I'm glad to see other people realising what I did when the Synod was first announced. Its aim is the destruction of the Faith and the Church.
From Rorate Cæli
By Michael Charlier
The elites have never cared about votes. Just ask the people of Ireland. They twice voted 'NO' on EU treaties only to be told to vote again until the elites got the result they wanted.
By Péter Szitás & Michael O’Shea
The circumstances in Slovakia demand steady leadership, ideally with support from the populace.
MM is definitely a Texan! Only a Texas monarchist would commemorate the defeat of one republic by another. Travis signed his letters from the Alamo 'For God and the Mexican Constitution', which was republican. In fact, the '1824' on the Alamo flag is the date of the establishment of the First Mexican Republic after their treason was successful
From The Mad Monarchist (6 March 2012)
Consider first, that this commandment does not only forbid all wilful murder, unjust shedding of blood, beating, or doing anything else that may hasten one's own or any other person's death, but also all thoughts that have any tendency that way, all wishes or desires of the death of any one, whether through malice or envy, or for some temporal convenience or interest; as also all manner of hatred and rancour of heart to any one living. For it is written, 1 John iii. 15, 'whoseoever hateth his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.' Christians, look well to yourselves, and carefully examine into the true state of your interior in this respect. You have perhaps hitherto flattened yourselves that you have nothing to reproach your conscience with on the score of the horrible sin of murder; but have you never wilfully entertained any hatred, envy, or malice to your neighbours? If you have, know that all this is like murder in the eyes of God. O take heed of living in any such malicious dispositions to any one person upon earth, lest you should be excluded thereby from any share in eternal life, to which murderers have no title.
Consider 2ndly, how the Son of God himself has explained to us the extent of the obligations of this commandment, Matt. v. 21. & c., 'You have heard,' saith he, 'that it was said to them of old, Thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, (a word expressing indignation and contempt,) shall be in danger of the council, (a higher and more severe tribunal,) and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire.' By which our Lord would have all Christians to understand that this divine law was not only designed to restrain the hand from killing, but also the heart from wilfully entertaining the passion of anger or the desire of revenge; and much more from suffering out wrath to break out into words on indignation or contempt, much less into downright affronts or injuries, which might either rob our neighbour of his honour or of the peace of his mind, or, as it too commonly happens, of the grace of God, by provoking him also to passion and sin.
Consider 3rdly, how the Holy Ghost also declares himself in like manner against the murdering crime of passion and revenge, Ecclus. xxviii. 'He that seeketh to revenge himself,' saith he, 'shall find vengeance from the Lord, and he will surely keep his sins in remembrance. One man keepeth anger against another, and doth he seek to be healed by God? He hath no mercy on a man like himself, and doth he entreat for his own sins? He that is but flesh nourished anger, and with what face doth he ask forgiveness of God? Who shall obtain pardon of his sins? Forgive thy neighbour if he have hurt thee, and then shall thy sins be forgiven to thee when thou prayest. Remember thy last things and let enmity cease. Remember the fear of God, and be not angry with thy neighbour. Remember the covenant of the most high, and overlook the ignorance of thy neighbour. Refrain from strife, and thou shalt diminish thy sins,' & c. O let us imprint these divine lessons deep in our souls, and we shall fulfil this great commandment.
Conclude, if thou desirest to keep thyself far from the guilt of murder, to banish far from thy soul every thought that has any tendency to malice or revenge. O learn from the doctrine and practice of thy Saviour rather to suffer in thy person, in thy honour, or in thy worldly goods, than, by seeking revenge, to endanger the loss of thy soul by losing thy God and his grace.
Prudence and Simplicity
1. Prudence is one of the cardinal virtues frequently recommended in the Sacred Scriptures. “If you receive my words and treasure my commands,” the Holy Spirit tells us in the Book of Proverbs, “turning your ear to wisdom, inclining your heart to understanding… if you seek her like silver, and like hidden treasures search her out: then you will understand the fear of the Lord: the knowledge of God you will find.” (Prov. 2:2-6) Then, He promises, God will counsel and protect you, “for wisdom will enter your heart, knowledge will please your soul, discretion will watch over you, understanding will guard you; saving you from the way of evil men.” (Cf. Prov. 2:2-12)
The word ‘prudence,’ as St. Thomas explains, is derived from the word ‘providence,’ and it consists in ordering everything correctly towards its proper end. (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 49, a. 6) From that we can see how necessary this virtue is. A man who can order everything correctly towards its own end, does everything as it ought to be done. He will have achieved true wisdom, which is the foundation of sanctity.
