The Pilgrimage to Chartres is fire in the darkness that
covers modern Europe
The following essay is adapted and abridged from an article by Michal
Matt, the editor of the Remnant. The Remnant is simply the best
English language Catholic paper in the world today. To visit the
Remnant website click here.
France, the eldest daughter of the Church, has recently legalized, God
help us, sodomitical “marriage”. The abomination of
desolation is upon us. Humanly speaking there is no hope. God,
prayer, penance, family, pilgrimage - these are the only realities that
The Pilgrimage to Chartres starts the day before Pentecost when thousands
of traditional Catholics from the five continents join their French brothers
and sisters at sunrise beneath the spires of the cathedral of Notre Dame
de Paris. It ends three days later beneath the spires of the cathedral
of Notre Dame de Chartres, as around fifteen thousand dust-covered, weary
traditionalists complete the gruelling march of some seventy-two miles. This
year we were honoured to have a chapter of convent Muslins walking with
us as well as an unusually large German contingent.
Europe is in the process of banishing the one true Faith. She’s
slaughtering her babies on an industrial scale, euthanizing her old folk,
and is hell bent on destroying the Christian family, while legalizing
every depravity known to man. And in the midst of all this moral
sewage that so effectively insulates modern men from the four last things,
along comes a jubilant band of traditional Catholics, fifteen thousand
strong, six abreast, stretching for miles, announcing to the whole world
that the faith of our forefathers, saints and martyrs is not merely alive,
but in robust good health. It is for God that we march - and for
His Blessed Mother.
So why do Catholics from the four corners of the globe make the journey
to France every year? Because their hearts are heavy, their families
are divided, their countries are dying, and the Faith is under relentless
attack. But on the road to Chartres, for three whole days they
can escape from the secular asylum in a living, breathing act of Faith
and unashamed Catholic militancy, and find balm for their souls and recharge
their spiritual batteries.
Even secular France can’t ignore this strange and wonderful pilgrim
parade, flanked as it is by countless priests in muddied cassocks and
purple stoles - the all but forgotten keepers of Europe’s broken
altars. One of the enduring and delightful memories this year was
stumbling upon Fr Nicolas du Chaxel FSSP conducting a makeshift choir
he’d cobbled together from the patrons sitting outside a cafe in
the suburbs of Paris that we just happened to be passing. He was
conducting three or four tables belting out some long forgotten Latin
hymn, while seemingly oblivious to half a dozen customers scowling hatefully
at him from the sidelines - no doubt viewing these collaborators as counter-Revolutionaries
who deserve to be sent to the guillotine - it could only happen in France. I
recalled that some years ago Father had told me that his vocation was
to “sacramentalise” the whole of life.
We join in with our rugged French comrades as they sing the Hail Mary, “Je
vous salue, Marie”, in stirring harmony. Our boots are caked
with mud; white bandages identified the walking wounded, flags and banners,
emblazoned with images of the Sacred Heart and Our Lady, snap in the
breeze. This is a raw manifestation of faith and tradition that
is Catholic to the marrow. Throngs of scouts lovingly bear statues
of Our Lady on their shoulders; banners of the saints raised high flutter
in the breeze; pilgrims sing forgotten hymns, renew broken vows, and
worship at old-world Latin Masses.
This is what the Revolution has laboured for five-hundred years to obliterate
from the face of the earth. It’s not just the Mass - it’s
the Faith, whole and entire, which includes the music, traditions, hallowed
customs and moral precepts of the most transcendent cultural heritage
the world has ever known. I fight back tears of joy when I realise
that the average age of the pilgrims can’t be much more than twenty. This
is a children’s crusade! The future belongs to them. The
Revolution has failed.
The Chartres pilgrimage is one of the most sublime manifestations of
Catholic Faith one will ever see. This year it was unusually wet
and cold but I have never been more proud to be Catholic than when kneeling
shivering in wet grass alongside fifteen thousands devout youngster on
the Plain de Beauce. Vatican II! - what Vatican II?
The Pilgrimage to Chartres is fire in the darkness that covers modern
Pro-abortion scientists, politicians and media
pundits promised us a glittering crop of miracle cures from embryonic
stem cell research, if only those pesky, backwards Catholics would
just step aside and stop hindering scientific progress with their "Medieval" morality.
