The Holy Oil and Wine

This is a poem I composed when I was able to see in perspective the summer of 1967 (THE Summer of '67), which I spent as a true drop-out in the East Village.   As a former Yale graduate school student in Psychology, that summer I got to know, meet, and/or rub shoulders with Harvard drop-out Timothy Leary, artist Peter Max, Alan Ginsberg, Ed Sanders and Tuli of the Fugs, Abbie Hoffman, Nico of the Velvet Underground, Louis Abalofia - artist and "King of the Hippies," Paul Krassner, who was editor of The Realist, Lenny Horowitz - N.Y. Times art critic, Diahnne Abbot (before she married De Niro), poetess Anne Waldman, and many of the early and original spiritually-oriented hippies and anonymous drop-outs and Village denizens,  some of whom I met at the old Paradox Restaurant on E. 7th street - a popular macrobiotic eatery and gathering place.

That summer the "flower child" movement had a distinctive Franciscan flavor, until it succumbed to the forces of hedonism and sunk into the abyss of Woodstock two years later. Ironically, it was a book called The Little Flowers of St. Francis that restored my Catholic faith, as the decade of the 70's began.

This poem, written shortly before I rediscovered the True Faith, was inspired by my love for P. M.

 The front entrance of the Paradox Restaurant on E. 7th St. NYC

I.

Deep deep deep within

Where music glides from clouds around

Where the beat is deep

Down down

Within the mind

Into into

Riding upwards into the mind

Where to descend is to rise

Where the way downward, in, in

Seems like the way upward and out

Where getting high is to sink into your mind.

And coming down

Is really coming up - out of your mind

Into the world around you

Outside of you.

Where to feel high is to go down into your  mind

And come down is to rise up out of the mind.

So high is low

And low is high

And down is up,

Up is down

In is out, and out is in.

This way and that way

That way and this.

So here, so there, so everywhere

See, see, how it is.

II.

Rat tat tat

Rat -a- tat tat

One two

One two

Begin, let us begin.

Now, we see all about us

Empty lands

And tingling glasses

And echoes from the sun

And the beauty of a garbage dump

The excitement of an empty, brick strewn lot

The joy of an ambulance siren

The way the living gather around the dead

The holy oil and wine.

Rat tat tat

Rat -a- tat tat

Loneliness, emptiness - how joyful that was

If I only knew then

That when I was suffering,

I was in love.

Which is better?

To love, and not possess -

Or possess, and no longer love?

Rat tat tat

Rat -a- tat tat.

III.

Twist and twirl around

The ocean shall flow

Whether or not it is aware of itself,

To grow and to possess

Is our nature.

To grasp and draw within

To desire anew

When all hope of desire is gone.

To hate suffering

Then to wish for it again

And to give up hope

Of ever being allowed to suffer again

Then to suffer again.

This way and that way,

That way and this.

High tide and low tide

Shall come and go

Whether the sea

Is aware of itself or no.

And we shall grow

Whether we want to or no.

And she shall come

And she shall go

And she shall come again.

Sometimes here, sometimes there.

For how can the ocean

Stop its own flowing?

Now I know

That when I was suffering

I was in love.

IV.

Yet I shall suffer again

And say: This is not love.

And I shall seek an end

to suffering once more

by possessing the one I love and desire.

And I shall suffer no more

Neither shall I desire and love,

For that which I loved

Shall become part of me

And I shall have grown.

Again.

Rat -a- tat

Rat tat tat

Rat -a- tat tat.

This way and that way,

That way and this,

Joy and growth and happiness.

V.

To grow takes courage

The courage to commit oneself

Confidence and belief in oneself

To fight

For what belongs to us

When others would try to take it away.

To grow, needs

The courage to die for that which you love

And yet one loves many things -

Which one to die for?

Which one to give one's soul for?

Why her of course.

And they will tell you

That you do not love her.

The decision is all your own.

Your own and only your own

No one else's

But only your own.

Look inside, look outside

There is the tree

That is your own.

Know it is yours

And you have grown,

But oh the emptiness

And loneliness that follows.

And how disappointed we all shall bee

When we come to know that

I am you -

And you are me.

What desires are left to be?

VI.

