From "Father" Stan Fortuna, the "rappin'" and gyrating guitar and keyboard playing member of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, to three grossly immodestly "dressed" women singing an endless array of tunes, to a "Gospel choir" from Cathedral High School in the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, to the various procession of other "performers" who warmed-up the crowd on the grounds of Saint Joseph Seminary in the Dunwoodie section of the City of Yonkers, New York, the "youth rally" staged prior to the arrival of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was yet another manifestation of the wide gulf, if not an actual abyss, that separates the counterfeit church of conciliarism from the patrimony of the Catholic Church.
The "youth rally" at Saint Joseph's Seminary was described very fully in the New York Daily News:
About 25,000 young worshippers rallied for the Pope outside of a Yonkers seminary Saturday in a boisterous event that resembled a summer concert.
Festival-goers listened to American Idol Kelly Clarkson and danced to Christian rock bands as they awaited the arrival of the Popemobile at St. Joseph's Seminary.
"This doesn't come around very often. It's nice to come together as a group of people," said Kristin Diaz, 18, of Yonkers. "And Kelly Clarkson is here!"
The scene was far more subdued inside the seminary, where the Pope blessed 50 youngsters with disabilities and listened to a performance by the Archdiocesan Deaf Choir.
He then took the stage at the rally, accepting gifts of bread representing the five continents, addressing the large crowd of young devotees and giving them all a blessing.
"It's a once-in-a-lifetime thing," said Hannah Caron, 15, who left her home in Hoosick Falls, N.Y., at 4:30 a.m. to make it to the rally.
Crowds began forming at noon outside of the seminary with each rally attendee required to go through a metal detector and have their bags searched. Many kids had won tickets through lotteries at their schools.
Food and drinks were free, but lines were long, and a few spectators were taken out on stretchers for heat exhaustion.
Despite the party atmosphere, many teen-agers took the Pope's appearance very seriously and wanted to buy a keychain, teddy bear, T-shirt or other papal merchandis to commemorate the event.
"I bought a lapel pin for my aunt, and I got my grandparents a rosary. I also got myself a lapel pin," said Alicia Holland, 16, of the Bronx. "It's a pretty big event. I want to remember it."
Said Bobby Kalbfell, 14, of Paterson, N.Y., "I'm looking for a Pope bobblehead."
While some teens might have been drawn to the rally by American Idol Kelly Clarkson - who belted out her hits "Walk Away" and "Since U Been Gone" - a few kids acknowledged they hadn't decided to go on their own.
"My parents forced me to come here," said Mac Mendez, 14, of Paterson, N.Y.
Still, clergy at the rally were heartened by the large turnout.
"To see this many young people here is amazing," said Dave Gross, 32, who attends Mundelein Seminary in Grand Rapids, MI. "It affirms my vocation and gives me a sense of hope for the future."
Christian "rock" bands? Was everyone "rockin'" for tradition at Dunwoodie yesterday? Or were they simply "rockin'" as this diabolical noise that passes for "music" has become so much a part of our barbarous culture that those who consider themselves to be "bishops" and "priests" in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism believe that it is a way to "reach" Catholic youth, to "connect" with their "experiences." Many of these "bishops" and "priests" have no problem whatsoever with this "music," even countenancing it being played in various conciliar events and in conciliar high schools and colleges. Even sadder is the fact that many fully traditional priests who make no concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds think nothing about the harmful influences of "rock" noise at sports arenas before scheduling a parish outing for altar boys and/or parishioners.
Here is an excellent analysis of the origins of "rock" noise as found in Michael Matt's Gods of Wasteland (a very important resource but one that should not be read by children given its reproduction of graphic lyrics that should be read only by a parent who has had the misfortune of not seeking to shield his children from the harm of this diabolical noise and who now finds himself in the unenviable position of extricating his children from their addiction to it):
The reader will no doubt ask: "How do you define rock n' roll?" For the purpose of this book, we will be using the term "rock n' roll." Rock n' roll, as we reference it throughout, is intended to be inclusive of most of the styles of today's pop music--r&b, slow, classic, dance, hard, funk, gothic and heavy metal, indie, new wave, progressive, punk, rockabilly, surf rock, grunge, alternative country, hip-hop and Christian, etc. It is important to note that since the early 1990s, no particular brand of rock n' roll is "in," so much as every rock genre is. For the MTV generation, "anything goes!" The "retro" rage includes '60s, '70s and '80s rock n 'roll. Of course, I realize that a huge distinction is made by, say, the hip-hop artists between their particular brand of pop music and classic rock n' roll. However, for the purpose of this exercise, we will not be following the subtle little nuances between the various modes within pop/rock music--the fads come and go, but the music is essentially the same. Since it's all based on rock n' roll, it is not inaccurate to simply discuss rock n' roll and try, as much as possible, to ignore the pseudo-distinctions which are drawn most often by the rock music industry anyway, to corner ethnic and age markets who fancy that "their music" makes them different. But, for the most part, their music is not different; it's just another one of rock's many faces. Today's rock n' roll has many varieties and each and every one of them, to varying degrees, is considered modern/pop music.
In other words, where disco once ruled the pop music scene in the late '70s, and heavy metal in the '80s and grunge and hip-hop in the early '90s, today there is no one style of rock n' roll that is passe. Within modern rock--i.e., r&b, metal, alternative, and dance--anything and everything is popular, even country, funk, disco (in some markets) and neo-hippie music.
The arguments that will be made in this study will generally apply to all of the different variations of modern pop, rock-based music. While I will be the first to admit that some forms of today's rock n' roll are worse than others (e.g., "easy listening" rock is not as morally twisted as gothic and metal), I will also argue that there is no such thing as an innocent genre within rock n' roll. Why? A) Because rock n' roll is a fundamentally flawed musical expression, and B) because rock n' roll has always been synonymous with social, moral and political rebellion, and to listen to it and take pleasure in it is to ally oneself with a rapidly degenerating pop culture.