An article by
HLI's director of research and education Dr. Brian Clowes (abridged
by Graham Moorhouse)
The government and private
corporations have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into ESCR, which
has yielded zero cures, while adult stem cell research (supported by
the Church) has produced successful treatments for a host of diseases.
Stem cells are
immature cells that are undifferentiated (i.e., they have not yet "decided" what
kind of cell to be). A stem cell divides into two
cells: (1) a duplicate of itself and (2) a cell that develops into
a more specialized cell type (i.e., an eye, liver, skin or blood cell). Since
stem cells replace themselves every time they divide, they are capable
of long-term self-renewal.[i]
Because they are
immature, stem cells can be used to treat injuries or diseases. Scientists
can make stem cells reach their full healing potential by developing
procedures that mature them into the correct type of stable tissue
that functions normally, then by making them safe for transplantation,
and finally by developing surgical procedures that maximize their ability
to treat or cure diseases or injuries.
The instruction Dignitas personae provides guidance on which
types of stem cells may be used for research and treatment: "Methods
which do not cause serious harm to the subject from whom the stem cells
are taken are licit. This is generally the case when tissues are taken
from: a) an adult organism; b) the blood of the umbilical cord at the
time of birth; c) fetuses who have died of natural causes" . It should
be noted that the tissues of unborn children who have died due to miscarriage
are generally unsuitable for research, since they deteriorate rapidly
Human Embryonic Stem Cells (HESCs)
are harvested from human embryos that are typically between three and
six days old. At this point, the blastocyst consists of
about 140 cells. Most of these will form the placenta, and a small
interior cluster of cells are "pluripotent" stem
cells -- able to produce all of the many different types of cell in
the human body. This feature of HESCs makes them very attractive to scientists.
Harvesting HESCs involves removing the inner cell cluster from the
blastocyst and culturing it with various growth factors to produce
specific types of cells. This procedure always results in the destruction
of the early human being. This means that this procedure is morally
equivalent to an abortion and can never be allowed [Dignitas personae,
are also extremely serious medical problems with HESCs. Their growth
is very difficult to control, and they usually produce fatal tumours
or convert themselves into cancer cells.[ii] Theoretically,
this might not be the case if the embryonic cells were matured into
adult cells, but this has proven to be almost impossible to achieve.
Even matured HESCs continue to produce tumours.[iii] Further,
cells transplanted from an embryo are always attacked by the recipient's
immune system, and so the patient must be treated with immunosuppressive
drugs that have a variety of side effects. Since these difficult problems
have not been overcome, all that embryonic stem cell research currently
offers is promises of future cures.
Some have suggested that scientists clone a human embryo from a patient's
own cells, thereby overcoming the rejection problem, but this procedure
is still illicit since it would involve the destruction of the embryo.
Although intensive research has been done on human embryonic stem cells
since 1998, not a single workable cure has been found.
adult stem cell is defined as any stem cell in a human being older
than a seven-day embryo. These cells are found throughout the body
and in the umbilical cord. Their purpose is to replace damaged or worn-out
cells throughout a person's life. They are more limited in their capabilities
than HESCs, because they can only differentiate into a limited number
of cell types -- for example, a blood stem cell can become a lymphocyte,
monocyte or some other type of blood cell, but it cannot become a non-blood
cell such as a bone cell or an eye cell. These cells are "multipotent."
adult stem cells show a lot more than mere "promise." They
have cured numerous people with serious diseases, and have been doing
so for decades. Adult stem cells can currently cure more than seventy medical
conditions, and there are more than 4,400 ongoing or recently completed government-funded clinical
trials using adult stem cells in the USA.[iv]
greatest moral advantage that adult stem cells have over embryonic
stem cells is that no life is taken in acquiring them. There are also
several other great advantages to using adult stem cells in therapeutic
applications, which is what the entire field is supposed to be interested
in: They are grown from the patient's own body, so there is no problem
with immune reactions; they are much easier to harvest, since they
exist all over the body, even in fat cells; and finally, they are much
easier to control, and do not form cancerous tumours, as do HESCs.
