Bastille Day - The Farce

If you think MM is harsh, just wait until the actual date comes around and read what I have to say about it!

From The Mad Monarchist (14 July 2012)

n some ways, Bastille Day is a very appropriate holiday for a republic to have. Republics, after all, tend to be based on a minority telling lies to the majority, pretending to be looking out for their best interests, and the majority pretending to believe them, going along with the charade even though they know perfectly well they are being lied to. One side pretends to care, the other pretends to believe them and all go along with it because they want to believe the narrative and don’t wish to be confused with the facts. In the same way, Bastille Day is, like Napoleon himself said about history, “a set of lies agreed upon”. The official story is that the storming of the Bastille on July 14 was a symbolic assault on tyranny, officially marking the beginning of the French Revolution as a heroic struggle for liberation from the “bondage” of traditional authority (the monarchy, the aristocracy and the clergy) and traditional moral values which upheld such authority. Monarchists know, and everyone else should too, that the facts are very far from this ideal narrative which is celebrated today as the national French holiday.

The Kingdom of France was, undoubtedly, at a low point at the time. The economy was in shambles, hunger and poverty were widespread, too many in the aristocracy were living lives of indulgence far away from the people they should have been looking after and many in the clergy were more concerned with their own comfort than with administering the sacraments and teaching their people. However, the two young people at the pinnacle of power in France, His Most Christian Majesty King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette, were not blind or uncaring to these problems. Both had each been working in their own way to solve the immense problems they had so recently inherited. King Louis XVI enacted many common sense policies to alleviate the suffering of his people. He cut expenses at Versailles, cut government expenditures overall, refused to go deeper into debt and refused to raise taxes. He ended the government monopoly on grain which allowed for lower prices that more people could afford. He taxed wealthy landowners for the first time and, though he was not required to, paid his own share as any other landowner would. Likewise, Queen Marie Antoinette helped to educate poor children, had her own kitchen opened to the poor, cut down on lavish parties (yes, despite all you’ve probably heard) and simplified her own wardrobe in an effort to make frugality chic.

Unfortunately, the accumulated problems of decades could not be overcome quickly and the radical firebrands were doing everything possible to mislead, misinform and radicalize the public while spreading the most vicious lies they could think up about their King and Queen. For example, partly in an effort to pay for the war against Great Britain on behalf of the United States, King Louis XVI enacted a tax reform which raised revenues but lowered taxes for the poor. Revolutionary propagandists played their game of misinformation, only telling people that the King would be collecting more money (not less from the poor) and implying or stating outright that this was all for his own enrichment rather than paying for the needs of the country. King Louis had done everything in his power to be reasonable and accommodating. Early in his reign he had encouraged local parliaments and he recalled the Estates-General. However, the firebrands only increased their agitation, whipping the mob into a frenzy and blaming the King for ills he had absolutely no control over. Finally, someone pointed to the prison-fortress of the Bastille as the imposing symbol of absolute royal power that had to be wiped out.

On July 14, 1789 a Parisian mob stormed the Bastille, which was actually nothing like what they had been told or what most people today think it was. Naturally, it looked very harsh and foreboding from the outside, but inside the prison conditions were not terrible, certainly no worse than any other prison of the time and probably better than most. The fact was that there was practically no one in the Bastille. The popular portrayal would have one believe that the Bastille was crowded with the poor, tortured victims of an autocratic monarch. In fact, it was almost empty of prisoners. The only people present to be liberated were four forgers, two lunatics and a pervert who had been locked up at the request of his own family. The real victims were the unfortunate men who just happened to be doing their job guarding the prison. All 120 soldiers were brutally massacred by the hatchet-wielding mob and the governor had his head cut off and stuck on a pike. This was the bloody and inglorious start of the horrific bloodbath known as the French Revolution.

The episode is so ridiculous that it would almost be an occasion to laugh were it not for the death and horror involved. The Bastille was not a ghastly torture-chamber full of unfortunates to be saved by the rebel mob. It was a run-down bastion holding a couple of crazy people and a few petty criminals. The real victims were the men wearing the King’s coat who were savaged by a mob who had not found what they expected. They also later demolished the Bastille and so it is that the ridiculous charade continues as tourists from all over the world come to Paris expecting to see the famous Bastille only to be told no such place exists or has for centuries. Again, rather fitting for a celebration that is a farce, based on a lie about a period of history that was more gory than glorious, that was more about licentiousness than liberty, more about evil than equality and more about fratricide than fraternity. What could be a better holiday for the French Republic when you think about it?

Of course, the real cause for celebration will be when France rejects the lies and illusions of the Revolution and returns to the path of God, glory and the Ancien Régime.

Bishop Challoner's Meditations - March 31st

FRIDAY IN PASSION WEEK

ON THE PART THE BLESSED VIRGIN BORE IN HER SON’S SUFFERINGS

Consider first, the foresight the Blessed Virgin had of the passion of her Son, from the time that she heard that prophetic prediction addressed to her by holy Simeon, Luke ii. 34, 35, that he should ‘be set for a sign which should be contradicted, and that a sword should pierce her own soul.’ Yes, blessed Lady, a sword indeed, far more sharp and penetrating than any earthly steel, which can only pierce the body and cannot reach the soul, whereas this sword, of more than mortal anguish, which thou sufferest by occasion of the passion of thy Son, inflicts a most bitter, deep, and deadly wound in the very midst of thy soul. A wound which began to be inflicted at the time of this prophecy, by the sense which the heavenly Father then gave thee of what thy Son was to suffer; a wound which was a most bitter alloy of all those consolations which thou receivedst from the sight, conversation, and embraces of thy Jesus; a wound which thou carriedst about with thee in thy soul all the time of his mortal life, still growing upon thee as the time of his Passion drew nearer, and not healed but by his glorious Resurrection. Christians, see how the greatest favourite of heaven by divine appointment meets with the greatest crosses in this mortal pilgrimage. But no wonder Christ himself was first to suffer, and so to enter into his glory; his blessed Mother and all the Saints were to walk in the same road in order to follow him and to partake us his glorious kingdom. O! think not much if your Lord chooses for you what he chose for himself, for his blessed Mother, and for all his elect.