Does the universe

Go on and on?

Or does it stop and start again?

Does God keep growing and growing?

Poor fellow -

How hard it must be

To be where no one else has been before.

So many things we don't know

Such as

How far do we have to go?

Is there any end?

Do we decide to start all over again?

Ting -a- ling. Ding, ding

God falls in love with non-god

and non-god falls in love with God

And the one becomes the other

And the other becomes the one

So on and so on

Forever and ever.

Oh oh forever and ever

Ever and ever, ever and ever

On and in and up and out

High is low and low is high

God loves death and death loves God

Rat -a- tat

Rat -a- tat

Rat -a- tat -a- tat.

Copyright 1969 Frank M. Rega

View all of my books. 

How to Pray the "Secret Rosary"

My tenth book is now available, and it is titled How to Pray the Secret Rosary.  Essentially it teaches you how to pray the Rosary in situations where it is not convenient to hold the beads, and without the need to count out the ten Hail Marys for each Rosary Mystery.

The book also contains chapters on the history of the Rosary, Fatima and the Rosary, St. Padre Pio and the Rosary.  It shows the connection between the four mini-gospels and seven pillars of wisdom with the praying of the Rosary.  And, for those new to the Rosary, the book describes the traditional Rosary prayers and mysteries.  Complete with bibliography.

~~~

Praying the Rosary without the beads and without having to count the Hail Marys is not only possible, but some day might be necessary if we are forced to pray the Rosary in secret. 

See my books on Mary, Padre Pio and others Here.

                                                        

 

Russians, Muslims, and Stolen Europe

After reading an article about the plight of Europe, "Saker rant about a stolen Europe", I sent the link to my friend Bob, who is a retired high-ranking U.S. government official (stationed in Europe for many years), and a Professor Emeritus of International Affairs at a major university. We exchanged two emails about this article, and with his permission most of that exchange is presented below:

Frank,

   Thanks for sending along the “rant.” I’m not sure where to begin on my comments. I guess first of all I would say that certainly many of his observations are correct. For example, today’s Europe is not the one of yesteryear. On the other hand, today’s US isn’t either. The south increasingly looks like the north and vice versa. Blacks can now ride anywhere in the bus they would like and drink from the same water fountains. Much of the differences that once characterized the north and south are gone. Is that all bad? I think not.

   On the other hand, the author is correct. There have always been at least two Europes – the one of the north and the one of the south. On my first visit to Europe in 1960, among the things that struck me was how much the northern Europeans felt superior to those in the south, yet to say as the author does that the Germans and the the Italians have “nothing” in common is a bit of a stretch. Northern Italians are in many ways very much like many Germans. The Germans have the 4th largest economy in the world. Italy has the 8th (most of that economy is from production in the north). The northern Italians are very productive, industrious, and creative. I might add that the northern Germans see themselves as superior to the Bavarians. As a good north German friend of mind once remarked to me, they don’t even speak the same language, which if you’ve lived in south Germany you will recognize as true when the Bavarian dialect is spoken.

   Now on the subject of immigrants changing European society. Well this is of course true. Just as successive waves of immigrants changed the colonial society of America. Think about the “Micks, Dagos, Wops, Krauts, Jerrys, Huns, Wetbacks, Negroes, etc." They definitely changed America. I would say it enriched our society and continues to do so. So much is in one’s perspective and sometimes it is an issue of timing. Surely Europe is being overwhelmed today with a huge influx of immigrants. They are not easily digested in a few years, perhaps not in decades. But the Germans, Irish, Italians who came to the this country and huddled together in unmixed communities, now have largely integrated into our society. For me this has been a positive.

I should, however, note that the writer is Swiss, not American. In fact Europeans take ethnicity very seriously. Often, though not always, If a person is from France, even though living in and a citizen of Italy, he or she will often consider themselves French, not Italian. Ask a Mexican who is a citizen of the US and he will tell you he is an American. This clinging to ethnicity for identity is perhaps changing a bit with the younger generations, But it will take decades not years.