The third type of stem cell is the induced pluripotent stem cell,
or iPSC. These are adult body ("somatic") cells that are reprogrammed into a state
that is very similar to a human embryonic stem cell. They are not identical to
HESCs, but have the same function, which means that they can produce any type
of adult cell. One of the great advantages of these cells is that they are
taken from the patient's own body, thereby making rejection impossible because
they are "immune-matched" to the patient.
advantage of iPSCs is that they do not require the destruction of a
human embryo. However, iPSCs may potentially grow tumours like HESCs,
have low replication rates and suffer from premature aging. Importantly,
some pro-life ethicists and leaders have raised serious questions about
the nature of iPSCs, asking whether they are actually reprogrammed
into becoming tiny embryos. We would do well to continue to be vigilant
as this area of research continues to grow.
By now, we
have all heard critics of the Catholic Church alleging that the Church
is "anti-science" and is "holding up human progress." Not
surprisingly, the exact opposite is the truth, and the debate over
embryonic stem cell research is probably the best example of this principle.
In the late 1990s, pro-abortion scientists and politicians promised
a glittering crop of miracle cures from ESCR, if only those pesky,
backwards pro-lifers would just step aside and stop hindering scientific
progress with their "Medieval" morality.
The government and private corporations have poured hundreds of millions
of dollars of our money into embryonic stem cell research, which
has yielded zero cures, while adult stem cell research, supported by
the Church, has produced successful treatments for a host of diseases.
In other words, the morally acceptable, Church supported, stem cell
research option has actually been successful, yet scientists continue
the unethical destruction of human embryos with their focus on ESCR.
[i]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Dignitas personae ["On
Certain Bioethical Questions"], June 20, 2008, ¶31.
[ii] Rick Weiss. "Embryonic Stem Cells Found to Acquire Mutations."Washington Post,
September 5, 2005.
[iii] Maureen L. Condic. "The Basics about Stem Cells." First
Things, January 2002, pages 30 to 34; Maureen L. Condic. "A
Comprehensive Primer on Stem Cells." The National Catholic
Bioethics Center, August 2009.
[iv] A May 8, 2013 search of the National Institute for Health's "Clinical
Trials" database at www.clinicaltrials.gov shows
4,410 currently funded clinical trials using adult stem cells.
Christ's Extended Family
With Acknowledgment to Christopher Wong
The following snapshot of our
Lord's extended family makes very satisfying sense of a number of scriptural
verses, plus various texts from the early Church.
First up: St Joseph, our Lord's stepfather, had a brother named Cleophas. It
is reasonable to assume the Cleophas was a pious, steadfast rock of a
man, like his brother St Joseph. Cleophas' first wife (whose name
is not mentioned in the Gospels) had borne him two sons: Simon and Jude. Cleophas
remarried a widow named Mary. This Mary, who through this marriage
becomes our Lady's sister-in-law, had previously been married to one
Alpheus and had borne him two sons: James and Joseph. In customs
of the country and the age, there was nothing extraordinary in the marriage
of a widow and a widower, each with children.
We do not hear of Cleophas or Joseph (Jesus' adopted father)
in the Gospels during Jesus' adult life. We can speculate that after
their deaths, the two families—deprived of their protectors and
together under one roof. This would further strengthen their ties:
the two Marys as "sisters" and Jesus and His cousins as "brothers".
Gospel and tradition are thus in harmony and without questioning Mary's
This scenario throws light
on numerous biblical verses, for example, the reference to Jesus' brethren:
James, Joseph, Simon and Jude (Mt 13:55). We
also know that His mother Mary had a "sister" called
Mary, "And there were standing by the cross of Jesus His mother
and His mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen." This
other Mary had a husband named Cleophas (Jn 19:25). We
can safely assume that Mary wife of Cleophas is not a true sister of
the Virgin Mary, given that they both have the same name.
Mary wife of Cleophas is also described as the mother
of James and Joseph (Mt 27:56 and Mk 15:40). On the other hand, James
is described as the son of Alphaeus (Mt 10:3, Mk 3:18, Lk 6:15).
An historian named Hegesippus,
a native of Palestine, sheds further light. Hegesippus finished
his Memoirs when he was an old man during the reign of Pope Eleutherius
He had been
able to question surviving members of Jesus' family. Hegesippus
also tell us that: "After
the martyrdom of James, it was unanimously decided that Simeon, son
of Cleophas, was worthy to occupy the see of Jerusalem. He was, it
is said, a cousin of the Saviour." Hegesippus
also confirms that Cleophas was a brother of Joseph (Eusebius, Hist.
eccl., III, 11).
