God is not God without man?

Pope

http://www.romereports.com/2017/06/07/pope-at-general-audience-god-cannot-be-god-without-us

For context, the Pope said:

Dear brothers and sisters, we are never alone. We can be far, hostile; we can even say we are ‘without God.’ But Jesus Christ’s Gospel reveals to us that God cannot be without us: He will never be a God ‘without man’; it is He who cannot be without us, and this is a great mystery! God cannot be God without man: this is a great mystery!

True, God became a man and was united to our human nature by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Jesus Christ did so out of love for our souls and to save us, not because His Divinity in the Godhead depended on us.  God is infinite perfection. He created us out of His goodness and love so that we might one day share in His eternal happiness and perfection.

The Council of Florence teaches, “the one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, is the creator of all things visible and invisible, who, when He wished, out of His goodness created all creatures, spiritual as well as corporal”  ~Bull Cantate Domino

The Pope’s error was explicitly condemned by the Fourth Lateran Council and Vatican I:

This sole true God by His goodness and “omnipotent power,” not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows on creatures, with most free volition, “immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely angelic and mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body [Fourth Lateran Council].

If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, or, shall have said that God created not by a volition free of all necessity, but as necessarily as He necessarily loves Himself, or, shall have denied that the world was created to the glory of God: let him be anathema. [Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius]

This heresy to me seems to be a form of pantheism, which puts God and the world on par with each other as one. The Syllubus of Errors condemned the idea that we are all gods, subject to one another, bringing the Supreme God down to our level, dependent on us for His Divinity and Rights. Is it any wonder that Pope Leo XIII proclaimed that we need to hear more of the rights of God and not man? Alas, we all are well aware that Christ the King was dethroned from His Church, while the whims and wishes of modern man are glorified, extolled and encouraged. These words of the Pope are just yet another fruition of the Modernism that has ravaged the Church this past century.

Condemned in the Syllubus:

“There is no supreme, all-wise and all-provident Divine Being distinct from the universe; God is one with nature and therefore subject to change; He becomes God in man and the world; all things are God and have His substance; God is identical with the world, spirit with matter, necessity with freedom, truth with falsity, good with evil, justice with injustice”

If not for God, the entire world and all the souls in it would disappear instantly. It’s not vice versa. The Holy Father should go back to seminary, a Catholic one that is and learn the religion, instead of spouting off every opinion of his from his personal magisterium. May the Holy Trinity open his eyes from the Modernist poison that he has been a victim of and convert him to the Catholic Faith so that his words and guidance will save souls and be a bulwark of the truth.

~Damsel of the Faith

 

 

 

 

Jesuit university in New Orleans celebrating special Mass in honor of Bastille Day

Image result for bastille day

http://www.hnjchurch.org/bastille-mass-celebration-2017/

Loyola University, a Jesuit institution based in New Orleans, Louisiana, is extending an invitation to all for Bastille Day:

Holy Name of Jesus Church is celebrating Bastille Day with a Mass on Sunday, July 09, 2017, at Noon. This Mass celebrates New Orleans’ and Louisiana’s French Heritage and will count as your Sunday obligation. Bastille Day is French Independence Day. Please come and join us for this wonderful event. Our Pastor, Fr. Edwin Gros, S.J., will be our main celebrant. A special choir has been working very hard to lead us all in some wonderful French liturgical songs. We will provide bilingual Mass booklets “en Francais” and in English so that you might easily follow along.   Bienvenue a tout le monde.

This (New) mass is apparently becoming a sort of annual tradition and has been going on for at least a couple of years.  The question is, however, whether such an event is truly celebrating French Heritage.

Bastille Day is without a doubt being presented as a joyous occasion in this invitation. After all, it is being observed as a “wonderful event” celebrating the local French heritage and the independence of France.  There are no disqualifiers even hinted at.  But is Bastille Day something any Catholic should be celebrating?

Should we then celebrate the freeing of prisoners who deserved imprisonment for their crimes? An action that was taken to undermine France’s lawful Monarchy with the aim of then overthrowing it?  An event that is recognized as the beginning of the godless, Freemasonic French Revolution, the effects of which are still buffeting the world and the Church?  A revolution with principles that inspired the terrible novelties of Vatican II?

Whether this apparently ‘Catholic’ university is simply ignorant of history or actually knowingly supporting the storming of the Bastille could be asked, but it should be noted that as a modern Jesuit university, this institution certainly supports and promotes the Vatican II revolution.  That revolution which spread the errors of Religious Liberty, Ecumenism, and Collegiality throughout the Church.  Do those errors not sound exactly as those of the French Revolution?  Both revolutions are thus steeped in the same Freemasonic ideology.  They are different advances of the one, same battle.

The Modernists in the Church will then certainly celebrate this day of upheaval, the day that enshrined their principles they use to attack Our Lord’s Church.  The most diabolical part of their attack is that they remain in the Church while spewing their poisonous venom.  Let us respond by supporting priests who reject this conciliar revolution and pray the Holy Mass as the Church always meant it to be prayed.

For those who wish to take Catholic Action, you may find the contact information for the pastor of this church by clicking on the source link above this post, and then clicking on the “About” tab.

I conclude by proposing that Loyola indeed have a Mass on Bastille Day and invite everyone from afar to participate.  Simply change the announcement, that this Mass will be prayed for those who perished as a result of Bastille Day.  Now, since the world often needs enticing headlines, also spread the word that the Mass will be said exactly as the one our French ancestors attended.  As the faithful are waiting eagerly in their pews, the priest will process out with a surpliced altar server and genuflect to the altar.  “In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti…”

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION: NOTHING TO CELEBRATE(Written by James D. Madden and published in the July 1990 Angelus)

People think of the Bastille—the infamous prison in Paris—as a symbol of oppression. They imagine it to have been full of suffering peasants before the French Revolution. In fact, it was a fairly luxurious jail and detention center for unruly nobles.