Consider 2ndly, how much the affliction and anguish of this Virgin Lady was increased, when the news was brought her of her Son’s being betrayed by Judas, apprehended, bound, and dragged away in that inhuman manner before the council, and what treatment he had met with there, after being condemned by them. But as the sight usually affects us more than the hearing, so doubtless this blessed Mother was oppressed with a far more killing grief, when on the next morning she was an eye-witness of all the injuries, outrages, and torments which he suffered in the different stages of his passion. For as no love that any person upon earth has ever experienced could any ways approach to the love she bore our Lord, not only as her Son, but much more as her God; so, in proportion to her love her anguish and sorrow to see him treated in that cruel, and barbarous, and outrageous manner, was the greatest that any pure creature could ever sustain, and nothing less than a miracle could have supported her or kept her alive under so dreadful a torture. Ah, Christians the whips, thorns, and nails that pierced his flesh pierced her heart with inexpressible pain and sorrow, which none surely could ever exceed, but those of her Son, ‘the man of sorrows.’ O take pity, my soul, on the sorrows of them both, and see thou never more concur to grieve them by sin.

Consider 3rdly, more in particular how the Blessed Virgin was affected when she first saw her Son in the morning in the hands of his enemies, all disfigured by their blows, with his hands tied behind him, his face covered with spittle, and his hair all rent and torn. O my soul, even so hard a heart as thine could scarce bear such a sight as this, much less her tender heart! But what was this in comparison with what she endured when he was so cruelly scourged at the pillar; when he was crowned with piercing thorns, and buffeted by a whole band of soldiers! O what pangs did she suffer when she saw him presented to the people with the ‘Ecce homo!’ Behold the man! How did she then feel in her soul all those wounds she there discovered in his head and body? Nor did she suffer less, but rather much more, when she followed him in his last journey to Mount Calvary, bearing his cross on his mangled shoulders, and marking the way with his sacred blood. But what was all this if compared with what she endured, when she heard the strokes of the hammer driving the nails into his hands and feet; when she saw him hoisted up into the air, and there hanging, extended as upon a rack, and supported by his wounds; when standing near the cross, she saw the extremity of the torture he there endured; contemplated the multitude and variety of his sufferings, heard his last dying words, and saw him give up the ghost? O how truly might she then cry out with the Prophet, ‘O all you that pass by the way, attend and see, if there be sorrow like to my sorrow!’ Lament. i. 12. Learn my soul, from this Queen of sorrows, with what eye thou oughtest to look upon the sufferings of the Son of God, and how to bewail those sins which have given cause to them.

Conclude to imitate the virtues of which this blessed Lady has given us an illustrious example in this martyrdom she endured under the cross of her Son - especially learn her courage and fortitude under such bitter suffering; her patience and perfect conformity to the will of God; her lively faith and hope. These must support thee also under all thy crosses.

31 March, Antonio, Cardinal Bacci: Meditations For Each Day

Entertainment and Sport

1. It is wrong to imagine that Christianity is a sad and gloomy religion. Quite otherwise, it is the religion of joy, of the real joy, that is, which comes from God, from the serenity of a sound conscience and from the hope and sure expectation of the immeasurable happiness of heaven after the trials of this world are over. Other pleasures are passing and often leave behind disillusionment, boredom and remorse. The happiness of living a sincere Christian life does not vanish even in the midst of suffering, for it bestows an inner peace which nothing else can give. “The kingdom of God,” says St. Paul, “does not consist in food and drink, but in justice and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (Rom. 14:17) “The fruit of the Spirit,” he says in his letter to the Galatians, “is charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness...” (Gal. 5:22) St. John the Apostle, writing to the faithful of his time, encourages them to be joyful with the joy which comes from Jesus Christ. “These things we write to you that you may rejoice, and our joy may be full.” (1 John 1:4) It is not contrary to Christian teaching to indulge in lawful recreation and amusement. If a bow is drawn too tight, it snaps. Our physical constitution demands that after our work we should rest. Resting does not mean idleness and inactivity, but suitable recreation and entertainment. God Himself set aside six days for working and one for repose. This day of solemn repose, however, should be dedicated in a particular way to God by the fulfilment of the obligations which the Church prescribes. But there is no question of our being forbidden to refresh ourselves mentally and physically on this day by suitable entertainment.

2. Sport and amusement are particularly necessary for youth. Young people are full of life, and their exuberance must have an outlet. It is true that there are privileged souls, such as St. Aloysius Gonzaga and St. Dominic Savio, whose natural exuberance is completely channelled into the love of God and of their neighbour. But such people are rare. Normally, young people need entertainment and sport. Sport has made tremendous progress today. Far from being evil, this is an excellent development. If these forces of vitality were not diverted into athletic activities, they would probably find an outlet in other more dangerous pursuits. However, as our late Holy Father, Pius XII, often explained in his audiences for sportsmen, it is necessary that bodily exercises should be joined with those which are spiritual. Just as the body must be trained intensively to succeed in athletic competitions, so the will must be trained by means of daily sacrifice and self-denial to achieve victory over our unruly inclinations. This victory is eventually won by the grace of God and brings a far higher happiness than athletic conquests could ever give us.