St Epiphanius (Haer., LXXVII, 7) says the same
and adds (ibid., 14) "that
this Simeon, the son of Cleophas, was a cousin of James the Just," as
Hegesippus says in another passage. (Prat, Jesus Christ, p. 505).
Ferdinand Prat reasons: "We
know, then that the mother of two of the brothers of the Lord was Mary
of Cleophas, the sister of the Blessed Virgin. We also know that Cleophas,
St Joseph's brother, was the father of a third, called Simon or Simeon.
Since the remaining one, Jude, is always connected with Simon and is,
like him, part of the family of David, it is reasonable to suppose
that he was also a son of Cleophas."
This hypothesis also explains
why James, Joseph, Simon and Jude are always named in that order, as
brethren of the Lord; why James and Joseph are a pair distinct from Simon
and Jude; why Mary, sister of the Blessed Virgin, is called the mother
of James and Joseph and never the mother of Simon and Jude; why, according
to Hegesippus, Simon and not James is the son of Cleophas; why, again
according to Hegesippus, Simon and Jude are of the family of David; why,
according to tradition, James was of sacerdotal ancestry; why the common
opinion of Catholics identifies James, son of Mary, sister of the Blessed
Virgin, with James the Apostle, the son of Alpheus; why Mary of Cleophas
is called in the Gospel sister of the Blessed Virgin, when she was really
her sister-in-law, being the wife of St. Joseph's brother; finally, why,
after the deaths of Joseph and Cleophas, the two sisters brought their
families together, so that thereafter the two families seemed to be but
one. (Prat, Jesus Christ, p. 136-137).
When all is said and done, the Devil is
no more than a bit of a nuisance.
An elderly French nun (when
I say "elderly" I'm talking 110!
- and still with all her faculties) was recently interviewed. In
the course of which she was asked about the Devil. "Oh" she
responded in that dismissive way of which the French are masters, "the
Devil is no more than a bit of a nuisance." Which is true;
for the Devil is powerless against Christ, Our Lady, the saints and indeed
the prayers of devout Catholics.
Very few of course of out post-Conciliar
shepherds are troubled with the Devil, but them why should they be? Many
if not most of them are modernists and are thus destroying souls far
more effectively then the Devil could ever hope to achieve.
However, a good holy orthodox
priest of my acquaintance related the following story to me. It was the morning of his ordination, which
was to be conferred by JP2 in St Peters. He rose and went to the
wash basin in his room. To his alarm, the second he tipped his head
forward to splash water into his face there was an immediate heavy discharge
from his nostrils. The discharge was a foul green colour and gave
of a most dreadful odour. The second he lifted his head up it stopped
as suddenly as if turning off a light switch. My priest friend was
most distressed at this and spent the morning with his head tipped back,
staring down his nose, which gave him a comic haughty appearance.
Come the ordination, he was required to kiss the altar. Whilst
all the other candidates bowed deeply from the waist and kissed the upper
surface of the altar, my friend all but sunk to his knees so that he
could kiss the edge without tipping his head forward.
At the point in the rite when
candidates are required to prostrate themselves, while all the other
young men had their foreheads on their hands, my friend lay with his
chin on his hands with his head tilted back.
Amazingly, the moment JP2 laid his hands on him and spoke
the words of ordination the discharge stopped as abruptly as it had started.
suspect that the Devil was trying to embarrass him so much that he would
back out of his ordination, once it was clear that this plan had failed,
he just gave up and went away. As my elderly French sister said,
when all is said and done, "The
Devil's no more than a bit of a nuisance."
main winners, as usual, are
The precautionary principle
was dreamed up by eco-warriors as a way to thwart wicked corporations.
It was always, if you think about it, a slightly silly concept, since
it puts people in the impossible position of having to prove a negative.
Now though – see following clip – those scheming capitalists
have turned the notion back on its authors. The main winners, as usual, are
I invite readers
to pray for the conversion of Daniel Hannan; he is a man who manifestly
has a Catholic soul, but as yet does not have the faith.
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
I was recently at a meeting
of the Inn Catholics in London to which Viscount Monckton had
been invited to speak. If this Catholic gentleman has not yet crossed
you radar, its time he did. He is one of the most interesting,
informed and entertaining speakers I have ever had the pleasure
to listen to.
He also send shivers down the
spines of the climate change bed wetters.