   Now for Muslims. There has been a very strong anti-Muslim feeling that predominates in Europe. It is not new. It predates current immigration problems. Perhaps it goes back to the Crusades. However, one of my first encounters with this was in the mid-1980s when Turkey was being considered for membership in the EU. Sitting with an ambassador, friend and colleague of mine at a banquet marking the 40th anniversary of the formation of Allied (NATO) Forces Southern Command, the conversation turned to Turkey’s possible inclusion in the EU. After a long list of why, for economic reasons, Turkey should not be admitted to the EU, his bottom line was captured when he said to me “Bob, they just aren’t like us. We are a Christian people, they are Moslems.”

   Well, There is perhaps not enough time for me to deal with all of the issues our “ranter” raises. Let me touch on a few.

"Just remember that Daesh is CIA-controlled.” Rubbish

"The EU is essentially a US project via the Bilderbergers and the Zionist lobby in Europe.” Me thinks he forgets the Robert Schumans, the Paul Reuters, the Jean Monnets, etc.

I find his rants against the so-called AngloZionists outrageous and unsupported by fact. On the other hand, I do agree that Russians, while admiring the industriousness of northern Europe, find themselves more comfortable with the the southerners. Having traveled widely all over Russia, we find many of the Russians to be more like southern than northern European.

"Muslims are here to stay. You can hate it or love it, but that is a fact. Fact 2: Islam, real Islam as opposed to Wahabi Islam, is categorically opposed to AngloZionism.” Probably much on target, though I personally would separate the “Anglo” from the “Zionism."

"Call me crazy, but I am coming the conclusion that Turkey, at least in its present form, is inherently a dangerous and non-reformable entity which must be beat back to a size and quality commensurate with the notion of “normal country”. Erdogan is potentially a problem. But the Turks aren’t stupid. They have already shown their concern over Erdogan’s grab for more power.

   After receiving this email, I sent the following note to my friend:

Bob,

   Thanks for your observations - I was surprised to receive such a thorough analysis! Agreed about how good immigration has been especially for the USA. Only problem is that a certain element of the Muslim community does not want to integrate in our society, but actually wants to destroy. That is why we do need some kind of filtering, profiling or whatever you want to call it, over the immigrants coming in.

   What interested me greatly was your comment that Russians are more comfortable with southern Europeans. I wonder if this is because the southerners are more religious. From what I have read, the Russians have a deep religious spirit (except for those who became communist). I think they even refer to Russia as "Holy Mother Russia."

   Bob then replied with these additional observations:

Frank,

   On the Russians, most of those I’ve met that are not senior officials in the government (who often feel they have to be serious since they represent their government), seem to have a fun loving, easy, Latin spirit to them. They love to sing songs and get together. Even when they get pretty smashed on vodka, they can be a lot of fun. This perhaps stands in contrast to some, perhaps many, northern Europeans, particularly north Germans, who to me seem to be much more serious.

My experiences don’t link this fun loving attitude on the part of Russians to religion. Though as you suggest, Russians, indeed almost anyone on earth may be more religious than most northern Europeans, except the Poles and a few others. When we lived in England I think the figure was 15% of the English were church goers. And that might have been a number on the high side. On the other hand, don’t jump too quickly to the conclusion that southern Europeans are serious about their religion. When we lived in Italy, many Italians went to church. However, that might have meant ducking in for a few minutes, maybe to hear the Gospel, maybe not. Now if you want to live where people seemingly are serious about religion, come to the Bible Belt. On the other hand, I often feel that many here in the South don’t really have a clue about what Christianity is really about.

   As for the Muslims, surely you are correct in asserting that some Muslims are here to destroy our society. I don’t find that particularly surprising. Just like the non-Muslims who have sought to destroy our society and what it represents (think Black Panthers, the Oklahoma bombing of Federal building, the bombing of Synagogues, etc.), these people need to be sorted out, rooted out if already entrenched, and removed. However, one must be careful in the process to not stigmatize and in turn alienate the entire community of Muslims, the great majority of whom are decent, law abiding, and just plan good American citizens. To do so would be very un-American.

   I have traveled widely in Muslim countries – e.g. Egypt, Libya, Morocco , Turkey, Azerbaijan, all of central Asia. I have Muslim friends from Pakistan and elsewhere around the globe. I have found Muslims to be a very friendly, open, and hospitable people.

Best Regards,

Bob

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.