Rooms were adequately heated and well lit. Prisoners could pass the time as they chose, plan their own meals, entertain guests and keep servants and pets. Some were permitted to make daily trips into town. Food was plentiful; each prisoner was given three bottles of burgundy or champagne every day.

There were only seven prisoners in the Bastille when it was “liberated” by the mobs of the revolution.

These seven inmates were criminals of one kind or another, and deserved some form of imprisonment. Four were common forgers, two were insane. Last but not least was the Count of Solages—placed there by his family for moral crimes and to escape the death penalty. One of the madmen was a crazy Irishman with a three-foot beard who believed he was God—a delusion that others, in the next few months, were to share.

The Bastille garrison consisted of 32 Swiss Guards and 82 pensioners, 17 cannons and an ample supply of muskets to defend the fortress. The governor of the Bastille was a humane nobleman, the Marquis de Launay. After some negotiations, the firing of one cannon, a short siege and much confusion, the fortress surrendered. Some of the pensioners were killed outright after “promises of protection.”

De Launay’s head was hacked off and placed on a pike—a scene that would be repeated throughout the bloody French Revolution. The Reign of Terror had begun. The rest is history or “mis-history” depending on what one reads and studies. Nearly 1,000 persons in Paris attacked the Bastille, out of a total population of 800,000. It was clearly the work of an organized minority.

The French Revolution gave full play to the basest instincts of mankind. If it also called out the noblest, the balance was definitely on the wrong side. The revolution corrected no wrongs that would not have been remedied without resort to the terror.

Before Louis XVI came to the throne, more than half the land in France belonged to peasants. It was a prospering country, not a poor one. The victims of the revolution were not just the royal family and high nobility, but people from all walks—including thousands of priests, monks, nuns and bishops. The Catholic Church never recovered from the onslaught of 1792-1814. Is it any wonder that the Irish-born British statesman Edmund Burke, a friend of true liberty (not license), called the French Revolution “that putrid carcass, that mother of all evil.”

If we want to celebrate the French, let us celebrate them for other reasons than Bastille Day. Let us celebrate them for their beautiful women and wonderful food (or is it the other way around?). Better yet, commemorate St. Joan of Arc and the other great Catholic and royalist saints, heroes and martyrs of old France.

~ Steven C.

Chartres Pilgrimage 2017 – Restoring Catholic Tradition

Each year, tens of thousands of young Traditional Catholics make a 70 mile pilgrimage from Paris to Chartres to witness to the Catholic Faith, to do penance and to win graces for heaven, leaving them fortified for the spiritual battle that is required of them to be fervent Catholics and gain the Kingdom of Heaven.  This year’s pilgrimage reportedly had record numbers, some saying around 17,000 made the pilgrimage. For nearly 30 years, pilgrims have been making this march for the Faith. Far have they come, for they used to not even be allowed into Notre Dame Cathedral to offer the Holy Latin Mass. This year His Eminence, Cardinal Raymond Burke offered a Pontifical High Mass in the great Cathedral of Notre Dame.  In procession were many young traditionalists carrying banners of all different kinds of Saints, including Our Lady, Our Lord; in procession was also the Bishop of Chartres, followed by Cardinal Burke and the veil of Our Lady, one of the most precious relics of the Church.  What a grace to be in the presence of so much that is holy!  What a reminder that this is the glory of Christendom, the pomp and splendor of Heaven, considering that the traditions of our Faith is a foretaste of the beauty of Heaven’s eternity.

Michael Davies called the pilgrimage “the most important annual event happening in the Church today.” Indeed it still is today and I would say even more so during this centennial of the Apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima.  The early efforts of the pilgrims and those ‘catacomb Catholics’ that preserved our Faith bear fruit today in a growing restoration movement of the young, who want the Faith and nothing but it.  The witness of these young Catholics prove that the old Faith is not forgotten; Europe and Christendom is not dead but lives on in the Traditional Latin Mass, in the lives of the countless saints and martyrs that have lived and died for the cause that we now take on as our birthright and heritage.

Pictures from the Society’s group, as well as the Remnant’s group:

Image result for chartres pilgrimage 2017

Below is a photo of Bishop Alphonso de Galerreta, SSPX, at the conclusion of the Society’s pilgrimage, ending in Paris. As I understand it, the Remnant’s group ended in Chartres at Notre Dame Cathedral, with Cardinal Burke offering the Holy Sacrifice in that great gem of Christendom. I was not aware that all of the traditional Catholics did not walk in unity. Does anyone know why the Pilgrimage is arranged this way?

The official website of the website can be found here, with many beautiful photos of the pilgrimage:

http://chartrespilgrimage.org/

Michael Matt has a good article on Chartres here:

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3227-from-peguy-to-burke-pilgrimage-to-chartres-huge-success

As a young traditional Catholic, I call all of you, most especially my generation, to take up the sword of tradition and to lay claim to our birthright and our heritage.  It’s up to you and I to save the Faith.  With Faith we walk the narrow path, with joyful hearts we sing, with fervent words we proclaim the greatness, the superiority of the Faith of our Fathers. Together we slay the Goliath of Modernism, the monster with many heads that has sought to devour the world and the Church, to send it to the bowels of hell, where all is ugly, unholy, satanic and modernistic.  Onward, Christian Soldiers, faithful sons of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Daughters of St. Joan of Arc, onward to victory, to God be the glory!

~Damsel of the Faith

The Standards of Christian Modesty

Image result for our lady of fatima quote modesty

One of the greatest moral casualties of the Second Vatican Council(which Archbishop Lefebvre called the “Third World War”) has been the degradation of the virtue of Modesty.  Our Lady certainly warned strongly at Fatima about the arrival of these modern fashion, many of which would be mortally sinful and lead to those sins of the flesh that cause the loss of legions of souls.

Even while Our Lady appeared at Fatima in 1917, sinful fashions had become fairly widespread.  However, there was still a good sense of modesty overall in the world because of the strong stance taken by Rome at the time.  After the errors of Vatican II were illicitly affirmed, this common sense started to be uprooted in the world.  Those errors of Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, and Collegiality, just as in the French Revolution, promised the “liberation” of mankind and the result is the loss of everything sacred.  It is now unfortunately true that the majority of mankind now regularly dress in a manner displeasing to Our Lord.