More than 3 million people have viewed his 2009 speech in the US giving
details of the world “government” proposed
by the UN in the draft Treaty of Copenhagen. The speech went platinum
on YouTube in a week – the fastest-ever platinum for a political
speech. In West Virginia on Labor Day, 2000, more than 100,000 attended
a miners’ rally which he addressed live on a mountain-top – the
only venue large enough. Tea Party rallies at which he spoke in Washington
DC and in North Houston attracted 40,000 and 15,000 respectively. His
article on climate science in the Sunday Telegraph on 5 November 2006
attracted 127,000 hits in two hours, crashing the paper’s website.
His speeches at the St. Andrews and Oxford Unions were followed
by student votes defeating climate alarmism for the first time in Scotland
and England respectively. Wordpress ranked his summary of the draft
Durban climate agreement in December 2011 as having received more hits
than any other among its 500,000 blog postings on all subjects worldwide
that day. A video of his talk to the Mannkal Foundation in Australia
in July 2011 became the most-watched video in Australia in February 2012.
In August 2012 his address to the World Federation of Scientists
on climate economics drew praise from President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech
Republic and led the Federation’s president, Professor Antonino Zichichi,
to establish a permanent monitoring panel on the subject.
1, view a video
of his interview on Canadian TV by clicking below:
Visit Viscount Monckton's website by clicking HERE
Get your self on the mailing list of the Inn Catholics so that you are
informed of future meeting. Simply email Piers D'Arcy at email@example.com
with a request to be put on their mailing list.
Why are everyone and his dog
entitled to equality
and diversity sensitivity, except Christians?
In the secular asylum there
counsellors than there are victims to be counselled, now we are seemingly
on track to have more diversity sensitising Fascists than there are
members of diverse groups for us to be diversity sensitized about.
Why are the devotees of the militant secularist religion entitled
to force the latest doctrines of their faith down our throats, at taxpayers'
expense, while a Christian promoting the doctrines of his faith is very
likely to find himself sacked?
An elderly and very kind lady friend of mine is a care assistant in
a nursing home. Her faith is such that she regards washing and
dressing a recently deceased patient as a privilege, an opportunity
to see and serve Christ in others.
She was recently sent on an
"equality and diversity" training session - I sure you can
imagine the content. They were shown, by the obviously homosexual
tutor, pictures of the Christian registrar who refused
to officiate at civil partnerships, and were gleefully advised that she
had been sacked. The
tutor then spoke equally gleefully about the couple who owned a guest
house and had to pay £1800 compensation to a homosexual couple
for refusing to allow them to sodomise one another under their roof. This
particular diversity and sensitivity tutor was obviously particularly
insensitive to the diversity of Christians - but there's no surprise
there of course.
friend enquired, “has all this gay rights rubbish have to do with
washing and feeding the elderly and treating them with kindness?” and “Why,"
she added, "is everyone, except Christians, allowed a conscience?”
Later, my friend spoke up again and said, “St Thomas
More had it right when he said that he was the king’s good servant,
but God’s first - and the people that you (the tutor) are lampooning
had done the right thing.” My friend, who is one of the most
caring and kind people I know now faces the sack for “homophobia”,
a totally spurious label invented by the diversity Nazis and their captive
Meanwhile, in New York a group of thirteen years old girls were forced,
i.e. bullied - paradoxically, in the course of an anti-bullying lesson
- by yet another diversity Fascist into giving one another “lesbian” kisses! For
a superb take on this outrage, see Michael Matt’s talk here:
If that was not enough diversity crap for one week,
in the Pentagon, one Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religion Freedom
organization met with department officials and wrote that Christians
in the military are “monsters” who
must be stopped from talking about their faith. Weinstein said
the military needs to begin prosecuting Christians who share their faith, “Until
the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the
military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression,
we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing
behaviour,” he wined. Weinstein told officials
at a private meeting between himself and Pentagon officials, that U.S.
troops who evangelize are guilty of sedition and treason and should be
punished, by the hundreds if necessary.
It seemed the military was listening because one Lt. Cmdr. Nathan Christensen
issued a memo stating that military personnel who share their faith could
be subject to court-martial.
However, some members of Congress expressed outraged, and the Pentagon
did a volte face a few days later and said that military members who
want to talk about their faith with other members have every right to
do so, backtracking on its previous warning against “proselytizing” that
could be subject to court-martial.
