Monday, March 31, 2008

Abp. Fulton Sheen, the Prophet

"The Christian European West barely escaped destruction at the hands of the Moslems. At one point they were stopped near Tours and at another point, later on in time, outside the gates of Vienna. The Church throughout northern Africa was practically destroyed by Moslem power, and at the present hour, the Moslems are beginning to rise again.

If Moslemism is a heresy, as Hiliaire Belloc believes it to be, it is the only heresy that has never declined. Others have had a moment of vigor, then gone into doctrinal decay at the death of the leader, and finally evaporated in a vague social movement. Moslemism, on the contrary, has only had its first phase. There was never a time in which it declined, either in numbers, or in the devotion of its followers.

The missionary effort of the Church toward this group has been at least on the surface, a failure, for the Moslems are so far almost unconvertible. The reason is that for a follower of Mohammed to become a Christian is much like a Christian becoming a Jew. The Moslems believe that they have the final and definitive revelation of God to the world and that Christ was only a prophet announcing Mohammed, the last of God's real prophets.

At the present time, the hatred of the Moslem countries against the West is becoming a hatred against Christianity itself. Although the statesmen have not yet taken it into account, there is still grave danger that the temporal power of Islam may return and, with it, the menace that it may shake off a West which has ceased to be Christian, and affirm itself as a great anti-Christian world power. Moslem writers say, "When the locust swarms darken countries, they bear on their wings these Arabic words: 'We are God's host, each of us has ninety-nine eggs, and if we had a hundred, we should lay waste the world, with all that is in it.'"


From "The World's First Love" Originally published in 1952, Ignatius Press, Pgs. 200-201

What the hell is this?!

I've had it with the USCCB.

This is a joint statement released by the National Council of Synagogues and the USCCB from 2002. Link

"Nonetheless, the Church does perceive that the Jewish people’s mission ad gentes (to the nations) continues. This is a mission that the Church also pursues in her own way according to her understanding of covenant. The command of the Resurrected Jesus in Matthew 28:19 to make disciples "of all nations" (Greek = ethnÄ“, the cognate of the Hebrew = goyim; i.e., the nations other than Israel) means that the Church must bear witness in the world to the Good News of Christ so as to prepare the world for the fullness of the kingdom of God. However, this evangelizing task no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity and so end the distinctive witness of Jews to God in human history.

Thus, while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God. The Catholic Church must always evangelize and will always witness to its faith in the presence of God’s kingdom in Jesus Christ to Jews and to all other people. In so doing, the Catholic Church respects fully the principles of religious freedom and freedom of conscience, so that sincere individual converts from any tradition or people, including the Jewish people, will be welcomed and accepted."

So let me get this straight. There are two covenants presently existing concurrently? And the Great Commission doesn't apply to the jews? Since when?

Notice the Vatican II-switcheroo that's been so popular:

"The post-Nostra Aetate Catholic recognition of the permanence of the Jewish people’s covenant relationship to God has led to a new positive regard for the post-biblical or rabbinic Jewish tradition that is unprecedented in Christian history."

Let's see what Nostra Aetate really says:

"The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. "

What do we call a conclusion in a book or movie or essay?

THE END

Nostra Aetate does not say that the old covenant is perpetual. This is just more VII twisting to suit liberal ideas.

What does the deposit of faith have to say about this?

From the Counil of Florence:

It [the Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors."

Pope Benedict XIV from Ex Quo:

"61. The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel. "

Pope Pius XII from Mystici Corporis:

"29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel [30] - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head of His Church. "

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott, imprimatur from Bishop Cornelus Lucey:

"On the Cross, Christ consummated the building of the Church. The Old Covenant ceased and the New Covenant sealed with the blood of Christ began."

I don't see how this is anything but heresy. It goes on to talk about the Church's mission of evangelization, notice the double-speak:

"This latter activity of proclamation and catechesis ­ the "invitation to a commitment of faith in Jesus Christ and to entry through baptism into the community of believers which is the church"16 ­ is sometimes thought to be synonymous with "evangelization."

Uhh, how is it not the same?

"However, this is a very narrow construal and is indeed only one among many aspects of the Church’s "evangelizing mission" in the service of Gods’ kingdom. Thus, Catholics participating in interreligious dialogue, a mutually enriching sharing of gifts devoid of any intention whatsoever to invite the dialogue partner to baptism, are nonetheless witnessing to their own faith in the kingdom of God embodied in Christ. This is a form of evangelization, a way of engaging in the Church’s mission."

Ok, so why is there so much more interreligious circle-jerking than real evangelization? It seems this document is the fruit of such interreligious dialogues. The only fruit is Supposed Catholic shepherds compromising the Truth to make others happy. Has any other religion compromised their beliefs for us from these dialogues? They're more or less saying, "The Church's mission is evangelization, but not the evangelization you're thinking of."

From Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization:

"3. There is today, however, a growing confusion which leads many to leave the missionary command of the Lord unheard and ineffective (cf. Mt 28:19). Often it is maintained that any attempt to convince others on religious matters is a limitation of their freedom. From this perspective, it would only be legitimate to present one’s own ideas and to invite people to act according to their consciences, without aiming at their conversion to Christ and to the Catholic faith. It is enough, so they say, to help people to become more human or more faithful to their own religion; it is enough to build communities which strive for justice, freedom, peace and solidarity. Furthermore, some maintain that Christ should not be proclaimed to those who do not know him, nor should joining the Church be promoted, since it would also be possible to be saved without explicit knowledge of Christ and without formal incorporation in the Church.

In the face of these problems, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has judged it necessary to publish the present Note."


If there is no need to evangelize the jews, meaning the old covenant is still active and saving, then why did Christ bother with all that dying-on-the-cross stuff?

If the USCCB had their way, "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" would be "reinterpretted" to "Extra Ecclesiam Et Iudaeum Nulla Salus" Outside the Church and the Jews there is no salvation.

I've had it with the USCCB.

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Monkey See Monkey Do

Most of my posts are cited with documents or news reports offering a commentary on them or with them on a particular topic. Well, today's post is going to be a bit different. Today my source is my armchair. Or rather the desk chair I bought at Target for $50. It has armrests and reclines a bit so I guess it's qualified.

You guys ever watch The Apprentice? Long story short, Donald Trump grabs a bunch of enterpreneurs, splits them into two teams, which then compete against each other. The competition involves pitting the teams against each other in several different business situations: real estate, retail, marketting, fundraisers, etc. Whichever team makes the most money wins. One person from the losing team is kicked off the show with Donald's obigatory catchphrase, "You're fired." And on from there.

I learned something very valuable from one of the episodes, a few seasons ago. No, not a business strategy, more like an insight into our particular societal behaviors.

Like I said before, there are two teams competing against each other on the show. Many times the task is aimed at consumers simply walking outside a shop. One team had an interesting, albeit unethical, way of getting people's attention and getting them in the door.

There was a black guy on the team, an accountant, late 20's early 30's, used to play basketball in college. What his team did to draw people into their store was stick him at a table with a sharpie, with someone else outside saying so-and-so was giving out autographs. They used his real name, they never said he was never in the NBA, only that he played basketball.

They had a line down the sidewalk.

He was signing basketballs, taking pitctures with kids, really getting the celebrity treatment. For a few hours he was the most famous accountant in New York.

I'll remind you that the team never lied about him, they just didn't tell the whole truth and kinda pulled a fast one on the consumers. But I'm not interested in whether it was ethical, I'm interested in how they turned this accountant into a basketball celebrity.

It worked because he was treated like a celebrity. His team propped him up like someone special so he was treated by passers-by as special as well, not even looking into if it was merited or not. They played off the actions of others to intuit that he was a celebrity. Where it was unethical is that they manipulated the consumers' intuition.

Unethical, but utterly brilliant.

This happens all the time. We constantly take others' words for it that someone's famous or worthy of national praise, or part of an elite class of American society. Take for example, Paris Hilton. Why is she a celebrity? Has she done anything to merit the amount of attention she gets? No. She's a celebrty because the media props her up like a celebrity because she's a household name's daughter.

Or how about Hanna Montana? Or Hilary Duff? They didn't merit any attention or celebrity status until the Disney Channel told us so. Notice once the gem in Hilary Duff's hand turned red (aka she got too old to appeal to the target demographic) she was dropped for Hanna Montana.

Yesterday they weren't there, today some no-name has a hit single, posters, t-shirts, chart-topping album, and all the tabloid exposure that goes with it. Instant celebrity: just add reporters. And we fall for it every time.

Why?

Because they are treated like celebrities. People intuit from how they are treated and then think that they're worthy of fame and their adoration. Their masters prop them up, usually change their name, spends a ton on marketting and usually has all of the merchandise ready to roll before anyone's ever heard the single.

But just because someone or something is treated like it was famous or valuable, doesn't mean it's not and we're being manipulated into thinking it is. There are plenty of things very worthy of celebrity status, or at least the same respect and go unnoticed:

Jesus Christ.

In videos of the TLM we see, after the consecration, the priest holds index finger to his thumb. This is because those were the fingers that had touched our Lord; every particle of which is so precious, that such care was taken so that no particle would accidentally fall from the priests fingers and be profaned. He holds those fingers together until they are washed into the chalice and then consumed. Needless to say the new rubrics don't retain this act, so the vast majority of priests don't do it.

How many of you have caught an extraodrinary minister of Holy Communion or even the priest dust off his hands after handling our Lord? My mother said that on a televised mass celebrated by a bishop, he did this same thing. I never saw it, but I take my mother's word for it.

How many of you have been to parishes that have no perpetual adoration? Or perhaps the tebernacle is hidden off in some corner of the sanctuary, if even in the sanctuary at all? Or maybe the tabernacle is nothing more than a nondescript box, something you'd half expect to find mail in, let alone our Lord?

How many people have you seen in the communion line, versus how many you see in the confession line?

How many complaints have you heard from other Catholics that communion is for Catholics only and should be for everyone?