How may we break this trend?  By practicing obedience to the lawful commands of the Church. The Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI penned the following statement in response to the modern fads of that age:

“A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.”

This rule was repeated often by Popes Pius XI and Pius XII and as the standards of Modesty cannot essentially change, they are binding under pain of sin. Priests such as Fr. Bernard A. Kunkel even formed apostolates to insist on this binding universal standard.

What kinds of dress are unacceptable then?

Women

  • Tight, torn, or see-through clothing
  • Bikinis and most modern swimwear
  • Shorts
  • Low Neckline
  • Skirts that do not comfortably cover the knees while sitting
  • Sleeveless or exposed back

Traditional Religious have affirmed that the American Bishops did permit a quarter-length sleeve for women in the 1950’s on the basis that it was difficult to find proper clothing in our age.  However, if a quarter sleeve is worn, care must be taken that it is well-fitting and does not unnecessarily expose.  In church, veils ought to be worn in the presence of Our Lord, as St. Paul exhorts.

Men

  • Effeminate clothing and fashions
  • “short shorts”
  • Tight shirt or pants
  • Undershirts(when worn alone)

It is recommended, although not required, for men to wear a suit and tie to Sunday Mass. Longer, loose-fitting shorts and sweatpants may be worn by men for certain outdoor work and exercise, but should not be worn in the regular fulfillment of one’s daily duties.

A short commentary by sspx.org on Modesty:

How Catholics ought to dress

July 05, 2013

Now that the heat of summer is upon us, this is a good opportunity to briefly review the topic of how Catholics should apparel themselves.

Pastor’s Corner for Sunday, June 21

Summer is on us and with it, the heat. Which makes us feel the need to discard layers of clothes and be freer with our movements. With this desire though, necessarily comes the obligation to continue dressing modestly, and here are some tips about accomplishing this in our own day and age.

It is good to review the dress code that should be posted at the entrance of churches in accordance with Canon Law (CIC 1262, 2). Though this reflects the Church’s mind for sacred places, it nonetheless also comprises a general rule of thumb for public life.

And while every Catholic has rights (to receive the sacraments), he or she also has duties to fulfill in order to maintain these rights; thus why the Holy See has gone so far (for the preservation of souls) to prescribe: “to remove from Communion and even from Church, improperly dressed women.”[1]—this rule can of course be applied also to men.

Another quick rule of thumb is to dress in a dignified manner that will evoke respect. For in addition to providing an edifying example, our dress also defines who we are in society. Thus the appropriateness of a mother’s or father’s dress (particularly in the privacy of home life) can positively or negatively impact the formation of their children—this important aspect is not only contingent upon the modesty of the clothes worn by the parents, but even by their quality, that is, dressing shabbily versus well within one’s means.

An even further consideration for men and women is to dress properly according to their nature, or respectively, according to their masculinity or femininity. For men, this means they should not wear tight-fitting clothes or in general, go shirtless in public (especially for fathers, even around the home in front of their children).

For the ladies, to dress like a man (such as wearing pants) is improper and contradicts a woman’s God-given femininity. That this is not merely an “old fuddy duddy’s” quibble, should be evident when we realize that the proponents of unisex clothing have also been the same “gender theory” people behind the promotion of sins against nature.

It is interesting to note that the “Lion of Campos”, Bishop de Castro Mayer, once famously remarked in a pastoral letter that he would prefer a woman to wear a mini-skirt rather than pants. For while the mini-skirt was immodest, it was at least feminine, while pants contradicted a woman’s nature (thus the former attacked the senses, while the latter warped the intellect).

Therefore, so-called “woman’s pants” (usually worn out of pleasure or commodity) are not the proper garb of a Catholic (or Marian-like) girl or lady, either in the parish, domestic or social life. However, if the wearing pants by women cannot be completely avoided due to the circumstances of our time (profession, security, extraordinary activity, etc.), they should at least disappear from family, social and parish life.

Concerning modest dress—and this applies to both men and women—the underlying principle is that it should more cover, rather than expose oneself to the allurement of the public eye. Thus both men and women should dress so as to inspire respect and chaste love, as opposed to the enkindling of lust.

Albeit, finding proper clothes today can be very difficult today, as most fashions are terribly provocative and have been designed to induce impurity. This is especially the case for women’s fashions; however, good women (using a bit of resourcefulness) can still manage to dress with modest attractiveness and charm—and without appearing that they have just stepped off a set of Little House on the Prairie!

A last word regarding the issue of swimming. Unfortunately there is little available in the stores today that is even half-way decent, or modest, though some have attempted to alleviate this deficiency by wearing t-shirts over their swimwear. But even more importantly perhaps are the oft-ignored ecclesiastical admonitions against the dangers of swimming in public places. Thus we are compelled to exhort families to make the effort to find a secluded place to swim amongst themselves—or not at all. Better to forgo the recreational (and optional) pleasure of swimming then to endanger the souls of one’s family (or of others)!

In concluding this brief review on the importance of dressing modestly, here are some pertinent quotes (and one illustrative example)—which far from being ancient, are of recent date, and thus ever new.


Quotes

G.K. Chesterton:unless we live as we believe, we’ll end up believing as we live.”

Pope Pius XII:The purity of souls living the supernatural life of grace is not preserved and will never be preserved without combat.” Many women and girls stubbornly persist in “following certain shameless styles like so many sheep.” “They would certainly blush if they could guess the impression they make and the feeling they evoke in those who see them.”

Padre Pio (+1968) repeatedly refused to absolve women who did not wear a skirt that extended at least 8 inches below the knee, while also insisting that they did not wear slacks.

Our Lady of Fatima:
The sins of the world are too great! The sins which lead most souls to hell are sins of the flesh! Certain fashions are going to be introduced which will offend Our Lord very much. Those who serve God should not follow these fashions. The Church has no fashions; Our Lord is always the same.”