3. Unfortunately, there are forms of amusement which are not lawful, either because they are sinful in themselves or because they present a grave danger to the soul. Certain uninhibited kinds of dancing, for example, can aim at arousing the basest instincts of the human organism. There are beaches where the healthy pastime of bathing is made only an excuse for indecent and exciting exhibitions. There are parties and receptions, moreover, at which we know well that we shall be subjected to serious temptation. All such places and occasions should normally be avoided. It is the wise advice of spiritual writers that we should always aim at uniting our amusements and recreations to goodness of thought and conversation. Moreover, we should often detach our minds from our worldly entertainments and think of the realities of Heaven.

Eastern Rite - Feasts of 31 March AM 7531

Today is the Feast of Our Venerable Father Hieromartyr Hypatius, Bishop of Gangra.

✠✠✠✠✠

Hieromartyr Hypatius, Bishop of Gangra, was bishop of the city of Gangra in Paphlagonia (Asia Minor). In the year 325, he participated in the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea, at which the heresy of Arius was anathematized.

When Saint Hypatius was returning in 326 from Constantinople to Gangra, followers of the schismatics Novatus and Felicissimus fell upon him in a desolate place. The heretics ran him through with swords and spears and threw him into a swamp. Like the Protomartyr Stephen, Saint Hypatius prayed for his murderers.

An Arian woman struck the saint on the head with a stone, killing him. The murderers hid his body in a cave, where a Christian who kept straw there found his body. Recognizing the bishop’s body, he hastened to the city to report this, and the inhabitants of Gangra piously buried their beloved archpastor.

After his death, the relics of Saint Hypatius were famous for numerous miracles, particularly for casting out demons and for healing the sick.

From of old the hieromartyr Hypatius was particularly venerated in the Russian land. Thus in the year 1330, the Ipatiev monastery was built at Kostroma, on the place where the Mother of God appeared with the Pre-eternal Christ Child, the Apostle Philip, and the hieromartyr Hypatius, Bishop of Gangra. This monastery later occupied a significant place in the spiritual and social life of the nation, particularly during the Time of Troubles.

The ancient copies of the Life of the hieromartyr Hypatius were widely distributed in Russian literature, and one of these was incorporated into THE READING MENAION of Metropolitan Macarius (1542-1564). In this Life there is an account of the appearance of the Savior to Saint Hypatius on the eve of the martyr’s death.

The entry for the saint’s Feast consists of his Life, some prayers, and words of praise and instruction. The pious veneration of Saint Hypatius was also expressed in Russian liturgical compositions. During the nineteenth century, a new service was written for the hieromartyr Hypatius, distinct from the services written by Saint Joseph the Studite, contained in the March MENAION.

Troparion — Tone 4

In truth, you were revealed to your flock as a rule of faith, / an image of humility and a teacher of abstinence; / your humility exalted you; / your poverty enriched you. / Hierarch Father Hypatius, / entreat Christ our God / that our souls may be saved.

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 31 MARCH – FRIDAY IN PASSION WEEK

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 31 MARCH – FRIDAY IN PASSION WEEK: Lesson – Jeremias xvii. 13 –18 In those days Jeremias said: “O Lord, the hope of Israel, all that forsake you will be confounded: they...

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 31 MARCH – THE SORROWS OF OUR LADY AT THE FOOT OF ...

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 31 MARCH – THE SORROWS OF OUR LADY AT THE FOOT OF ...: Dom Prosper Guéranger: This Friday of Passion Week is consecrated, in a special manner, to the sufferings which the Holy Mother of G...

31 March, The Chesterton Calendar

MARCH 31st

As Mr. Blatchford says, 'The world does not want piety, but soap—and Socialism.' Piety is one of the popular virtues, whereas soap and Socialism are two hobbies of the upper middle class.

'What's Wrong with the World.'

31 March, The Holy Rule of St Benedict, Patriarch of Western Monastici

CHAPTER XLIX. Of the Observance of Lent

31 Mar. 31 July. 30 Nov.

Although the life of a monk ought at all times to have about it a Lenten character, yet since few have strength enough for this, we exhort all, at least during the days of Lent, to keep themselves in all purity of life, and to wash away, during that holy season, the negligences of other times. This we shall worthily do, if we refrain from all sin, and give ourselves to prayer with tears, to holy reading, compunction of heart and abstinence. In these days, then, let us add some thing to our wonted service; as private prayers, and abstinence from food and drink, so that every one of his own will may offer to God, with joy of the Holy Spirit, something beyond the measure appointed him: withholding from his body somewhat of his food, drink and sleep, refraining from talking and mirth, and awaiting Holy Easter with the joy of spiritual longing. Let each one, however, make known to his Abbot what he offereth, and let it be done with his blessing and permission: because what is done without leave of the spiritual father shall be imputed to presumption and vain-glory, and merit no reward. Everything, therefore, is to be done with the approval of the Abbot.

1 April, The Roman Martyrology

Kaléndis Aprílis Luna décima Anno Dómini 2023

April 1st 2023, the 10th day of the Moon, were born into the better life:

At Rome, the holy martyr Theodora, sister of the great martyr Hermes.
She suffered by order of the judge Aurelian, under the Emperor Hadrian, and is buried beside her brother upon the Salarian Way, not far from the city.
On the same day, the holy martyr Venantius, Bishop of Toledo.
In Egypt, the holy martyrs Victor and Stephen.
In Armenia, the holy martyrs Quintian and Irenaeus.
At Constantinople, [about the year 830,] the holy Confessor Macarius, who died in exile, under the Emperor Leo, because of his defence of holy images.
At Grenoble, holy Hew, [born 1053, died 1132,] Bishop of that see, who passed the latter part of his life, even for many years, in the wilderness, and passed away, famous for miracles, to be ever with the Lord.
At Amiens, the holy Abbot Valery, at whose grave miracles are oftentimes wrought. [Monk of Luxeuil, and first Abbot of Leuconais, in the year 619.]
V. And elsewhere many other holy martyrs, confessors, and holy virgins.
R. Thanks be to God.

