous. Once he discovered the truth, he was ready to die for it. Originally he was convinced that Judaism contained the whole truth, and for this reason he hated the Christians, whom he regarded as a sect which had corrupted the sacred Hebrew tradition. The deacon Stephen was the first victim of his persecuting zeal. As he was being stoned and beaten to death this saintly young man prayed for his persecutors. It may be that in this moment his eyes, shining with faith and love, encountered those of the man who hated him. Soon afterwards Saul (this was Paul's real name) left Jerusalem for Damascus carrying letters investing him with new powers for the persecution of the infant Church. On the way this headstrong but sincere enemy of Christianity was suddenly dazzled by a light from Heaven. He fell to the ground and heard a mysterious voice saying: “Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?” Terrified, he answered: “Who art thou, Lord?” “I am Jesus,” the voice said, “whom thou art persecuting.” (Acts 9: 1-5) From that day Saul was changed completely. Under the influence of divine grace he became the Apostle of the Gentiles.

Before he set out on his missionary journeys Paul went apart into the desert of Arabia, (Cf. Gal. 1:17) where he remained some time in prayer and recollection. Then he went to Jerusalem to pay homage to the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter (Gal. 1:18). After this he began his apostolic travels, in the course of which he encountered all kinds of hardship and danger. The Jews frequently hunted him in order to put him to death. He was often cruelly scourged and flung into prison, and several times he was shipwrecked and had miraculous escapes from death. (Cf. 2 Cor. 11: 23-27) He bore everything joyfully however, in order to prove his love for Jesus Christ. Charity was always his main incentive. “The love of Christ impels us.” (2 Cor. 5:14) Charity, he said himself, “believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” (Cf. 1 Cor. 13:4-13) His charity was so great that he could truthfully say: “Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I am not inflamed?” (2 Cor. 11:29)

St. Paul could make this claim because his heart had become identified with the Heart of Jesus. Therefore he could say: “It is now no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me;” (Gal. 2:20) and: “For me to live is Christ and to die is gain;” (Phil. 1:21) and: “I am hard pressed from both sides - desiring to depart and to be with Christ, a lot by far the better; yet to stay on in the flesh is necessary for your sake.” (Phil. 1:23-24)

Let us meditate on this ardent love of God. Let us cast aside our coldness and indifference and ask St. Paul to set us on fire with divine charity.

2. We can learn other virtues from St. Paul besides his zealous love for God and for his fellowmen. We can also learn from him the virtues of humility and of apostolic fervour. The Apostle of the Gentiles reached such heights of sanctity as to feel himself transformed into Christ Himself and to deserve to be taken up into the third Heaven where he enjoyed a foretaste of eternal happiness. Nevertheless, he considered himself unworthy to be called an Apostle and realised that all his gifts came to him from God. “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything, as from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God.” (2 Cor. 3:5) Whenever we succeed in any project we should think on the same lines, because it is only when we are humble and depend on the grace of God that the success of our actions will redound to the glory of our Creator. If the cancer of ambition or of self-love should corrupt our purity of intention, our work would not be blessed by God and would not make us worthy of everlasting life. Let us repeat often: "All for You, with You and in You, my God."

3. "Always breathe the life of Christ; place your trust in Him; and live as if every day were your last." (St. Athanasius, "Life of St. Anthony," n. 91)

Eastern Rite - Synaxis of the Holy, Glorious and All-Praised Twelve Apostles

Today is the Feast of the Synaxis of the Holy, Glorious and All-Praiseworthy Twelve Apostles. Except for Ss Peter & Paul, celebrated together yesterday, each Apostle also has his own Feast Day.
The Synaxis of the Glorious and All-Praiseworthy Twelve Apostles of Christ appears to be an ancient Feast. The Church honours each of the Twelve Apostles on separate dates during the year and has established a general commemoration for all of them on the day after the commemoration of the Glorious and First-Ranked among the Apostles Peter and Paul.

The holy God-crowned Emperor Constantine the Great (May 21) built a church in Constantinople in honour of the Twelve Apostles. There are instructions for celebrating this Feast which date from the fourth century. For lists of the Apostles? names, see: Mt.10:2, Mark 3:14, Luke 6:12, Acts 1:13, 26.

The holy, glorious, all-laudable Apostle Andrew the First-called is also commemorated on November 30. He was the brother of Saint Peter (June 29).

The holy, glorious, all-laudable Apostle James is also commemorated on April 30. He and his brother John are the sons of Zebedee, and were called “sons of Thunder” (Mark 3: 17).

The holy, glorious, all-laudable Apostle and Evangelist, virgin, and beloved friend of Christ, John the Theologian is also commemorated on September 26 and May 8. He and his brother James are the sons of Zebedee, and were called “sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17).

The holy, glorious, all-laudable Apostle Philip is also commemorated on November 14.

The holy, glorious, all-laudable Apostle Bartholomew is also commemorated on June 11 and August 25.

The holy, glorious, all-laudable Apostle Thomas is also commemorated on October 6 and on the Sunday after Pascha.

The holy, glorious, all-laudable Apostle and Evangelist Matthew is also commemorated on November 16.

The holy, glorious, all-laudable Apostle James, the son of Alphaeus, is also commemorated on October 9.

The holy, glorious, all-laudable Apostle Jude is also commemorated on June 19. He is also known as Thaddeus (but should not be confused with Saint Thaddeus of the Seventy, who is commemorated on August 21), and was the brother of Saint James (October 23).

The holy, glorious, all-laudable Apostle Simon the Zealot is also commemorated on May 10.

The holy, glorious, all-laudable Apostle Matthias is also commemorated on August 9.


IN LUMINE FIDEI: 30 JUNE – THE APOSTLE SAINT PAUL (Martyr): Dom Prosper Gueranger: Whereas the Greeks on this day are uniting in one Solemnity, “the Memory,” as they express it, “of the illustrio...

30 June, A Chesterton Calendar

JUNE 30th

There are thrilling moments, doubtless, for the spectator, the amateur, and the æsthete; but there is one thrill that is known only to the soldier who fights for his own flag, to the ascetic who starves himself for his own illumination, to the lover who makes finally his own choice. And it is this transfiguring self-discipline that makes the vow a truly sane thing. It must have satisfied even the giant hunger of the soul of a lover or a poet to know that in consequence of some one instant of decision that strange chain would hang for centuries in the Alps among the silences of stars and snows. All around us is the city of small sins, abounding in backways and retreats; but surely, sooner or later, the towering flame will rise from the harbour announcing that the reign of the cowards is over and a man is burning his ships.

'The Defendant.'