To speak when we should speak; to be silent when we should be silent; never to leave unsaid what ought to be said, but to know when we should speak, and how much; to pay attention mainly to necessary things, that is, to God and to the supernatural; to avoid every thought which would separate us from God and endanger our salvation; to love God more than anything else and more than ourselves, because He is the supreme good and our supreme happiness; to love other things only in God and for Him solely; to direct all our actions proportionately towards God, towards our neighbour, and towards ourselves, and to avoid every act which would alienate us from God, which would be contrary to His precepts, or which would endanger our eternal salvation.
And this is true prudence, which is founded on divine wisdom and must be continually nourished by the grace of God and inspired by charity. Since this virtue pervades and embraces all the others, a man who achieves perfection in it has reached the peak of holiness.
But perhaps we are too preoccupied with worldly interests, and so stray from the straight path which leads to God and to sanctity.
2. Apart from the Christian virtue of prudence, there is also the prudence of the world and of the flesh. This, however, as St. Francis de Sales explains, is really duplicity and craft; it does not avoid dissimulation and falsehood; it seeks its own profit only and is prepared to obtain its end by any means. “I know nothing at all about the art of falsehood, dissimulation, and pretence,” St. Francis wrote to the Bishop of Belley, “which is the centre of political activity and the mainspring of human prudence. That which I have on my lips I have in my heart. I hate duplicity like death.” (Letters of St. Francis de Sales (Spirito), Bk. II, c. 24. Letter 178) Our prudence should likewise be united with rectitude, sincerity, and simplicity. We must speak the truth with charity and never lie or deceive. “For we can do nothing against the truth,” says St. Paul, “but only for the truth.” (2 Cor. 13:8) He advises the Ephesians “to practice the truth in love.” (Eph. 4:15) To the Romans he writes: “I would have you wise as to what is good, and guileless as to what is evil.” (Rom. 16:19) The virtue of Christian prudence, then, consists in complete exactitude in all that is good combined with a holy simplicity free from any taint of duplicity or evil.
3. “Be therefore wise as serpents,” Jesus directs us in the Gospel, “and guileless as doves.” (Mt. 10:16) We must be prudent, but also simple and straightforward.
St. Francis de Sales comments on these words of the Gospel: “A white dove is more pleasing than a serpent. Should we try to combine their gifts, we could not transfer the simplicity of the dove to the serpent, because he would still be a serpent; but it would be easier to bestow the prudence of the serpent on the dove, because in doing so the dove would not cease to be beautiful. Let us therefore embrace this holy simplicity, which is the sister of innocence and the daughter of charity.” (Letter 119)
Christian prudence must always be united with holy simplicity, which is an ornament of the soul.
Today is the Feasts of The Holy Martyr Callistratus and His Wife and of Our Venerable Father Nilus, Founder and Hegumen of the Grottaferrata Monastery.
Born to an Italian family of Byzantine rite ("Greek rite") of Rossano, in the Byzantine theme of Calabria, for a time he was married and had a daughter. Sickness brought about his conversion, however, and from that time he became a monk and a propagator of the rule of Saint Basil in Italy.
He was known for his ascetic life, his virtues, and his theological learning. For a time he lived as a hermit, but his reputation drew followers to Rossano, whom he began to instruct. However, after a while, he realized that he was viewed as a local authority, and hearing that there was talk of making him bishop, Nilus fled to Capua, where he stayed for fifteen years. Later he spent certain periods of his life at various monasteries which he either founded or restored. Although Nilus instructed his monks according to the Rule of St. Basil, he maintained cordial relations with the Benedictines at Monte Cassino, where he spent some time, as well as at the Alexius monastery in Rome. The Rule of St. Basil was one of the resources Benedict had recourse to when drafting his own rule.