But the six million dollar question is, why would the military leadership
be meeting with one of the most rabid hate-spewing atheists in America
to discuss religious freedom in the military in the first place? Isn't
like consulting Genghis Khan on care and compassion in the NHS?
The Impossible "Road Map" of Peace with the Lefebvrists
By Sandro Magister (edited and abridged
by Graham Moorhouse)
In a new book, unfortunately
currently only available in Italian, Professor Enrico Maria Radaelli
- philosopher, theologian, and beloved disciple of one of the greatest
traditionalist Catholic thinkers of the twentieth century, the Swiss
Romano Amerio - cites three passages taken from the unpublished diaries
of Fr. Divo Barsotti (1914-2006).
In them, this brilliant and esteemed mystic and spiritual master - who
in 1971 was called to preach the Lenten exercises to the pope and to
the Roman curia - expressed strong criticisms of Vatican Council II. Fr.
"I am perplexed with regard to the Council:
the plethora of documents, their length, often their language, these
frightened me. They are documents that bear witness to a purely human
assurance more than to a simple firmness of faith. But above all
I am outraged by the behaviour of the theologians.”
"The Council is the supreme exercise of the magisterium, and
is justified only by a supreme necessity. Could not the fearful gravity
of the present situation of the Church stem precisely from the foolishness
of having wanted to provoke and tempt the Lord? Was there the desire,
perhaps, to constrain God to speak when there was not this supreme necessity? Is
that the way it is?
In order to justify a Council that presumed to renew all things, it had
to be affirmed that everything was going poorly, something that is done constantly,
if not by the episcopate then by the theologians.”
"Nothing seems to me graver, contrary to the holiness of God, than
the presumption of clerics who believe, with a pride that is purely diabolical,
that they can manipulate the truth, who presume to renew the Church and to
save the world without renewing themselves. In all the history of the
Church nothing is comparable to the latest Council, at which the Catholic episcopate
believed that it could renew all things by obeying nothing other than its own
pride, without the effort of holiness, in such open opposition to the law of
the gospel that it requires us to believe how the humanity of Christ was the
instrument of the omnipotence of the love that saves, in his death.”
These words of Fr. Divo Barsotti are striking in two respects.
First of all, these criticisms come from a person of profound theological
vision, with the reputation of sanctity, most obedient to the Church.
And in the second place, the criticisms are not
aimed against the deviations following the Council, but against the Council
in itself. [my emphasis]
They are the same two impressions that can be gathered from reading the
new book by Radaelli, entitled: “The tomorrow - terrible or radiant?
- of dogma.”
Radaelli's argues that the current crisis of the Church is not the result
of a mistaken application of the Council, but of an original sin committed
by the Council itself.
This original sin is claimed to be the abandoning of dogmatic language
- proper to all of the previous councils, with the affirmation of the
truth and the condemnation of errors - and its replacement with a vague
new “pastoral” language.
But while for the progressives, the new language adopted
by the Council is judged in an entirely positive light, for Radaelli,
for Roberto de Mattei, and for other representatives of traditionalist
thought - as for Romano Amerio before them - pastoral language is the
root of all evil.
According to them, in fact, the Council presumed - wrongfully - that
the obedience due to the dogmatic teaching of the Church also applied
to pastoral language, thus elevating to unquestionable “superdogmas" affirmations
and arguments devoid of a real dogmatic foundation, about which instead
it is said to be legitimate and obligatory to advance criticisms and
From the two opposed languages, dogmatic and pastoral, Radaelli sees
the emergence and separation "almost of two Churches.”
In the first, that of the most consistent traditionalists, he also includes
the Lefebvrists, fully “Catholic by doctrine and by rite” and “obedient
to dogma,” even if they are disobedient to the pope to the point
of having been excommunicated for 25 years. It is the Church that,
precisely because of its fidelity to dogma, “rejects Vatican II
as an assembly in total rupture with Tradition.”
He assigns to the second Church all of the others, meaning almost all
of the bishops, priests, and faithful, including the current pope. It
is the Church that has renounced dogmatic language and “is in everything
the daughter of Vatican II, proclaiming it - even from the highest throne,
but without ever setting out proof of this - in total continuity with
the pre-Conciliar Church, albeit within the setting of a certain reform.”
How does Radaelli see the healing of this opposition? In his judgment, “it
is not the model of Church obedient to dogma that must once again submit
to the pope,” but “it is rather the model obedient to the
pope that must once again submit to dogma.”
