How many sacriligeous Communions will now occur?

With the release of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, battle lines are being drawn between liberal vs. conservative, traditional vs. progressive Catholics.  Conservatives are bending over backwards in their hope that responsible priests and bishops will follow a rigorous discernment process regarding eligibility to receive the Holy Eucharist. On the other hand, the liberal hierarchy seems all too ready to grant Communion to whomever seems to sincerely wish it, regardless of their objective situation.

Let's face reality.  I fear that the net result of this document will be a dramatic increase in sacrilegious Communions thanks to the progressivists, regardless of the noble efforts of traditional priests to guide their flocks according to perennial Catholic doctrine. How many liberal priests intend to warn the recipients that their eternal salvation may be at stake by an unworthy Communion?

In light of this coming flood of injuries and sorrows to Our Lord in the Eucharist, the following  lament by Jesus to pray and repair for the many abuses and sacrileges of the Sacrament is extremely appropriate for our times, although this sublime Communion meditation was transcribed by the Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta in 1923. 

"After I received Communion, my sweet Jesus made Himself seen, and as soon as I saw Him, I threw myself at His feet, to kiss them and to cling to Him with all of myself. And Jesus, extending His hand to me, told me: “My daughter, come into my arms, and deep into my Heart. I have covered Myself with the Eucharistic veils so as not to strike fear. I have descended into the deepest abyss of humiliations in this Sacrament in order to raise the creature up to Me, identifying her with Me so much as to form one single thing with Me, and, by letting my Sacramental Blood flow inside her veins, constitute Myself life of her heartbeat, of her thought, and of her whole being. My Love devoured Me and wanted to devour the creature in my flames, to make her be reborn as another Me. This is why I wanted to hide Myself under these Eucharistic veils and, so hidden, enter into her to form this transformation of the creature into Myself. But in order for this transformation to take place, the dispositions were needed on the part of creatures; and my Love, giving in to excess, as It instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist, so It issued from within my Divinity more graces, gifts, favors and light for the good of man, to render him worthy to receive Me. I could say that It put out so much good as to surpass the gifts of Creation. First I wanted to give him the graces in order for him to receive Me, and then Myself, to give him the true fruit of my Sacramental Life.

"However, in order to anticipate souls with these gifts, it takes a little emptying of themselves, hate of sin, desire to receive Me. These gifts do not descend into rot, into mud. So, without my gifts they do not have the true dispositions to receive Me, and in descending into them, I do not find the void in order to communicate my Life; I am as though dead for them, and they are dead for Me; I burn, and they do not feel my flames; I am light, and they remain more blinded. Alas! how many sorrows in my Sacramental Life. Many, for lack of dispositions, feeling nothing good in receiving Me, reach the point of nauseating Me; and if they continue to receive Me, it is to form my continuous Calvary and their eternal condemnation. If it is not love that pushes them to receive Me, it is one more affront that they give Me - one more sin that they add upon their souls. Therefore, pray and repair for the many abuses and sacrileges that are committed in receiving Me in the Sacrament.”  

[March 27, 1923, Volume 15.] 

May is Mary's month, and in order to foster the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart, I strongly recommend the daily readings for May from Piccarreta's The Virgin Mary in the Kingdom of the Divine Will, which is available online Here.

P.s. Stay tuned for my tenth book, How to Pray the Secret Rosary. 

Who is a True or False Pope?

True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors, by John Salza and Robert Siscoe, is a book regarded by many as the Summa and final word against Sedevacantism.

I have heard a lot about this book and here is why I am not going to read it.

Although I still have not definitively crossed that Rubicon, I maintain that there is a strong incentive to believe that Francis may have lost the Faith, and if so he would not be a pope.

How can the authors claim to refute the possibility of Sedevacantism when it is clear to me that I can make a personal decision that I no longer believe that someone professes the Catholic Faith? Why should I read 700 page book designed to show that there is no point in using my own mind to come to such a conclusion, or that my personal beliefs don't matter.

   

 
God has endowed us with memory, intellect and will.  Don't I have a right to form my own personal beliefs using these means, otherwise why has He endowed us with these faculties?

I can make use of our God-given faculties of thought, reason and logic. [Intellect.]

I can make use of a study of what constitutes the Catholic Faith. [Memory.]

I can make use of my free will, in union with the Will of God. [Will.]

I can make us of prayer, especially Mary's Rosary.

I can make use of a properly formed Catholic conscience.