The Anti-Liturgical Obsession Is an Ideology That Canonically Becomes a Tyranny

The Archbishop looks at the War on Tradition and how synodality doesn't seem to apply to Bishops who want to allow the TLM in their Dioceses.

From Rorate Cæli

By Archbishop Héctor Aguer, Archbishop Emeritus of La Plata

I celebrated my first Mass on November 26, 1972. I did it using the rite then in force, the one created by Paul VI, whose author was the Freemason Annibale Bugnini. The Mass was In Spanish, of course, though the secret prayers of the celebrant survived in Latin.

It had never occurred to me to resort to the "Mass of the Ages." The one we prayed at the Seminary every year of my formation, with the novelty that it was -- in the chapel of the philosophate, daily -- and versus populum. It never occurred to me to resort -- contrary to the prohibition that had been peacefully accepted -- to the old form. Not even after Benedict XVI accepted it as an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite by means of his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.In spite of my theological and liturgical studies, which gave me a lucid understanding of the forgotten ritual, no ideological objections or nostalgia were imposed on me; the tradition was shelved, and perhaps out of laziness I did not dare to contradict it by critically judging the novelty that followed Vatican II.

Today, I think that Paul VI could have made some modifications to update the Mass of the Ages, which had been in force for centuries, rather than inventing a new rite of Mass. Objectively, I can measure the audacity of the new rite, an unexpected boast for many of progressivism; many centuries were discarded, thrown away in the whirlwind of changes.

I have appealed to this personal history to emphasize that I am free in my judgment: I continue to celebrate the Mass of Paul VI. This ecclesial position, however, allows me to gauge the damage done by the motu proprio Traditiones Custodes, recently reinforced by a "rescript".

Rome should ask itself why more and more priests and laity -- the latter above all -- are inclined, with veneration, toward the ancient rite. The anti-liturgical obsession is an ideology that canonically becomes a tyranny. Indeed, the prohibition of the Missal of John XXIII is not taken into account by young people, who aspire to a worship that responds to the truth of faith: worship of God, not of man. Rome, for its part, continues to cling to Karl Rahner's die anthropologische Wende (anthropological turn).

In the last decade, moreover, the aliturgical tradition of the Society of Jesus has come into play. The displacement of the liturgy gives rise to the imposition, in word and deed, of a relativistic moralism.

Anti-liturgical innovations have followed one another without interruption since the promulgation of the "new Mass". This new beginning signaled an unnecessary change. The Second Vatican Council's purpose of renewal could have been accomplished with slight modifications of the existing Roman Rite, or rather, with correction of the alterations produced in history. The conciliar purpose was significantly called instauratio, that is, restoration.

Crude dissidence arose from the 1970s onwards, in the face of Rome's stubbornness to hold to the new. Benedict XVI, by means of his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, liberalized the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite; it was a Solomonic solution that could satisfy the aspirations of priests and faithful attached to Tradition, and at the same time give a solid foundation for the objections directed against the Mass promulgated by Paul VI.

This prudent and pastoral sensitivity allowed us to hope for a stable peace, with the return to obedience of numerous communities that lived in conflict with Rome. It is true that the differences with Vatican II went far beyond the liturgical order and extended to the doctrinal and juridical-pastoral field. The liturgical magisterium of the German Pope took up the theology of the liturgy developed by Cardinal Ratzinger, who followed in the footsteps of Romano Guardini and Klaus Gamber.

In light of all this, an unfortunate setback occurred with the motu proprio Traditiones Custodes, which eliminated the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite and imposed sharp conditions for granting the use of the Mass of the Ages. From this perspective, one can newly appreciate the gravity of Paul VI's actions, which initiated a new stage in all areas of ecclesial life, and gave room in the post-conciliar period for errors and mutilations worse than those sustained by the modernism of the early 20th century, condemned by St. Pius X.

The line opened by Francis's motu proprio has recently been ratified and aggravated by a "rescript" that imposes on bishops the obligation to obtain the pontifical placet before authorizing the use of the Mass of the Ages. This implausible imposition undermines the much-vaunted "synodality"; the authority of the bishops has been curtailed in an essential area of their munus as Successors of the Apostles.

It is to be feared that this antiliturgical pertinacity will once again give rise to attitudes contrary to the "unity" that Rome claims to profess. From the same source comes -- it seems to me -- the illusion of an ecclesial reform, which would have been requested by the conclave that elected the current pope. The Society of Jesus has always been a force for the reentrenchment of the Church in society, in competition with Freemasonry. The Vatican today, however, is full of Freemasons, and the pope tries to make use of them. I find wonderfully surprising the Pope's complacency in his decade of government, and the fiction of attributing successes to his collaborators; but a chronic problem of the Society has been that of humility.

Aliturgicism includes the devastation of what comes from Tradition in the liturgy of the Roman Rite. The antiliturgical obsession, which I have already mentioned, goes to the extreme of boycotting synodality. A bishop, in order to authorize a priest to celebrate with the Missal of John XXIII -- that is, the Mass of the Ages -- needs to ask permission from Rome. Such is the tenor of the recent rescriptum: a true pontifical tyranny that disqualifies the successors of the apostles from fulfilling their ministry in such a fundamental matter.