END OF ARTICLE

The traditional stance on women wearing pants is often seen as controversial by even those of good faith.  This shows the prevalence of feminism in the present day.  To combat this custom, I highly recommend this article by Dr. Carol Byrne (http://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-393.shtml) and have posted the most pertinent parts of the article below:

 

The moral consensus

Feminine modesty has been understood as being distinctive from its male counterpart in every society since the dawn of history, even in places where God’s word has never reached. (St Thomas Aquinas holds that the behaviour of all is subject to moral judgement, whether or not they know of the Revelation of Christianity.) Women have never, in the entire history of civilization, in any era from earliest antiquity or in any part of the world until our times, stalked about in trousers that delineated the lower half of their body and gave visual prominence to their hips and legs. Why not? Because they had the good sense to realise their physical vulnerability as the ‘weaker vessel’ vis-à-vis male readiness to exploit it, and besides, they wanted to be cherished and respected for their personal qualities other than their physical endowments. The fundamental issue is that a bifurcated garment worn as outer attire was considered by people of all civilisations, even the most barbarian and pagan, to infringe basic levels of feminine decency and identity.

The custom of women wearing trousers did not start with Catholic women. Like the New Mass, the fashion was inaugurated and promoted by liberal-minded people, particularly feminist agitators, intent on discarding Christian traditions and altering people’s understanding of Christian values. (It is true that the Dress Reform Movement was also a protest against the cruelly restrictive clothing of the 19th century that was injurious to women’s health, but there are modest and immodest solutions to every problem.) Just like the New Mass which broke with the whole of liturgical tradition, the custom has in no way developed from the innate sense of decency passed down from one Catholic woman to another throughout 2000 years of the Church’s influence on society. The skirt-trouser dichotomy had become established within all civilisations, including Christian culture, as one of the main differences between men’s and women’s clothing. Only very recently has this difference been obscured.

As we shall see later, Catholic clergy, nuns and educators before the Council denounced the fashion of women wearing trousers as unbecoming in the sense of being unfeminine (appropriate only for men) and indecent (inviting immodest regard). Thus, in the period before Vatican II, a Catholic dress code for girls and women was closely linked with the concept of feminine decorum and the avoidance of the occasion of sin. From their knowledge of the Gospels in which Our Lord demanded purity in glances, thoughts, desires and actions and warned against giving scandal, Christians generally understood that immodesty is related to lust and causes temptation to others. And so a moral conscience was formed which told them that immodesty, particularly in a woman because of her nature as the temptress of man, involves an offence against God and a lack of respect for ourselves and our neighbour. Not to disapprove of trousers for women is to shrug aside the seriousness of the situation.

* In non-Christian countries such as India and parts of the Far East, where women wore trousers, they took care to cover them amply with a flowing robe or a long tunic that concealed the outline of their body below the waist.

* Among Eskimo women and those who inhabited the Polar region there was a tradition of wearing long dresses made of hide or an ensemble consisting of seal skin leggings worn under a poncho-style garment that descended well below the knees. Whether they were the early Celts or Vikings or the women of the tribe of Attila the Hun who swept down from the Steppes of Central Asia, there is no recorded case of a fashion for women to wear trousers as an outer garment until the 20th century.

* In the eighteenth century, the Empress Elizabeth of Russia known as the ‘Merry Tsarina’ organised costume balls in which she regularly required that women dress as men and vice versa. Trousers were indeed worn by women as part of a fancy dress costume but they were only partly visible under shortened skirts, and their use was restricted only to a frivolous occasion.

* During the Napoleonic era and in the American War of Independence there were women volunteers called ‘vivandieres’ and ‘cantinieres’ who wore trousers as part of the military uniform. These were the ‘filles du régiment,’ wives, mothers and daughters who followed their men to war to share the dangers of battle and the hardships of life in the camps. They braved the bullets to administer sustenance to the soldiers and tend the wounded. The important feature of their uniform was that all wore calf-length dresses over trousers or baggy ‘Zouave’ (Turkish-style) pantaloons.

* Moralists of all denominations raged throughout the Victorian era against the emergent fashion of trousers on women. Amelia Bloomer gave her name to a revolutionary style of dressing, but even her ‘shocking’ innovation (1851) that sent ripples of indignation through polite society and drew fiery condemnations from every pulpit, came with a mid-length skirt worn over billowy pantaloons that were tied at the ankle.

* There is no doubt that from Victorian times women wearing trousers were considered both immodest and unfeminine. The early feminists who wore trousers were often lampooned in the press in their attempt to ape manliness. A common criticism was that trousers gave a woman ‘an extremely mannish look.’

*Here is what G.K. Chesterton thought about women wearing trousers:

‘And since we are talking here chiefly in types and symbols, perhaps as good an embodiment as any of the idea may be found in the mere fact of a woman wearing a skirt. It is highly typical of the rabid plagiarism which now passes everywhere for emancipation, that a little while ago it was common for an ‘advanced’ woman to claim the right to wear trousers; a right about as GROTESQUE as the right to wear a false nose . . . It is quite certain that the skirt means female dignity.’

This commentary was written in 1910 when the custom was in its infancy; it may be a century old, but it is even more relevant in our times than it was in Chesterton’s.

* All dictionaries up to the early 20th century defined ‘trousers’ as ‘a garment worn by males.’ This identification of trousers as a male garment did not change until the 60s after women began to liberate their legs publicly in the 50s, thus altering the public perception.

* In wartime, women workers in munitions factories wore dungarees under overalls.

It is evident that trousers were historically associated with men, and wherever they were adopted by women they were subject to ‘purdah,’ that is skirted around by cultural restrictions and limited to specific circumstances. There is thus no recorded history of women adopting the fashion of wearing trousers like their menfolk until the 20th century.

We can deduce two things from this enduring and universal phenomenon:

– a moral consensus, based on instinctual feelings of shamefacedness, existed up to modern times among all women, and that their desire to conceal rather than reveal was not a social construct but a natural reaction.