I can make use of my Sensus Catholicus.

I can make use of basic common sense: if it walks like a duck....

If the use of the above means causes me to no longer believe that Francis professes the Roman Catholic Faith, then I must conclude that he cannot be a true pope, since Our Lord promised Peter that his Faith would not fail him.  It's really that simple.

But no -  some will say that we must have a visible Church with jurisdiction.  But I ask, is the Church since the Vatican II Council undergoing the Passion of Christ as many are now saying?  Is not Holy Saturday a part of that event?  On that day, there was no longer a visible Christ, there was no jurisdiction, all we had for certain was the perfect Faith of His Mother, Mary.  

Is it not possible that the election of Pope John XXIII was invalid (theories abound), thus leading to a line of false popes?  Is it not possible that Modernists hijacked the Council documents such that a counterfeit Church was created?   The true Church was designed and created by Jesus Christ, and the nature of the Church is to "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature" (Mk. 16:15).  But Karol Wojtyla admitted in Sign of Contradiction, "... the Church succeeded, during the Second Vatican Council, in re-defining her own nature."  What a telling confession! Vatican II redefined what Christ established, creating a Church which replaces proselytism with dialog, conversion with shared prayer, and exempts today's Jews from having to except Jesus as savior.

Ironically the book True or False Pope? which is designed to refute Sedevacantism, might end up convincing Catholics to remain loyal to a false Sedevacantist Church and pope.

(In addition to what is mentioned in the above post, on their website for the book the authors resort to ad hominem personal attacks and mockery towards those who disagree with them, which indicates that the authors are not completely objective scholars.)


Frank Rega

www.frankrega.com

--

The Church Deemed the Emancipation Proclamation Hypocritical

We learn this from Adam S. Miller's The North, the South, and Slavery, the second of his series four books on the civil war, written from a traditional Catholic perspective.  One might ask, how could there be anything hypocritical about setting slaves free?  The truth, however, about that famous Proclamation, is a different matter, one that those of us indoctrinated in the politically correct view of the Civil War will find difficult to accept. The fact is that, legally, not one single slave was set free by that document.

"L'Osservatore Romano [the Vatican's newspaper] condemned it as a desperate and hypocritical measure which freed no slaves but encouraged rebellion in the South.  The Jesuit Journal, La Civilta Cattolica, portrayed the war as a hopeless and unjust war to punish the South." (p. 95.)  Lincoln's Proclamation only applied to those Southern states or parts thereof that were not already controlled by Federal troops.  It did not apply to slaves in Northern or border states, nor to slaves in the areas of the South that were under Union control. It did not free any slaves in those domains; that is to say, it freed no slaves in areas under the jurisdiction of the United States.  Rather, it applied only to Confederate states or sections which were still in rebellion, and over which the North had no legal jurisdiction. Hard to believe?  Read the Proclamation yourself.

Miller writes that the implications of this should shock those who subscribe to the myth that Lincoln was a great humanitarian.  The Proclamation of 1863 was actually a war tactic, whose purpose was to encourage slaves to flee from their plantations, disrupt farm production, and join the war against the South. Lincoln wrote later that year that he hoped "the Negroes should cease helping the enemy, [and] to that extent weaken the enemy in his resistance." (p. 92.)  Shortly after it was issued, the New York World editorialized that the Proclamation "was not merely futile, but ridiculous."  The paper exposed the fact that "The President has purposely made the proclamation inoperative in all places where we have gained a military footing which makes the slaves accessible.  He has proclaimed emancipation only where has notoriously no power to execute it." (p. 94.)

Was Lincoln actually a racist in the worst sense of the term?  In an 1862 speech to Northern black leaders, he told them that blacks "are far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race."  Thus, they "didn't belong in this land of whites." (p. 97.)  During the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, he said that "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes. . . I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." (p. 96.)

What has been presented so far is only a glimmering of the truth behind the "official" view of the Civil War and the issue of slavery in the South.  Miller's book exposes a plethora of the "Northern myths," revealing, for example, that the first slaves brought to the future United States were not Africans, but were Irish, English, and Scottish Catholics, and certain legitimate criminals, all white.  In later years, there were thousands of non-whites, including freed blacks and Indians, who owned slaves.  "Slavery in America was not strictly based on racial prejudice, since there were black masters of black slaves, and white masters of white slaves." (p. 40).  The hypocrisy of the North: by 1760 the North had at least 41,000 African slaves, and 3000 white, mostly Irish Catholic, slaves.  When the Revolutionary War broke out, New York was the second largest urban center for slavery. In the first U.S. census of 1790, there were 12,422 registered slaves in New Jersey (p. 45).