This new orientation allows the devastation of the liturgy [i.e., the Novus Ordo] to go forward with impunity. Again, I will mention that this freedom contradicts what the Council prescribes, in the Constitution on the Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium, namely, that no one, even if a priest, should change, add to, or subtract from the liturgical rites on his own initiative. The freedom of devastation goes hand in hand with the persecution of traditionalists.

A flagrant contradiction: traditionalists are persecuted, but the integration into the Roman Rite of percussive and dancing rhythms and the adoption of pagan, Hindu, or Buddhist rites, according to the principles of the New World Order vying with Freemasonry, is consented to. In visits to various nations, it is deemed acceptable to introduced into the liturgy tribal rites of the ancestral culture of the visited peoples. Thus, the deformation of divine worship borders on idolatry.

This attitude is repeated in many countries, as a perversion of interreligious dialogue. In 2019, the Pope signed in Abu Dhabi the Document on Human Brotherhood for World Peace and Common Coexistence, in which it is said: "Pluralism and diversity of religion, color, sex, race and language are a wise divine will, by which God created human beings. This divine Wisdom is the origin from which derives the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different." God the Creator would then be the author of polytheism!

This affirmation is tantamount to renouncing the essential and original mission of the Church, as expressly stated in the Gospel: "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk 16:15-16). Such a renunciation can only be seen as apostasy.

The same attitude is found in 2020, in the acceptance of the proposal for a day of prayer and fasting of all religions on May 14. The Pontiff referred to the acceptance of the proposal: "I have accepted the proposal of the High Committee for Human Fraternity that next May 14 the believers of all religions unite spiritually in a day of prayer and fasting and works of charity." It is evident in this way that the Church ignores its original mission of announcing the Gospel of salvation and joins the world polytheistic concert, thus participating, as one of the religions in the New World Order advocated by Freemasonry. This would not be possible if the Vatican were not already infiltrated by Freemasonry. From this perspective, the incorporation of pagan rites into the liturgy can be understood. It also explains the persecution of the traditionalists, who by their refusal hinder the full insertion of the Church into this New World Order; thus the Church is heading towards the reign of the Antichrist. The confusion of the believers is the consequence; it is the mysterium iniquitatis deployed by the devil.

The Abu Dhabi document implies the apostasy of the Catholic faith to adhere -- as I have already written -- to the New World Order. There is no compatibility between the latter and the Christian faith; the confusion into which believers are thrown could not be greater. This contrast appears in every intervention of the Pontiff, which proves that this is how he understands the mission of the Church, and this is how his task of government is understood.

A very clear example is found in the letter addressed to him by Argentine politicians on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of his pontificate: "We wish to express our admiration for your work in favor of Humanity [thus, with a capital letter in the original], in particular, of excluded persons and poor peoples, your firm defense of world peace and your permanent promotion of an integral Ecology [the capital letter in the original], which allows us to hear the cry of Mother Earth and of the Human Being [polytheistic and Masonic language] in the face of destructive situations that threaten peoples and nature."

In this context, the anti-liturgical passion against the "Mass of the Ages," in which the true faith in and coherence with the will of Jesus Christ and the traditional mission of the Church shines with clarity, is explained.

A new understanding of synodality is now insinuated: if a bishop wants to authorize a priest to celebrate the ancient Mass, he must ask Rome's permission. We are dealing here with an obsession that no longer has bounds.

+ Hector Aguer

Archbishop Emeritus of La Plata

Buenos Aires

March 30, 2023

Lefebvre and What Comes Next

'[T]here was (and there still is) a state of war between the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Church.' It is a war between the Catholic Church and a different religion!

From One Peter Five

By Joseph Bevan

If one steps back in time, a cursory glance at the life of Archbishop Lefebvre will prove informative because it shows that we have been here before. The Archbishop’s treatment by the Vatican in the 1970s and 1980s demonstrates conclusively that there was (and there still is) a state of war between the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Church.

It seems that Rome and SSPX both see the New Mass as representing a new religion (as strongly implied by Cardinal Roche very recently). This new religion, in the eyes of Rome, is desirable to such an extent that they want to suppress the old religion. As Pope Francis has said, the New Mass is the ‘Lex Orandi’ of the new religion. He freely admits to this and SSPX agree with this analysis. The difference being that the SSPX promotes the old religion. It is really two sides of the same coin, isn’t it?

Reading many of the statements of Pope Francis one gets the doctrines of the new religion: that the Catholic Church exists merely as a force for good in this world. Indeed, in much of his prolific output, the supernatural – by which I mean death, judgement, Heaven and Hell – barely get a mention.

I hasten to add that if the Church returned to its divine mandate to save souls then the world would become a much better place. But the abandonment of the Old Mass, which I will now refer to as the True Mass, has resulted in the drying up of supernatural grace, leaving a pitiful scrapyard of destroyed institutions, record absenteeism from church and clerical vice. Knowledge of the Faith is at an all-time low to such a degree that even bishops and priests commit basic errors. The enfeeblement of the Catholic Church has also led to the corruption of the world at large, evidenced by record abortions, wholesale immorality and pointless conflicts. Now that God’s law is ignored, the human race is governed by emotion alone and this leads to the denial of independent truth. Every man is now his own god.

I read TLM apologists defending the Mass for all sorts of reasons. Yes, one would be mad not to be affected by its beauty and dignity. Very seldom do these people criticise the Novus Ordo unless they complain about the abuses. The abuses in the New Mass are regrettable but the implication is often present that if the Novus Ordo is said ‘reverently’ then it will be fine to attend it. Of course, one cannot criticise the New Mass without upsetting the bishops whose goodwill is essential for the survival of the True Mass in their dioceses. The main problem with the New Mass is that it was designed by a liturgist who publicly stated that everything had been removed from the ceremony which was offensive to Protestants. Because there is such a focus on the validity of the New Mass, there seems to be a blindness to see that the results have poisoned the Church.