How can we teach that recieving our Lord unworthily, we eat and drink condemnation on ourselves when we hand Him out to anyone and everyone, in a state of grace or not, even within the Church or not?

If Jesus was walking around today, would we dust Him off, stick Him in a corner by Himself while the priest takes all of the attention, hand Him over to be at the mercy of anyone, in the state of grace or not? Would we tell Him that everyone in the parish is too busy to keep Him company for one hour? Would we do nothing to show others that He is not just some man? Yet in the Eucharist He is treated as just some bread. We do all of this to Him all the time.

I had a comment on my 1962 vs. 1970 post that honestly helped inspire my train of thought for this post. He said, "And the whole "bread" thing throughout the Novus Ordo is just wrong. You can't continuously refer to it as "bread" and expect the people to believe it's more than that."

And he's exactly right.

Why is there such a huge decline in belief in the True Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist? Because it isn't teated like it is true. Remember what St. Francis said, "Evangelize always, use words when necessary." (paraphrase) He's asking us to act and live so wholly and obviously christian that people can intuit our faith without even asking. We can talk about, quote scripture, quote the Church Fathers all we want on the True Presence, but until Catholics treat it like it is, how can we expect anyone to believe us? How can we expect this belief to hold firm for everyone when everything they intuit from our actions (or lack thereof) is the opposite?

If we and even our priests in some instances don't reinforce the truth of the True presence with our actions and our respect, it's no wonder the belief is so little held among us.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Obama's Hypocrisy

Most likey you've heard about Obama's minister, Jeremiah Wright, pawning off anti-white tirades as sermons. On his "church's" website, there used to be a listing of "black values" (as if the needs of mankind change upon the amount of malanin contained in one's skin) in the "About Us" section. In the aftermath of the fallout, that has since been removed. But there still is a link to what they consider "black values" at the bottom of the page. This minister as well as his congregation have endorsed Obama, the democrat.
Why is this hypocritical?

Let's take a look at the leading cause of death among blacks (thanks to ziggy over at CCF):


So abortion has claimed roughly three times as many black Americans as the other top five non-natural causes of death combined.

Let's also look at some other statistics :

The abortion ratio for black women (491 per 1,000 live births) was 3.0 times the ratio for white women (165 per 1,000), and the ratio for women of the nonhomogenous "other" race category (376 per 1,000) was 2.3 times the ratio for white women. The abortion rate for black women (29 per 1,000 women) was 3.0 times the rate for white women (10 per 1,000) whereas the abortion rate for women of other races (21 per 1,000 women) was 2.1 times the rate for white women.

So a third of black pregnancies end in abortion.

How about the fertility rate?:

Fertility, defined as the number of births per 1,000 women, was identified at 84.9 for black women in 1980; by 2002, the fertility rate among black women had fallen to 65.8. Similar reductions did not occur among white women. For white women, the fertility rate in 1980 was 65.6 births per 1,000 women; by 2002, the fertility rate for white women was 64.8, little changed.

So we see in 22 years a ~23% decrease in fertility compared to whites, who had almost no change.

We have the eugenicist Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood to thank for this. Here's an excerpt from an article describing her plans for "The Negro project" and ways to cover up its true intent (quotation marks added by me):

Prior to 1939, Sanger’s "outreach to the black community was largely limited to her Harlem clinic and speaking at black churches." Her vision for "the reproductive practices of black Americans" expanded after the January 1939 merger of the Clinical Research Bureau and the American Birth Control League to form the Birth Control Federation of America. She selected Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing company Procter and Gamble, to be the BCFA regional director of the South.

Gamble wrote a memorandum in November 1939 entitled "Suggestions for the Negro Project," in which he recognized that "black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot." He suggested black leaders to be placed in positions where it would appear they were in charge. Yet Sanger’s reply reflects Gamble’s ambivalence about having blacks in authoritative positions:

"I note that you doubt it worthwhile to employ a full-time Negro physician. It seems to me from my experience … that, while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table, which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with white people and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, [*cough*Obama*cough*] he can go among them with enthusiasm and … knowledge, which … will have far-reaching results among the colored people."

Another project director lamented:

"I wonder if Southern Darkies can ever be entrusted with … a clinic. Our experience causes us to doubt their ability to work except under white supervision."

Sanger knew blacks were religious people–and how useful ministers would be to her project. She wrote in the same letter:

"The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister [*cough*Jeremiah Wright*cough*] is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Need I connect the dots between Planned Parenthood and the democratic party?

For a preacher and congregation that enshrines "black values", it seems rather contradictory to be compelled to vote for a person who will only further and protect Planned Parenthood's genocide against blacks.

Blacks who work for conservative values including ending the genocide inflicted upon them through abortion are labeled race traitors. Yet 90% of blacks vote for people who they think are out to protect "black values" yet are the proponents of the leading cause of death among them.

My message to the black community: Don't be fooled by the color of his skin. Obama will only perpetuate the genocidal machinations of the racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger. Obama is the "Negro doctor at the clinic".