– trousers as an outer garment are not and never have been feminine apparel, and by putting them on women (with a different designer label) does not make them any less men’s clothing.

This evidence quite escapes those who deny the significance for our time of God’s edict given to Moses: ‘A woman shall not be clothed with a man’s apparel; neither shall a man use woman’s apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God ‘ (Deuteronomy 22:5). The mere mention of such an edict is enough to make some people hiss ‘Old Testament fundamentalist’ in my direction, but it was the basis on which the Church formed her teaching that women must dress in a distinctively feminine manner and be modest in heart as well as apparel (I Peter 3:3-4).

The Church’s teaching before Vatican II

The Church’s teaching on dress is an authority prevailing over every social tendency and every fashionable choice, because it was to her and not to society that Christ entrusted the supernatural wisdom to discern what constitutes a spiritual danger and to fight soul-destroying customs such as immodest and egalitarian clothing. Many of us are too quick to write off the Church when it comes to subjects like trousers on women. It is claimed that the Magisterium has not issued any prohibition on them and that in dubiis libertas (where a doubt exists freedom should be granted). But this argument overlooks the fact that it was only in the second half of the 20th century that women in general began to exchange their skirts for trousers, and that by the time this fashionable option had become widespread, the post Conciliar Church had fallen silent, having already adopted a more indulgent attitude to the question of modesty in general and the sins of the flesh in particular. It is hardly to be expected that in their condemnation of immodest fashions the pre-Conciliar Popes would have given particular emphasis to a fashion that was rarely seen in public. (Certainly before 1960 it was unheard of for women to wear trousers to church). However, it was customary before the Council for individual bishops, especially in Catholic countries such as Ireland, Italy and Latin America, to make statements regarding the unacceptability of trousers on women.

The Archbishop of Dublin and Primate of Ireland, John Charles McQuaid C.S.Sp., was well known for his tirades against women wearing trousers. He continually denounced women’s participation in athletics for reason of dress in mixed company. For example, in a sermon to a congregation in his native Cavan, he voiced his opposition to young women rowers being dressed in men’s scanty athletic attire. There is no doubt that throughout his lengthy career (he reigned for more than three decades from 1940 to 1972 before resigning in 1972 in disgust at the reforms of Vatican II and dying, they say, broken-hearted the following year), the legendary Archbishop McQuaid exerted an enormous influence on every aspect of Catholic Ireland. It was common knowledge that Dr McQuaid had a direct influence on University College Dublin, and this has been confirmed with the recent opening of the Archbishop’s archives. I have a vivid recollection of an incident that occurred during my university days in Dublin when a foreign female student wearing trousers was approached by a woman official and asked to leave the premises because she had infringed the dress code. What would McQuaid have said about today’s trousered women? He would have used up all his vocabulary, and have had nothing left but tears.

The last official document on the subject was, significantly, issued shortly before Vatican II. It took the form of a letter by Cardinal Siri of Genoa warning all the clergy, teaching sisters, those involved in Catholic Action, and educators in his diocese, of the grave dangers in women wearing trousers. Written on the 12th June 1960 at a time when Italy was more or less still a Catholic country, the letter addressed people who still had some instinctual sensibilities concerning modesty, formed by centuries of Catholic culture. Its very title, ‘Notification concerning men’s dress worn by women,’ indicates that slacks and shorts were considered as men’s clothing, and that the fact that the offending garments were tailored for the female figure and therefore not bought in the menswear department of clothes shops, does not justify their adoption by women.

Cardinal Siri condemned trousers on women from a two-fold perspective: firstly that they involved a degree of immodesty (albeit not as grave as abbreviated skirts), and secondly that they were a symbol of feminist ideology,’the visible aid to bring about a mental attitude of being ‘like a man’.’ (Incidentally this is exactly what Bishop de Castro Mayer meant when he said that trousers were even worse than mini-skirts because the latter attacked the senses while the former attacked the mind, thus constituting an ideological weapon in the feminist battle for the de-feminising of women). Since the clothing a person wears ‘modifies that person’s gestures, attitudes and behaviour,’ the Cardinal predicted that the change from skirts to trousers would modify the Christian perception of womanhood as essentially ordered towards motherhood, and that it would subvert the divinely ordained order in which the husband is the protector of his wife and head of the family.

Alas, it has all co me to pass as he had forecast: women have adopted men’s dress, and there has been a wholesale paradigm shift in society’s perception of femininity. Misled by the tenets of feminist dogma, women are being won over to the idea that the Catholic teaching of the man being the head of the woman and family is all irrelevant nonsense, and totally absurd in the modern world. The effect of this is to blur God’s purposes in giving men and women distinctive, though complementary, roles in society, and to abolish the ‘headship of man’ doctrine in every area of life- Church, family, education, government etc. As Cardinal Siri put it:

‘First, the wearing of men’s dress by women affects the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology proper to women; second, it affects the woman as wife of her husband, by tending to vitiate relationships between the sexes; and third, it affects the woman as mother of her children by harming her dignity in her children’s eyes. . . . This changing of the feminine psychology does fundamental, and, in the long run, irreparable damage to the family, to conjugal fidelity, to human affections and to human society . . . Nobody stands to gain by helping to bring about a future age of vagueness, ambiguity, imperfection and, in a word, monstrosities.’

Because shorts and slacks break both the modesty and gender barriers, we have a superb medley of immodesty AND ‘masculinity’ all gift-wrapped nicely for today´s modern career woman!

[…]

No such thing as modest trousers on women

If women are ‘dressing to kill’ these days, there is no doubt that they have succeeded in killing the morals of men and endangering their souls by wearing provocative styles, particularly midriff-baring tops and how-low-can-you-go jeans. Some women appear to have been melted down and poured into their garments. A good question to ask oneself by way of analogy is: ‘Which outlines the form of the hand more, a mitten or a glove?’ and then apply the question to a skirt and a pair of trousers, both of which provide adequate coverage. It is obvious that there can be varying degrees of immodesty depending on the cut of the trousers, but that there is no such thing as ‘modest’ trousers’they may look modest on the clothes rack, but they behave like any other trousers when you put them on. The ‘crux’ of the matter, (if you get my meaning), is that even if trouser legs are of generous width and not particularly clinging, the fitted area is bound to offset the female form to a greater or lesser extent, and its very visibility is what causes an immodest impression to be fixed in the mind. Any woman who does not agree should take a long, hard look in the mirror and try to see herself as others (especially men) see her! Perhaps then she will agree that trousers reveal much more than gender.