Written from a Catholic viewpoint, this work also contains sections on Church teaching on slavery, Catholic slaves and slaveholders, and even lists the many canonized slaves and even slave masters.

This short review cannot possibly enumerate the facts presented in this powerful, compact, myth-busting book.  It is not written in a sensationalist manner, nor does Miller intend to justify the immorality of slavery in any way. If you can handle a serious paradigm shift in your view of the Civil War, and are open to shedding any pre-conceived, politically-correct understanding of that conflict, I highly recommend reading this book.

The North, the South, and Slavery is the second of a projected four-part series on the Civil War by Adam S. Miller. The updated editions of the author's books are best obtained from his website http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/tower7

Trump and the classic Catholic counter-revolutionary

The late Catholic philosopher Dr. Thomas Molnar, in his book The Counter-Revolution, explores the counter-revolution undertaken in defense of the Catholic-based social order, which revolutionaries have been trying to uproot even before the France of 1789. Below is an excerpt from this 1969 book which sheds light on the current political situation in America, where a progressive/globalist/socialist movement stands markedly opposed to basic nationalistic sentiments. Keep in mind as you read it the recent speech by the latest Clintonista, Hillary, in which she called for more “love and kindness.”  Of course Mr. Trump is not a Catholic, nor is he consciously calling for the reign of Christ the King over society.  But his overall approach and focus on U. S. sovereignty, protecting the jobs of American citizens,  and his nationalism (patrie) is consistent with the broad definition of a counter-revolutionary. 

"In revolutionary doctrine the nation, the patrie, is at best an intermediate phase between the tribe and the world community, en route toward the latter.  Revolutionaries never cease urging the need to go beyond a "narrow nationalism" as contrary to the goal of history.  Long before 1789 Freemasonry was at work to dissolve nations where it detected a certain imbalance, and therefore hope for its own grand design.  In 1786 the Freemason Weishaupt denounced national feeling as the seed of local, hence selfish, loyalties.  Of patriots he said: 'Take away the love of the patrie, and people will again know and love each other like human beings.'

"In counter-revolutionary view, on the other hand, the nation not only is a repository of tradition, hence of shared memories, it is also endowed with outstanding architectonic qualities.  Counter-revolutionaries do not say that the nation is the last form that human communities may take . . . the future may hold in store other, as yet unknown forms of community.  But they hold that the nation is admirably adapted to the modern situation since it is at the point of equilibrium of the various lines of force active today, and able to resist internal and external pressures. 

"It is both vast and resistant, says Maurras; it is the most natural form as the basis of a stable world organization, adds his disciple Salazar.  The Spanish Falangist leader, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, extracted its essence when he said: 'The patrie is a total unity in which all individuals and classes are integrated. . . It is a transcendent synthesis, indivisible, with its own goals to fulfill . . . A permanent, irevocable unity.'

"The nation is not only the most suitable form of integrating a vast and diversified community, it is also the most efficient energizing unit under modern circumstances.  It protects its citizens' work, and at the same time sets a goal that transcends their activity, providing a higher justification." 

From Thomas Molnar's The Counter-Revolution, New York, Funk & Wagnalls, 1969, pp. 95-96.

The Twenty Four Hours of the Passion

Special Lenten meditations – the Twenty Four Hours of the Passion, beginning with the hour that Jesus took leave of His Mother Mary, until His burial. These are based on a book which has had six Imprimaturs from various bishops and countries.

They were composed by Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta, under the spiritual direction of St. Hannibal Di Francia.

Below are some web sites that have these "Hours" or you can order a book from the Internet, titled under Hours of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. 

http://catholicdivinewill.blogspot.com/2008/06/twenty-four-hours-of-passion.html

http://bookofheaven.com/daily-schedule/24-hours-of-the-passion-of-our-lord-jesus-christ/

http://www.passioiesus.org/en/horasdelapasion/distribucion.htm     click on the hour

http://www.quies.org/hours_of_passion.pdf has additional info    as well as the promises/benefits

http://luisapiccarreta.me/the-twenty-four-hours-of-the-passion     same as above

The "Catholic South" and the Right to Secede

A review of Catholic author Adam S. Miller's The North & the South and Secession, the first of his four-book series on the Civil War from a traditional Catholic historical perspective.