When Pope Gregory V (996–999) was driven out of Rome, Nilus opposed the usurpation of Philogatos of Piacenza as antipope. According to his disciple and biographer, Bartholomew, in 998 Nilus hastened to Rome to intercede on behalf of a fellow native of Rossano, John Philogathos, who had, against the advice of Nilus, cooperated in an ill-advised scheme of the Roman noble Crescentius to depose the Emperor Otto III's kinsman, Pope Gregory V. Later when Philogathos was tortured and mutilated, Nilus reproached Gregory and the Emperor for this crime, prophesying that "the curse of heaven sooner or later would affect their cruel hearts".
Nilus main works were the foundation in 1004 of the famous Greek monastery of Grottaferrata, near Frascati, on lands granted him by Gregory, count of Tusculum; he is counted the first abbot. At the time Calabria was under Byzantine rule and was Koine Greek in language, culture, and spiritual and liturgical tradition. The abbey continues in the Byzantine rite. He spent the end of his life partly in the Sant'Agata monastery in Tusculum and partly in a hermitage at Valleluce near Gaeta. He died in the Sant'Agata monastery in 1005.
Saint Nilus is revered as the patron saint of scribes and calligraphers.
Individually, men may present a more or less rational appearance, eating, sleeping, and scheming. But humanity as a whole is changeful, mystical, fickle, delightful. Men are men, but Man is a woman.
'The Napoleon of Notting Hill.'
27 Jan. 28 May. 27 Sept.
Let him consider that he is always beheld from heaven by God, and that his actions are everywhere seen by the eye of the Divine Majesty, and are every hour reported to Him by His angels. This the prophet telleth us, when he sheweth how God is ever present in our thoughts, saying: “God searcheth the heart and the reins.” And again “The Lord knoweth the thoughts of men.” And he also saith: “Thou hast understood my thoughts afar off”; and “The thought of man shall confess to Thee.” In order, therefore, that he may be on his guard against evil thoughts, let the humble brother say ever in his heart: “Then shall I be unspotted before Him, if I shall have kept me from mine iniquity.”
By Hélène De Lauzun
There is a yawning gap between the irenic aspirations defended by the Pope and the painful day-to-day reality of European citizens who have to absorb the migratory flow.
At a time when the influx of migrants into the Mediterranean has never been so massive, as illustrated by the situation on the Italian island of Lampedusa, which in recent weeks has seen an unprecedented arrival on its soil of several thousand immigrants from Africa, the Pope has openly taken a stance by saying that we cannot speak of a migratory crisis. Migrants “do not invade,” he insisted in his speeches, calling on France and Europe to face up to their “responsibilities.” For many European citizens—whether Catholic or not, French or Italian—such comments are not acceptable.
A follow-up to the story I shared earlier. It seems the Reds in Germany are funding the NGOs that are supporting the jihad against Europe.
By Tamás Orbán
Italian PM suggests Germany instead move reception centers to their own soil
Synodality does not work. Only the restraining hand of Rome has prevented the Eastern Churches from descending into the chaos that afflicts the Orthodox. If Rome goes 'synodal' may God have mercy!
From Settimo Cielo
By Sandro Magister
In almost identical words, first while conversing with the Jesuits of Portugal and then on the flight back from Mongolia, Pope Francis has said that “the Synod is not an invention of mine. It was Paul VI, at the end of the Council, who realized that the Western Church had lost synodality, while the Eastern one has got it.”
And on September 11, receiving Baselios Marthoma Mathews III, catholicos of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, he reiterated that “there is much we can learn from the age-old synodal experience of your Church.”
But is it really so? Judging by the failure, in 2016, of the convocation of a Council of all the Orthodox Churches, after sixty years of preparation, simply due to the lack of unanimity in the approval of one of the preliminary documents, the Eastern model of synodality would not seem at all to be the most fit to accelerate, in the West, that “process” of change in the Church so much to the liking of the pope and his set:
“If the West, in fact, understands synodality as a place or a moment in which all, lay and clergy, act together to arrive at some ecclesiastical, doctrinal, canonical, disciplinary decision, whatever it may be, it is clear that such synodality does not exist in the East.”
Calling attention to the colossal misconception, in these exact words, is a bishop who knows the East well.