END OF EXCERPT

To conclude, we must strive as Catholics to combat this Modesty crisis with an uncompromising, but charitable mindset.  Let us obey the constant teachings of the Church and seek by good example to draw souls to do the same.  The foundation of Christendom may then be reestablished.

 

~ Steven C.

 

The Tongue of Fire rested upon the Church

“And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place: And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them: And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.” ~Acts 2:2-3

The Tongue of Fire appears in every Mass. Invisibly. When the priest calls down the Holy Ghost upon the bread and wine so that it may be changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, I have always imagined the Holy Ghost in both fiery spendor and light coming down to envelop the altar. It’s the invisible reality of the miracle that takes place upon the altar.

On this great Solemnity of the Feast of Pentecost, we remember that Christ has kept His promise and sent the Holy Spirit to us in fiery spendor, to remain with His Church, guiding and protecting Her for all time.  Jesus Christ breathed into the Church the breath of life on that First Pentecost, so that the Church would give life to the world, the life of God in sanctifying grace so that the members of the Church could be temples of He who is the Life, Jesus Christ Our Lord. The Holy Spirit came to convict the world of sin and truth, to pass on the strength, perseverance and courage to carry the newly born Church into the future that would last until the end of time, that would see the deaths of countless martyrs and the sanctification of an innumerable number of souls.  The world may rise and fall, but the Holy Ghost remains with His Church. While the charismatics “celebrate” the 50th Anniversary of their protestant sect with “praise and worship” (God have mercy!) in St. Paul Outside the Walls in the heart of Rome, we will be giving due honor and worship to God at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  Let us pray to God the Holy Spirit for his fruits and gifts, and for strength and perseverance in our daily fight for the Holy Catholic Church.

Veni Creator Spiritus! A Blessed Solemnity and Feast of Pentecost to all and Happy Birthday to the Church!

On this great Solemnity of the Birthday of our Holy Church, here is a short meditation from Fr. Prosper Gueranger:

The mystery of Pentecost holds so important a place in the Christian dispensation, that we cannot be surprised at the Church’s ranking it, in her Liturgy, on an equality with her Paschal Solemnity. The Pasch is the redemption of man by the victory of Christ; Pentecost is the Holy Ghost taking possession of man redeemed. The Ascension is the intermediate mystery; it consummates the Pasch, by placing the Man-God, the Conqueror of death, and our Head, at the right hand of the Father; it prepares the mission of the Holy Ghost to our earth. This mission could not take place until Jesus had been glorified, as St. John tells us (St. John, vii. 39); and there are several reasons assigned for it by the Holy Fathers. It was necessary that the Son of God, Who, together with the Father, is the principle of the procession of the Holy Ghost in the divine essence, should also personally send this Divine Spirit upon the earth. The exterior mission of one of the Three Persons is but the sequel and manifestation of the mysterious and eternal production which is ever going on within the Divinity. Thus the Father is not sent either by the Son or by the Holy Ghost, because He does not proceed from them. The Son is sent to men by the Father, of Whom He is eternally begotten. The Holy Ghost is sent by the Father and the Son, because He proceeds from both. But, in order that the mission of the Holy Ghost might give greater glory to the Son, there was a congruity in its not taking place until such time as the Incarnate Word should be enthroned at the right hand of the Father. How immense the glory of Human Nature, that it was hypostatically united to the Person of the Son of God when this mission of the Holy Ghost was achieved! and that we can say, in strict truth, the Holy Ghost was sent by the Man-God!

This divine Mission was not to be given to the Third Person, until men were deprived of the visible presence of Jesus. As we have already said, the hearts of the Faithful were henceforward to follow their absent Redeemer by a purer and wholly spiritual love. Now, Who was to bring us this new love, if not He Who is the link of the eternal love of the Father and the Son? This Holy Spirit of love and union is called, in the Sacred Scriptures?, the “Gift of God (St. John, iv. 10);” and it is on the day of Pentecost that the Father and Son send us this ineffable Gift. Let us call to mind the words spoken by our Emmanuel to the Samaritan Woman at the Well of Sichar: If thou didst know the Gift of God (St. John, iv. 10)! He had not yet been given, He had not yet been manifested, otherwise than in a partial way. From this day forward, He inundates the whole earth with his Fire, He gives spiritual life to all, He makes His influence felt in every place. We know the Gift of God; so that we have but to open our hearts to receive Him, as did the three thousand who listened to St. Peter’s sermon.

Observe, too, the Season of the Year, in which the Holy Ghost comes to take possession of His earthly kingdom. Our Jesus, the Sun of Justice, arose in Bethlehem in the very depth of winter; humble and gradual was His ascent to the zenith of His glory. But the Spirit of the Father and the Son came in the Season that harmonizes with His own divine characteristic. He is a consuming Fire (Deut. iv. 24); He comes into the world when summer is in his pride, and sunshine decks our earth with loveliest flowers. Let us welcome the life-giving heat of the Holy Ghost, and earnestly beseech Him that it may ever abide within us. The Liturgical Year has brought us to the full possession of Truth by the Incarnate Word; let us carefully cherish the Love, which the Holy Ghost has now enkindled within our hearts.

 

On the controversy surrounding Maddi Runkles and Heritage Christian Academy

Image result for maddi runkles

“On May 20, 2017 New York Times writer, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, published a feature piece entitled, Pregnant at 18. Hailed by Abortion Foes. Punished by Christian School.”  The Christian school’s crime? Not allowing a visibly pregnant and unmarried eighteen year old student, Maddi Runkles, to “walk” in her high school graduation ceremony.”