The True Mass contains all the doctrines of the Catholic Church in which Christ sacrifices himself to His heavenly Father at the hands of the priest, who is anonymous. This is the crux of the matter and the diminution of these doctrines in the new rite make it almost indistinguishable from the Protestant communion service. It is the chief prayer of the Church and it is no wonder that the current authorities wish to destroy it, as did the Protestant reformers. It is also noteworthy that every Atheistic government has tried to banish it. The True Mass is a sign of contradiction as Our Lord promised and above all it rains on the parade of the Liberals who are desperate to pursue their own worldly agenda. For them it has to be banned and no effort will be spared to achieve this. The Modernists in the Church are no doubt organising one more final push and I expect that they will completely ban priests from celebrating the True Mass. It is not unreasonable to assume that the current restriction on the use of parish churches provides loopholes which they will plug in the fullness of time.

So Catholics who love the True Mass are now faced with the same dilemma as the Archbishop faced in 1976, except that for Lefebvre it was no dilemma and he saw his Catholic duty as a bishop quite plainly. I can see that there is much anxiety around the statements of Cardinal Roche but perhaps contemplating disobedience is a big to ask from priests and faithful for whom the idea of breaking with the Rome goes completely against the grain. For so long many, but not all, have criticised SSPX for their ‘schism’ or ‘disobedience’ but now they themselves will have to make the fateful choice. I remember when my wife and I went to our first ‘disobedient’ Mass with SSPX in Bath. The hostility from our family, friends and other Catholics in our former parish was overwhelming. Nowadays abandoning your parish church for an illicit True Mass isn’t so shocking in many places because the Catholic community spirit has been severely depleted thanks to the huge amount of lapsations.

The biggest dilemma faces Priests who, up to now, have said both the Novus Ordo and the True Mass habitually. In the past, the altar might have to be hastily re-covered following a True Mass when the priest would re-enter the sanctuary a few minutes later to celebrate a completely different feast in the new rite. It is hard to understand how the same priest can say both rites if, as the Vatican now asserts, they represent contrary religions. They need our prayers now more than ever.

The prospect of wholesale disobedience, as proposed by a few publications, is unlikely to materialise although I think that a few diocesan priests may wish to soldier on with the True Mass. The point is that they must take action! They must gather their faithful to them and explain what they propose to do and ask their friends to support them through the problems with accessing money, accommodation and chapel facilities. If they do this I know that God will reward them, as he has rewarded countless priests who have done the same thing in the past. It is worth having a look at the short film about Father Oswald Baker, the parish priest of Downham Market. This man was devoted to his priestly duties and his congregation supported him to the full.

I cannot claim to speak for the Society of St Pius X but there could be obstacles for any priests joining the Society: many would possibly be deterred from doing so partly because they would see the lifestyle of SSPX priests as unattractive (there is a lot of driving around as they operate a kind of spiritual ambulance service). But in the United States many priests have found a way of leaving their parishes to work with the Society, gaining moral and spiritual support from the SSPX but without actually becoming members. Perhaps this is the way forward?

Compline

From St Thomas Aquinas Seminary. You may follow the Office at Divinum Officium. 

Solemn I Vespers - Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary

From St Thomas Aquinas Seminary. You may follow the Office at Divinum Officium. 

"Jesus Christ; King of the Republics?" - Chapter 7: They Have Uncrowned Him

Spiritual Conference: The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Part 7

From the SSPX District of Asia,  by Fr. Lawrence Novak, SSPX.

Breaking News: Francis Hospitalized, Vatican Calls It 'Routine'

The Raccolta - Approval of the Sacred Congregation

MOST BLESSED FATHER.

In order to promote thereby the piety of the faithful in England, Ambrose St. John, Priest of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri, in the Diocese of Birmingham, humbly prays for permission to print in English a translation of the book entitled Raccolta di Orazioni &c. alle quali sono annesse le SS. Indulgenze, having first obtained the approbation of his Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster; and also that the faithful who make use of this translation may gain all the Indulgences annexed to the original.

After an audience of the Holy Father, granted February 3, 1856, our most Holy Lord Pius IX., by Divine Providence Pope, on an application made by me, the undersigned Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, has of his goodness answered by Rescript in favour of the grace, according to the terms of the petition, provided the translation be made from the last Roman edition, and it being understood that the Decree printed at the end of this edition remains in full force.

Given at Rome from the House of the same Sacred Congregation, on the day and year aforesaid.

Gratis, without any payment on any plea whatever.

AL. BARNABÒ, Secretary.

[LS]


We approve of this Translation by virtue of the above Rescript of His Holiness.

N. CARDINAL ARCHBISHOP. 

Westminster, Oct. 23, 1857.

Why Do Catholics Cover Crucifixes and Statues During Lent?

We are an Incarnational Church. God took on human form, assuming a material body. As result, to Catholics, matter matters.

From Aleteia 

By Philip Kosloski

Veils over sacred images keep our minds on the promise of Easter.

It seems strange that during the most sacred time of year Catholics cover everything that is beautiful in their churches, even the crucifix. Shouldn’t we be looking at the painful scene at Calvary while we listen to the Passion narrative on Palm Sunday?

Veiling of statues and images

While it may appear counterintuitive to veil statues and images during the final weeks of Lent, the Catholic Church recommends this practice to heighten our senses and build within us a longing for Easter Sunday. It is a tradition that should not only be carried out in our local parish, but can also be a fruitful activity for the “domestic church” to practice.