His name is Manuel Nin. Catalan, 67 years old, a Benedictine monk at the Abbey of Montserrat, a professor of theology and specialist on the Fathers of the Church, then rector of the Pontifical Greek College in Rome, he has been since 2016 the titular bishop of Carcabia and apostolic exarch for Catholics of the Byzantine rite in Greece, based in Athens.
He will take part, in October, in the next session of the Synod on synodality, and is among those whom the pope has personally added to the list of participants. But he makes no secret of thoroughly criticizing the “misunderstanding” on which Francis so insists:
“When it is stated that: ‘You in the East have always had synodality,’ synodality is simply confused with the episcopal college.”
Nin has condensed his objections in a commentary published in August on the website of his exarchate.
In the East, he writes, it is true that the title of “Synod” is given to the college of bishops governed by a patriarch, an archbishop, or a metropolitan when it meets to exercise authority over the respective Church (as for example that of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church held in Rome from September 3 to 13).
But this synodality has nothing to do with the model of “a modern parliamentary republic, where all can say anything and talk about everything. The life of the Christian Churches has never been a form of democracy in which all decide everything based on the rules of the majority.”
Of course, Pope Francis has also insisted repeatedly in saying that “the Synod is not a parliament,” much less “a television program in which everything is talked about.”
At the same time, however, he has extended participation in the Synod not only to those with episcopal authority, but to priests, religious, and lay people, men and women, in obedience to a predominantly horizontal interpretation of the Greek word “Synod,” understood as “walking together.”
Together with whom? With others, with everyone. Albeit with the caution that the role of protagonist be left to the Holy Spirit.
When instead – Nin writes, and this is his main objection – the true meaning of the word “Synod” is not “walking together with all,” but “walking all together with Christ.”
Nin quotes the father of monasticism: “Those footprints in the sand of the desert that Anthony believed to be his own, at a certain point he discovers, he and we with him, that they do not belong to him but to the One who walks beside Anthony and supports him in moments of weakness. To Him who is always at our side, to the risen and living Lord who is in our midst. The monastic vocation can help us understand a fundamental reality in Christian life.”
It is interesting to note how this objection of Nin’s accords with the one published in July on Settimo Cielo by the New York theologian Robert P. Imbelli, who also observed in the “Instrumentum laboris” of the upcoming Synod a role as immense as it is vague and muddled assigned to the Holy Spirit, and instead a very weak reference to Christ, to the cross, to the paschal mystery, that is, to the only reliable guide in order to be truly able to “converse in the Spirit.”
“I therefore propose looking at synodality,” Nin continues, “as the journey of all of us who have been baptized in Christ, listening to his Gospel, celebrating our faith, receiving his grace in the sacraments. A journey certainly to be undertaken together, guided and accompanied by the hands or even carried on the shoulders of our shepherds, but following in the footsteps of Him who is the way, the truth, and the life.”
Toward the conclusion of his commentary, Nin makes an unexpected reference to a protagonist of the Church from a few decades ago, with whom he allies himself:
“I recall the beautiful reflection of Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, archbishop of Bologna from 1984 to 2003, published in the years of the great Jubilee of 2000 with the title: ‘Identikit of the Guest of Honor.’ Already back then the great Italian cardinal warned against the danger of sidelining or even forgetting the One who was the only reason for the Jubilee, the main cause, the sole honoree, the One Celebrated.”
Yesterday the Jubilee, today the Synod. With the same forgetfulness?
Edward Pentin, in the “National Catholic Register,” has also highlighted the critical observations of Bishop Manuel Nin:
> Greek Catholic Bishop: Synod on Synodality Is Not Like Eastern Synods
The weaponising of science by the woke Left is one of the most dangerous trends today. Science is no longer science. It is a religion and an anti-theistic, anti-Western religion at that.
From William M. Briggs
The woke must needs have enemies. If they do not have them, they will create them. Their identities—and the woke are all about identities which create for them “lived experiences”, which always means “fantasized experiences”—have an absolute need to see themselves battling against powerful forces that are ever on the brink of destroying them.