This headline has been widespread by The New York Times and the national media, but if our readers haven’t seen it yet, this is a good video explaining it from Michael Matt:

We now see groups such as Students for Life of America and Life News(not to be confused with Life Site News) siding with the media regarding this issue.  But as Remnant writer Chris Jackson asks, does anyone else see a problem with this story?

Excerpt from this excellent article(with additional commentary below):

“First, there is hardly any recognition that conceiving a child out of wedlock is a terrible tragedy, especially, as in this case, when the mother and father have no plans to marry. Here, both parties choosing to commit the sin of fornication has created a situation where the child will be most likely deprived of a father and won’t be born into a stable family unit. The situation is made more difficult by the fact that the mother is barely graduating high school and now must find a way to support herself, no doubt placing a burden on her own family to care for her child. And these are only the consequences to Miss Runkles’ immediate family and the child. Further lost in all of this, is the bad example it gives to Miss Runkles’ siblings, if she has any, her classmates, and the Christian community at large, not to mention society.

For these reasons, conceiving a child out of wedlock used to be accompanied by both the parents and the families involved feeling a natural and healthy sense of grief, guilt, and yes, shame. These are the emotions tragic situations are supposed to create.  In the past, the parents of the young woman involved would most often keep the situation discreet and private, withdrawing the girl from school and sometimes sending the girl out of town to live with relatives or to religious sisters at convents who cared for unwed mothers during pregnancy after which the girls would give the child up for adoption.

This is often sneered at by moderns who accuse these parents of abandoning or punishing their daughters. In reality, the parents were attempting to save their daughters from the public humiliation, disapprobation, and hardship that would ensue if she were to continue at school or in the community obviously pregnant and unmarried.  The other option, of course, was a quick marriage between the mother and father as soon as the pregnancy was discovered if that was, in fact, feasible.

Of course there never was or will be a perfect solution to such a situation as the situation is in and of itself, a tragic consequence of sin. But this is a fact that has apparently been lost on many in the pro-life movement, as well meaning as they are. For example, Kristan Hawkins, the Students for Life president, said “She [Miss Runkles] made the courageous decision to choose life, and she definitely should not be shamed.”

But is the school really choosing to “shame” Miss Runkles for choosing not to slaughter her unborn child by not allowing her to walk in a graduation ceremony? The notion is absurd.

The article goes on to say, “The anti-abortion group, which took her to a recent rally in Washington, argues that she should be lauded, not punished, for her decision to keep her baby.”

Yet, the pro-life group confuses the issue. The decision not to let Miss Runkles walk had absolutely nothing to do with her decision not to get an abortion.  It seems like some pro-life groups are so obsessed with the good end of preventing abortions that they will use any means necessary to accomplish the goal, even if that means lauding and holding up as a hero, a poor teenage girl who is in a very tragic situation due to her own choices. Does it not show to what level we have sunk as a society when one is honored as a celebrity for conceiving a child in sin as long as they refrain from murdering it?

Is this the bar we want to set?

But besides all of this, I found one thing most interesting and it is something I have seen discussed almost nowhere amongst the many stories out there including the comment boxes. Notice that the narrative is that an evil Christian school “shamed” Miss Runkles for getting pregnant out of wedlock.

Instead, why aren’t we asking Miss Runkles herself, or her family, why they are apparently not feeling any shame about their daughter being in her current situation? Why would Christian parents insist that their visibly pregnant daughter proudly walk across a stage at a Christian school drawing attention to the fact she is pregnant out of wedlock? Why would Miss Runkles want to do this? Why would Christian parents go to the left wing media and press to publicize the fact that their daughter conceived illegitimately to the entire world in order to “shame” her high school?

In a saner time, you could not have paid parents of an unmarried and visibly pregnant teenager to have their daughter walk across a stage in front of her classmates, much less publicize the affair to the media.. That is because the young girls in this situation, and their parents, used to have a healthy and completely natural sense of shame. They didn’t need a school to impose it upon them. They already felt it deeply.

Parents also used to have a healthy sense of discretion about so sensitive a matter and would try to minimize any scandal that might ensue over the affair. And so they would not even so much as asked the school if their daughter could make a spectacle of herself by walking at graduation as the entire notion would have been absurd and damaging not only to the child and family, but to the community at large. Ironically, if schools in those days had forced unwed and visibly pregnant teenagers to walk in high school graduating ceremonies they would have been rightly accused of shaming these poor girls and the practice would have caused a just uproar.

But in our day and age, there is no sense of shame. Far from it. Instead, a poor girl who conceived a child out of wedlock is not encouraged to keep a low profile, but instead encouraged by a pro-life group and her parents to proudly demand that her school celebrate this tragedy.  Why? Because she could have legally murdered the child, but chose not to. This is the very definition of shameless.

As evangelical Christians, the Runkles are no doubt familiar with the Bible, especially the Gospels. In the Gospel of Matthew we see how St. Joseph treated what he believed to be a similarly tragic situation, before he was enlightened by an angel.

When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately.

Notice that St. Joseph, far from publicizing the event and daring anyone to “shame” himself or Mary, wisely chose not to make the matter public and instead kept the matter as private as possible out of love for Mary. This is the path of virtue and charity we have so far strayed from. As the Haydock Commentary confirms:

Joseph her husband, knowing her strict virtue, was surprised at this her pregnancy, but “being a just man,” and not willing to expose her, by denouncing her, or giving her a bill of divorce, he had a mind to dismiss her privately, committing the cause to God. Let us learn from Joseph to be ever tender of our neighbor’s reputation, and never to entertain any injurious thoughts, or any suspicions to his prejudice.

Yet in today’s world we are so proud that even St. Joseph’s response of dismissing her privately would be seen as “shaming.”  The only answer the enemies of the Faith give is to flaunt the sin and tragedy and demand that society being accepting of it and celebrate it. And sadly at least one pro-life organization as well as most conservative news media have swallowed this poisoned premise in order to allegedly influence mothers not to kill their children.