The rubrics can guide us. In the Roman Missal we find the instruction, “In the Dioceses of the United States, the practice of covering crosses and images throughout the church from [the fifth] Sunday [of Lent] may be observed. Crosses remain covered until the end of the Celebration of the Lord’s Passion on Good Friday, but images remain covered until the beginning of the Easter Vigil.”

This is the current practice of the Church, but veiling from the Fifth Sunday of Lent onward is minuscule compared to what was once practiced. For example, in Germany there was a tradition to veil the altar from view throughout all of Lent.

Families are also encouraged to imitate this practice and veil prominent religious images in their homes. It helps us to participate in the liturgical season, especially if we are prevented from going to Mass during the week. Otherwise we only see the veiled images in church once or twice before Easter and it has a minor effect on us. It is also a beautiful tradition to pass down to our children, who will be intrigued by it and it will make this time of year truly special for them. We go through great lengths to decorate our homes for Easter, so why not prepare for the great feast by using veils?

Why cover up something beautiful?

But why go through such lengths to cover up images that are designed to raise our hearts and minds toward heaven?

First of all, we use veils to alert us of the special time that we are in. When we walk into church and notice everything is covered, we immediately know that something is different. These last two weeks of Lent are meant to be a time of immediate preparation for the Sacred Triduum and these veils are a forceful reminder to get ready.

Secondly, the veils focus our attention on the words being said at Mass. When we listen to the Passion narrative, our senses are allowed to focus on the striking words from the Gospel and truly enter into the scene.

Thirdly, the Church uses veils to produce a heightened sense of anticipation for Easter Sunday. This is further actualized when you attend daily Mass and see the veils each day. You don’t want them to be there because they are hiding some very beautiful images.

And therein lies the whole point: the veils are not meant to be there forever. The images need to be unveiled; it is unnatural for them to be covered.

The unveiling before the Easter Vigil is a great reminder of our own life on earth. We live in a “veiled” world, in exile from our true home. It is only through our own death that the veil is lifted and we are finally able to see the beauty of everything in our lives.

Whither Benepapism?

At least one group of Benepapists, under the leadership of Br Alexis Bugnolo, held a conclave and elected a 'new Pope'. They 'elected' Francis!

From One Peter Five

By Steven O'Reilly

Months after the death of Benedict XVI, those who claim he remained pope till the end, so-called Benepapists, persist in their claims. The two main camps within Benepapism include those who believe Benedict made a “substantial error” in his resignation, in that they claim he erroneously believed he could bifurcate the papacy, or retain the papal munus in some way. This rendered Benedict’s resignation invalid through a “substantial error” per canon 188, they claim. The other camp believes Benedict created a self-impeded see by intentionally resigning the administration of the papacy, while retaining the papacy itself. This Benedict did, they say, to save the papacy from the Modernists.

Thus, one is left with making an odd choice. Either Benedict was a strategic genius or a theological fool. An example of this seeming conundrum arises from Benedict’s greeting to some pilgrims just a couple hours before his resignation went into effect on February 28, 2013. He said, as of 8pm that evening, “I am no longer the supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church.” Ordinarily, common sense should dictate this is a clear statement of Benedict’s intent and understanding he would no longer be pope in any sense.

However, undeterred by such strictures, the competing camps of Benepapists try to explain away this clear statement, so damning to their central claim. One camp says Benedict contradicted himself from his last audience the day before – at least as they interpret it. The other camp explains away Benedict’s clear meaning by saying he really was speaking in a cryptic code, which by their gnostic interpretation, ultimately, means he was saying he was remaining pope! Common sense should have put a brake on such nonsense long ago. They are guilty of what we object to in the “mainstream” media: agenda-driven misinterpretation of the facts, ignoring contrary evidence and responses, and gaslighting.

Unfortunately, to date, Benepapists have offered nine books advocating their dogmatic views, held with moral certitude, leading others into potential error and schism. My book, Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, takes a close look at the Case against the Benepapists. Let’s review the state of the evidence.

In his Declaratio, Benedict declared that he “renounced the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter… in such a way… that the See of Rome, the See of Peter” would be vacant, and an election for a new supreme pontiff would be necessary. Seems open and shut declaration that he renounced the papacy.

The resignation meets the two requirements of Canon 332.2. First, the resignation was freely made. Benedict said so in the Declaratio, and later in his Seewald interviews. There is no demonstration to the contrary. Second, his resignation was duly manifested having been read before a consistory of cardinals, videotaped, and entered into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Yet, Benepapists object that while the canon in Latin speaks of renouncing the munus, Benedict used the Latin word ministerio (ministerium) instead. Therefore, for them, the resignation was invalid. The reply to this is that there is no required canonical formula for a papal resignation. Other words may be used as shown by the case of Pope Celestine V who used the Latin word for papacy.

Even so, writers such as Ryan Grant and Fr. John Rickert, FSSP, PHD have demonstrated that multiple, authoritative Latin reference works explicitly state munus and ministerium are synonyms, and or have overlapping definitions.

Fr. Rickert elsewhere points out that the Latin title of the Declaratio in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis uses the word munus: “Declaratio Summi Pontificis: De Muneris Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri Abdicatione.”  This title may be translated “Declaration of the Supreme Pontiff on the abdication of the office (munus) of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter.”  Thus, the use of munus in the title demonstrates that the text below it, which uses ministerio, is to be understood as synonymous.

In my book, I cite Fr. Rickert’s discovery (per personal correspondence) of the following paragraph in Lumen Gentium where the Council Fathers speaking of succession from the Apostles, say:

They therefore appointed such men, and gave them the order that, when they should have died, other approved men would take up their ministry (ministerium). Among those various ministries (ministeria) which, according to tradition, were exercised in the Church from the earliest times, the chief place belongs to the office (munus) of those who, appointed to the episcopate(Lumen Gentium, 20).