This gives them the excuse to crush those enemies. Without mercy. This lack of pity follows from their premise that their enemies are holding back Utopia, which is the bliss-filled land where the greatest good for the greatest number shall be perpetual. Because science.
Enter woke scientist Peter Hotez. He is a little fella, the shape of a Butterball turkey with a constant corn-kernel grin. He is the famous author of, and I promise this is true, “Crafting your scientist brand“, a 2018 peer-reviewed paper in PLOS: Biology.
Crafting your scientist brand? If that sounds more about making science about propaganda and personality than about truth, well, that’s because it is.
Hotez said making science about people and not science is necessary because there has been an “abrupt rise in well-funded and organized antiscience movements”.
If he means by this the rise of the Woke Regime, with its vast resources, and its capture of all professional organizations and universities, and its endless ability to print money to fund its “science” fancies, why, he is exactly right. The Regime’s machinations in and manipulations of science are well known and greatly to be regretted.
Example besides the usual, you ask? It appears the Australian Experts who rule their medical institutions will recommend putting men who enjoy sodomy on antibiotics. Permanently. Perpetually. To “avoid sexually transmitted diseases.” Why would that be necessary, one wonders? One cannot say. Not without getting in trouble.
Dear reader, does your sexual partner have a uterus?
Hotez was also allowed recently another outlet for his propaganda, this time in an organ known for it, the LA Times: “Scientists have become sitting ducks. We need leaders to step up and defend us.”
He isn’t happy some refused his beloved covid vax, claiming they died because not taking it:
The dead were victims of what we too often label as “misinformation,” as though these victims succumbed to random junk on the internet. This was not always the case. The unvaccinated were targeted by a well-financed and newly politicized anti-vaccine movement.
Does he include in that “misinformation” the continuous stream of lies told by Experts and rulers that if you got the vax you couldn’t get covid, couldn’t pass it on, and wouldn’t have any adverse events?
No. But he does repeat his case that his enemies are out there, and growing in power. Which is, of course, false.
Just before CPAC, another prominent Freedom Caucus member had disparaged vaccinators as “medical brown shirts,” meaning Nazis, and she later attacked me and other scientists by name on Steve Bannon’s podcast. Other caucus members regularly made unsupported and spectacular claims about the benefits of hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin as COVID treatments, while disparaging COVID-19 vaccinations.
Funny that Hotez forgets the vaccine passports, and the many, many people who were fired for not taking the vax, people forced out by a brutal, panicked Regime. And he forgets when HCQ and ivermectin (“horse paste”!) were outlawed in some locales, and people cancelled for recommending them.
Yet now, the Mayo Clinic advises HCQ for covid.
Is there any truth to the “conspiracy theory” that rulers had to ban all these alternate treatments, because if there were existing treatments they couldn’t have got emergency authorization for the forced vaccinations? Hotez doesn’t say.
Hotez next tells his good joke:
During the 1930s, Joseph Stalin’s rise to authoritarian control relied on exiling or imprisoning prominent scientists. This had catastrophic consequences for Soviet productivity, especially in agricultural science.
He did, too. The Soviet State, a full-bore Expertocracy, decided all The Science. Those who opposed it were executed, sent into exile, or fired. Which, except for the executions, so far, might sound familiar.
He claims “A 2021 survey found that 15% of scientists who engage with the news media about COVID-19 have received death threats.” Sure, some of them might have got threats from cranks, and some are probably lying about it. Anybody in the public eye our of vibrant democracy routinely has to deal with idiots venting their spleens. Ahem. But his claim that “almost 40% of COVID-19 scientists report experiencing at least one confrontation either online or in person” is more revealing.
Confrontation. Experts do not like to be questioned. Which is what is meant by online “confrontations”. It is enough, to them, that they have spoken. When they speak, you are meant to listen passively and follow orders. You, dear reader, are not an Expert and thus uncredentialed and unworthy of having an opinion. When you express one, directly to an Expert, they feel threatened. They really do.
What Expert was fired for their lies during the panic? Which were fired for being wrong? Which were fired for expressing over-certainty? As far as I know, the answer is exactly none to all these questions. Yet the “body count” of Regime critics to The Science is high, high.
If Hotez is really worried about “anti-science rhetoric”, he’d fire himself.