However, promoting the pro-life cause by normalizing illegitimacy is like cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. Normalizing illegitimacy encourages more illegitimacy and thus a higher chance the final “choice” will be abortion and not life.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

[W]here the parents [of illegitimate children] fall but slightly in social esteem the public regard for chastity is deplorably lax..[T]he presence of illegitimacy in a community always tends to weaken the popular appreciation of chastity, and the popular disapproval of its violation. “

 

If I might add a point to Mr. Jackson’s article, let us also remember how God treats one who has fallen into sin, but has asked for forgiveness.  When the sin is confessed, Our Lord is overjoyed to pardon the sinner and forget the sin as only He can.  However, we often still owe a remaining “debt” to Him, especially in regard to grievous sins.  This temporal punishment is a consequence of the sinful action, even if the sin itself has been forgiven.  This is why we are obliged to do penance and, if necessary, be purified in Purgatory.  God is both infinitely merciful and just.

Yes, we are certainly happy that Miss Runkles has chosen not to abort and that there will be a new life to grace the Earth, but consequences must still exist for the action done.  It is unfortunate that some groups calling themselves “pro-life” are siding with the vile, anti-Catholic media on this issue, but there has been a creeping compromise in the Pro-Life movement for a long time.  For example, the common Protestant acceptance of contraception is now prevalent in a large number of groups.  This is why we published a post against the contraceptive mentality, which readers may find here: https://damselofthefaith.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/being-truly-pro-life-a-rebuttal-against-the-contraceptive-mentality/

Other groups will go even further and declare themselves secular.  While their fight against abortion might be praiseworthy in many respects, how can one win his battle if he does not recognize the One who is the Truth?  The same goes for this new emerging group of “pro-life feminists”(!), an oxymoron.  It can be very dangerous to only partially affirm the truth, even out of an apparent “prudence”.  This is why, with a few noble exceptions, those who will most earnestly fight for Life will be found in the traditional Catholic communities.

~ Steven C.

Source:   http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3211-the-death-of-shame-pro-life-group-celebrates-illegitimacy

St. Joan of Arc – Maid of Orleans

Related image

St. Joan of Arc in the French Quarter, New Orleans.

On this Feast of my Heroine, I’d first like to share some photos of some rare treasures of the great Saint. A couple weeks ago, I was shopping at an Estate Sale, which I do very much of when I stumbled upon many articles of St. Joan of Arc. A blessed day indeed! These are the treasures I bought:

IMG_0296

IMG_0293

IMG_0299

IMG_0300

IMG_0301

IMG_0302

Other statues and pictures of her:

IMG_0307 (1)

IMG_0306

All hail to the Maid of Orleans!

Nearly 500 years after her death, St. Joan of Arc is vindicated and raised to the honors of the Altar, she who faithfully obeyed the will of God, even to her very death at the hands of wicked leaders in the Church.  May she be an example to us to persevere in the fight for the goodness, truth and beauty of tradition, in the face of all oppositions and attack!  The King of Heaven awaits our faithfulness!

Pope Pius XII for the 500th anniversary of the rehabilitation of St. Joan of Arc, June 25, 1956:

“Do raise your eyes, beloved sons, you worthy members of a nation that glories in the title of Eldest Daughter of the Church, and consider the great examples that came before you… Down on your knees before the God Who is expecting you in His Tabernacle, renew your profession of faith, promise Him anew your most perfect faithfulness, and be assured that in so doing, you will answer your calling of men, of Christians, of Frenchmen… And if, for one moment, you might deem that iniquity, mendacity, and corruption reign supreme, you will but need to keep silent for a split-second and raise your eyes towards Heaven, to imagine that the legions of Joan of Arc are coming back with unfurled standards to save your homeland and to save the faith.

The Litany of St. Joan of Arc
Composed by Louis, Bishop of Saint Dié

Lord, have mercy on us!
Jesus Christ, have mercy on us!
Lord, have mercy on us!
Jesus Christ, hear us!
Jesus Christ, graciously hear us!

Our Heavenly Father, Who art God, have mercy on us!
Son, Savior of the world, Who art God, have mercy on us!
Holy Spirit, Who art God, have mercy on us!
Holy Trinity, Who art God, have mercy on us!

Holy Mary, virgin Mother of God, pray for us.
Our Lady of the Assumption, principal patron of France, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, patron and special protector of France, pray for us.

Saint Catherine of Alexandria, virgin and Martyr, pray for us.
Saint Margaret of Antioch, virgin and Martyr, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, chosen by God at Domremy, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, informed [of her mission] by Saint Michael, the Archangel and his Angels, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, compliant to the call of God, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, confidant [in] and submissive to her voices, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, model of family life and labor, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, faithfully devoted to Our Lady, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, who delighted in the Holy Eucharist, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, model of generosity in the service to God, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, example of faithfulness to the Divine vocation, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, model of union with God in action, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, virgin and soldier, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, model of courage and purity in the field [of battle], pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, compassionate towards all who suffer, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, the pride of Orleans, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, glory of Reims, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, liberator of the Country, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, abandoned and imprisoned at Compiegne, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, pure and patient in thy prison, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, heroic and valiant before thy judges, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, alone with God at the hour of torment, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, Martyr of Rouen, pray for us.

Saint Joan or Arc and Saint Therese of Lisieux patronesses of France, pray for us.
All the Saints of France, intercede for us.

Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world,
ave mercy on us, Lord.
Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world,
graciously hear us, Lord.
Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us, Lord.

Saint Joan of Arc, pray for us, that we may become worthy of the promises of Our Savior Jesus Christ.

Let us pray.
Oh God, Who hast raised up in an admirable manner, the virgin of Domremy, Saint Joan of Arc, for the defense of the faith and [our] country, by her intercession, we ask Thee that the Church [may] triumph against the assaults of her enemies and rejoice in lasting peace; through Jesus Christ Our Lord. Amen.

St. Joan of Arc, my Heroine and Patroness, intercede for us and watch over our apostolate here at Damsel of the Faith.

~Damsel of the Faith