Above, the Council Fathers taught explicitly the episcopal munus is “among those various ministries (ministeria)” passed on by the apostles. The munus being “among those various ministries,” then it necessarily follows a ‘munus is a ministry (ministerium).’ This argument based on Lumen Gentium was further developed in consideration of LG 18-22 in an article on my blog. Given this entailment, if one resigns the Petrine ministerium, one necessarily resigns the Petrine munus.

The ‘Always’ is also a ‘Forever’

The Benepapists have notoriously misread Benedict XVI’s Last Audience of February 27, 2013, specifically the paragraph which begins with the line:

The ‘Always’ is also a ‘Forever’” – there can be no return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.

For the Benepapists, this paragraph is “the smoking gun,” and the “interpretive lens” to understand Benedict’s resignation. In these words, the Benepapists claims the “always” and “forever” either refers to Benedict’s erroneous belief that a papal election confers an indelible mark upon him, and or that he intended to retain the papal munus in some way, ‘always and forever.’

The reality is, by this interpretation the leading Benepapists have deceived themselves and others by failing to consider the paragraph preceding the one they exclusively cite. In that forgotten paragraph, Benedict explicitly defined what he meant by the “Always:”

Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church.

Benedict is referring to a “loss of privacy” upon becoming pope in that he “belongs” to the whole Church. Reading the whole audience, one sees he speaks of the Church, not as an abstraction, but as a living communion of “brothers and sisters,” “sons and daughters,” etc. And indeed, Benedict immediately goes on in this forgotten paragraph to explain this loss of privacy and belonging as having to do with gaining “brothers and sisters,” and “sons and daughters” upon his election. In this forgotten paragraph, Benedict says of a pope: “he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.” Indeed, Benedict as Cardinal Ratzinger had used a similar theme of a pope no longer having privacy and not belonging to himself following the death of Pope Paul VI.

Thus, “The ‘Always is also a Forever’” is not a reference at all to a supposed “indelible mark” of a papal munus. No. Benedict is speaking of a bond of charity formed upon becoming pope. He became a “father,” and had a father’s love toward the Church, and indeed, the Church as people, his “sons and daughters” loving him back.

Consequently, when Benedict says “The ‘Always’ is also a ‘Forever’ – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere” he is simply saying this bond of charity will persist forever, even after his resignation. This he affirmed in the next line in saying his resignation “does not revoke this.” Grammatically and logically the “this” refers back to the “privacy” theme, i.e., his resignation from the papacy does not revoke this bond of charity. Benedict would always have a “heart of a father” towards his “sons and daughters,” the Church. That is why he goes on to say that even though he “no longer bears the power of office for the  governance of the Church”, i.e., he is no longer pope, he will devote himself in the service of prayer for the Church (i.e., his “sons and daughters”). This theme can be found earlier in the Last Audience where he spoke of praying for the Church “with a heart of a father.” These same themes can also be found in his interviews with Peter Seewald.

One last note on the Last Audience. Benepapists claim Benedict’s reference above to an “active” ministry indicates Benedict either intended to bifurcate the papacy into an “active” and “passive/contemplative” component, keeping the “passive” part for himself; or that he intended to only give up the doing of the papacy, while retaining the being of the papacy.

In reply, first, there is no such distinction or qualification of an “active ministry” in Benedict’s instrument of resignation, the Declaratio. Benedict clearly declared he “renounced the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter.” No qualification of an “active ministry” here. Second, in the paragraph from the last audience cited by the Benepapists, Benedict explains his use of “active” in a way contrary to their interpretation. Benedict XVI points to how Saint Benedict will be an example for him after his resignation, saying St. Benedict “showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.” Note clearly, Benedict XVI was speaking of a ‘way a life, which is active or passive’; not a papacy which is active or passive. Benedict XVI had given up the “active” portion of his life in his renunciation of the papacy, and was now committed to a passive life devoted to prayer. That is all he meant. I discuss this in my book, and in an article on my blog.

So, as we see above, the Benepapists do here what Protestants do in interpreting the Bible. They have taken a phrase completely out of context, e.g.., “The ‘Always’ is also a ‘Forever’”, and then misinterpreted it to suit their own agenda.

Final Thoughts

Now, this article considered the main objections to the validity of Benedict’s resignation. My book, a variety of articles, and a video series address these Benepapist claims, as well as others, such as Archbishop Gänswein’s speech, Benedict wearing white, Apostolic Blessings, Andrea Cionci’s Ratzinger Code, etc.

As one looks at the supposed ‘evidence’ brought forward by the leading Benepapists, one thing stands out upon close examination. Benepapist misuse of source material in this controversy is not isolated to the Last Audience. They have ignored, or discounted sources that contradict them, and have grossly misread or misrepresented them. Through a combination of wishful thinking, poor interpretations, bad logic and nonsensical theories, they have backed themselves, and those who put their faith in their analytical powers, onto the edge of an abyss.

Some Benepapists support a 2021 declaration which states they will not recognize any future conclave in which cardinal-electors created by Pope Francis take part. Others suggest they would accept such cardinal-electors. What is not so clear is what these bitter-ender Benepapists will do in the former case if their conclave conditions are not met, or in the latter case, if the newly elected pope confirms the validity of Benedict’s resignation. Would they then doubt the validity of the election of this new pope on such grounds?

It is well past time for leading Benepapists to come to grips with the reality that their claims do not withstand close scrutiny, and step back from the brink of schism, which is a mortal sin and a canonical offense incurring automatic excommunication (cf Can. 1364 §1, Can. 1336 §2-4). They have brought themselves, and their followers who have misplaced their trust in them to this brink. It is time for common sense, and the Catholic Faith to prevail.