Surprisingly, a large part of the cultural difference between North and South came from the fact that the Catholic influence on society and culture had a greater impact on the South.  Although the North had more Catholics, those in the South tended to be in greater positions of influence.   Southern society was structured in a way that reflected the old European Catholic hierarchical and patriarchal world view. "Southerners in general had a deep respect for their European heritage and the social/cultural traditions which came from there, whether or not they knew that this heritage, culturally speaking, had been born and developed as a result of the Catholic Church."  (p. 9.)

Southern Catholics completely supported the Southern cause, as did every one of their Catholic bishops.  Correspondence between Pope Pius IX and Jefferson Davis shows that the Pope acknowledged Davis as President of the Confederate States of America, and "implies that he favored the South during the Civil War and recognized values in the South that were not common in the progressive-industrialized world, like the American North." (p.11.)

Miller's smallish but logically tight book dispels the myths that the war was fought over slavery and that Lincoln was justified in invading the South. This book clearly proves that the South had every legal right to secede from the Union, since secession was not prohibited in the Constitution. Further, slavery was also legal according to that same Constitution. It was economic oppression of the South, due to unjust and excessive tariffs imposed by the Northern states via the Federal government, that ultimately forced the South to secede. The South carried the vast majority of the taxation burden, and thus provided most of the Federal revenue.

It is a fact that when the conflict began the Union had more slave states than the Confederacy! The commanding General for the North, U.S. Grant, made use of slaves, and said that if the war had been fought to free the slaves, he would have turned in his sword (p. 73). Lincoln went to war "to apply the erroneous belief that the federal government was sovereign over the states" (p. 75). The true insurrectionists were the Northerners who rebelled against the founding concept that the federal government was simply an agent for the free sovereign states.

Miller provides page after page of proof that the initial concept of a Federal government under the Constitution was derived from the consent of the founding states, and it was not to be their ruler as a powerful central government.  The creator was the assemblage of sovereign states, and their creature was the Federal government.  But the North, led by Lincoln, reversed this paradigm so that the creature would dominate the creator, and do so by force of arms.

Consider this analogy as to what occurred during the Civil War, although Miller does not mention it:  suppose Germany were to pull out of the European Union, and the other member states said it was not allowed, and they invaded that country militarily to keep her in that Union against her will.

This book is quite a revelation, and I plan read to the subsequent three books in Miller's series on the Civil War.  The updated editions are best obtained from his website http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/tower7

An Example of St. Padre Pio's Mercy

I recently began to re-read parts of a book on St. Padre Pio I had written about a dozen years ago.  As time goes by, even authors have to refresh their memories about the content of their own work.  I had been contacted by an organization interested in the saint's interaction with the American military during World War II.  In fact, not far from Padre Pio's friary in the town of San Giovanni Rotondo, the Army Air force had established a ring of air fields girding the town of Foggia.

Foggia was on an enormous plain, situated just below the Gargano mountain, upon which sat San Giovanni Rotondo.   Often the soldiers and airmen would explore nearby towns, and exchange candy and cigarettes for fresh eggs and vegetables from the locals.  During these interchanges, the troops began hearing stories about some mysterious holy man on the mountain. 

Before long, many soldiers, with some Protestants joining the Catholics, were making the trek up the Gargano to attend Padre Pio's early morning Mass.  One of these men was Ray Ewen, who was attached to a bomb group of B-24s based near Foggia.  From 1943 to 1945 Ray made so many trips up the mountain that he became friends not only with Padre Pio but also with the saint's father Grazio, who was residing near the friary.  Ray would often sit on the little stone wall surrounding the elm tree in front of the friary, listening to Grazio Forgione talk about his famous son.

Quoting directly from the book, Padre Pio and America, pp. 120-121, is the following occurrence that Ray Ewen spoke to me about:

     "On one of his visits to San Giovanni, Ray was inside the church while Confessions were taking place, and he heard Padre Pio order someone out of the confessional.  After hearing Padre Pio say this, some of those waiting their turn in line lost their nerve, got out of the line, and left.  They had witnessed one of the distinctive marks of Padre Pio's ministry of bringing souls to God.  He would refuse to hear a Confession on those occasions when he was aware that the penitent was insincere, or required a jolt to make him realize that he needed to examine his conscience.  It is said that invariably such people would undergo an inner conversion, and eventually return to make a sincere Confession either to Padre Pio or to another priest."

Padre Pio and America is available at Amazon.com or from the publisher TAN Books.