In other words: "It is not Ecône [editor's note: the SSPX]
that must submit to Rome, but Rome to Heaven: every difficulty between Ecône
and Rome will be resolved only after the return of the Church to the dogmatic
language that is proper to it.”
In order for this goal to be reached, Radaelli presupposes two things:
- that Rome would guarantee to the Lefebvrists the right to celebrate
the Mass and the sacraments exclusively according to the rite of St.
- and that the obedience required for Vatican II would be brought back
within the limits of its “false-pastoral” language, and therefore
be subject to criticisms and reservations.
But before this culmination - Radaelli adds - two other requests would
have to be granted:
- the first, advanced in December of 2011 by the bishop of Astana in
Kazakistan, Athanasius Schneider, is the publication on the part of the
pope of a sort of new "Syllabus,” which would strike with
anathemas all of the "modern-day errors";
- The second, already proposed by the theologian Brunero Gherardini to
the supreme magisterium of the Church, is a “revision of the conciliar
and magisterial documents of the last half century,” to be done “in
the light of Tradition.”
Even with the traditionalists who have remained in communion with
the Church - from Radaelli to de Mattei to Gherardini - the rift is getting
wider. They no longer conceal their disappointment with the pontificate
of Benedict XVI, in which they had initially placed some hopes. In their
judgment, only a decisive return of the magisterium of the pope and the
bishops to dogmatic pronouncements can bring the Church back to the right
path, with the resulting correction of all of the errors propagated by
the pastoral language of the Council.
Errors that Radaelli lists on a page of his book as follows, calling
them “real and proper heresies”:
“Ecclesiology, collegiality, single source
of Revelation, ecumenism, syncretism, irenicism (especially toward Protestantism,
Islamism, and Judaism), the modification of the 'doctrine of replacement'
of the Synagogue with the Church into the 'doctrine of the two parallel
salvations,' anthropocentrism, loss of the last things (and of both limbo
and hell), of proper theodicy (leading to much atheism as a 'flight from
a bad Father'), of the meaning of sin and grace, liturgical de-dogmatization,
aniconology, subversion of religious freedom, in addition to the 'dislocation
of the divine Monotriad' by which freedom dethrones the truth.”
But in a nutshell, he seems to identify the hoped-for pacification with
an all-encompassing victory for the Lefebvrists and for those who, like
them, see themselves as the last and sole defenders of dogma.
One can't affirm
his delusion, so smile benignly and change the subject.
Running is a healthy and
pleasant pastime. It is so unfair therefore
that people with no legs can't run. So, because it is committed
to equality, the government plans to redefine running to include sitting
I am going to put forward an amendment myself to redefine running to
also include laying down perfectly still, that way even the dead will
be able to enjoy running.
This is precisely the logic
David Cameron was using when he stated that it was because he was passionate
about marriage that he was going to legalise gay “marriage”. Only
an inmate of the secular asylum could assert with a straight face that
by redefining a word that means something, to mean many things or anything
one fancy, you in some unspecified way enhance its meaning. The
Queen of Hearts in Alice in wonderland springs to mind, "Words
mean what I say they mean."
Marriage is called marriage
because of the marriage act. Two men cannot perform the marriage
act. Therefore, two men cannot be married - period. Granted
they can, and do, perform some depraved parody of the marriage act, but
I doubt even David Cameron has slipped so far down the slope into liberal
la la land that he is actually capable of believing that the lower
bowel is a sex organ.
There is a serious side issue
here: how do those of us who refuse to sacrifice their sanity to this
gobbledegook react when confronted with two hairy fellows claiming
to be married? I suggest we react exactly
the same way as one would react if a fellow comes up to you in a lunatic
asylum and claims he is Napoleon Bonaparte. You can't affirm
his delusion (that would be unkind) so just smile benignly and change
the subject - while trying desperately hard not to laugh out loud.
On the Lighter Side
This is a true story. An Australian
priest was staying at a well known church in south London to learn how
to celebrate the traditional rite.
It was explained to him that at own
point in the ceremony the deacon or sub-deacon takes hold of the priest
and kisses his hands. There is a Latin name for this, but I've
forgotten it. The Australian exclaimed [and you have to do
this in an Australian accent to achieve its full comedic effect], "Listen
mate, I'm an Aussie, you don't touch me and you certainly don't kiss