Whereas healthy good and wholesome music is necessarily composed according to the correct order of melody, supported by balancer harmony and founded upon regular rhythms, rock n' roll is just the opposite, as it relies heavily on beat (rhythm), with an inordinate emphasis on harmony to the virtual obfuscation of melody, in order to create its signature sound. Rap music, in a sense, might be described as the result of rock n' roll's natural de-evolution, in that it completes what early rock n' roll started by removing melody altogether, isolating and amplifying pounding beat, and using lyrical obscenity for lyrics.
We will touch on this again shortly, but for the moment, the reader should under that this book is not attempting to expose this or that band or style of rock n' roll. For years as an amateur musician an avid rock fan, I tried to find the "good stuff." Finally, I woke up one day and realized that is just doesn't exist. Rock n' roll is rock n' roll . . . and trying to categorize its moral worthy is like trying to draw a line of moral distinction between soft core and triple X pornography' you can do it, I suppose, but what's the point? It's all tainted! This is why I believe that "Christian rock" is an oxymoron and an exercise in absolute futility, as well shall se in subsequent chapters.
By way of recapping, let us repeat then that the term "rock n' roll will be applied to the fundamental musical expressions of modern pop music, which encompasses all of the various forms of pop/rock/dance/funk/rap/music . . . all recognizable by the predominant and central beat and all regularly showcased in major rock forums today, e.g., MTV, VH-1, BET, Billboard magazine, Spin magazine, Country Music Television (CMT), Vibe, Rolling Stone magazine, rock radio stations, and the college-scene music magazines.
Technically, rock n' roll can be defined as (but not limited to) a style of music which places primary emphasis on often-syncopated beat, with a sound that is most often composed of (but not restricted to) various applications of bass, acoustic and electric guitars, drums and electronic synthesizers, which typically support high-range vocals and highly repetitive refrains. All of rock is "blues-based," but its jazz influence cannot be minimized, nor can its country, boogie-woogie, folk and western music influences The definition of classic rock n' roll in the purest sense might go along these lines: It was the dominant American pop music, which evolved from 1954 to 1965. At that time it was almost exclusively teenage dance music, and it was closely related to the country (or hillbilly) and blues/gospel genre called "rockabilly."
Legends such as Elvis Presley, Scotty Moore, and bill Black were products of the pioneering entertainment producer, Sam Phillips and his famous record company called Sun records, but they were, technically speaking, "rockabilly" musicians. Sun was also responsible for the rise of Carl Perkins, Jerry Lee Lewis, Johnny Cash, Billy Riley, Roy Orbison and Conway Twitty--names which immediately call to mind the country music scene . . . thus illustrating how country music and rock n' roll have always been inseparable. Rock and country are also products of the same industry--and this industry is made up of thousands of record "labels" or companies who record, produce and market (via radio, television, concerts, CDS and tapes) all of rock's various genres to the myriad of cultural, class and racial segments within society. Today, there are countless ways to prove that there's little discernible difference between Nashville and MTV. Currently Shania Twain is one of country music's biggest stars. Who would have guessed that her career was actually kicked off in 1997 by the same management team that is at least partially responsible for the rise of such rock icons as Bruce Springsteen and Natalie Merchant? But it's true: Twain is a product of the Jon Landau management team, which, of course, makes her appearance on the cover of the September 3, 1998 issue of the premier rock n' roll magazine Rolling Stone not so strange. The highly successful country band, the Dixie Chicks, were also featured in the October issue of Rolling Stone. Country music is part of rock n' roll and it always has been. The difference with today's country, is that, rather than merely being "part" of rock n' roll, it IS rock n' roll . . . pure, unadulterated rock n' roll. The days of Tammy Wynette and Merle Haggard are gone from the modern country milieu. More on this in a subsequent chapter.
Ironically, classic country music is a much purer form of rock n' roll than, say, heavy metal or punk. Elvis would eventually become mainstream rock n' roll, but his early music was more akin to country in style than TOP 40 rock as we think of it today. Ultimately, the first true rock n' roll song to reach the top of the pop music charts in America was not performed by Elvis. It was a song called "Rock Around the Clock," and it was performed by Sun Records' Bill Haley and His Comets. This song, while becoming definitive "rock n' roll,. also marks the beginning of rock n' rolls rise as the dominant and most popular form of American music of all time.
The history of rock n' roll will be discussed in the next chapter. But for now, let it suffice to say that rock n' roll has not been somehow corrupted over times since 1954 when it was born. It was marketed to be rebellious, provocative and sensual...and it was all that and more, right from the start. (Michael Matt. Gods of Wasteland, The Remnant Press, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 2000, pp. 20-24. The book can be purchased at this link: Gods of Wasteland.)
Mr. Matt also provided a very penetrating analysis of "Christian rock," which is played World Youth Day events and was played yesterday at the "youth rally" at Saint Joseph's Seminary in Yonkers, New York. Here is such a brief excerpt of Mr. Matt's fine presentation:
The technical structure of rock n' roll is so flawed, and Christian lyrics just cannot change that. It is bad music, not merely because of its lyrics, but because of its aberrant musical composition. What happens when rock music is played for a group of people? The music does not lend itself to good and wholesome activities. The dancing it espouses, for example, is not innocent. In its proven ability to break down self-control, it cannot be regarded as innocent or even neutral.
Even if Christian rockers are sincere in their beliefs, they are unwisely trying to employ an offensive and historically anti-Christian medium to spread the word. Christian rock then, because it purports to be pure, encourages Christians to justify become part of the rock culture. So many rock listeners insist: "I don't even listen to the words," thus demonstrating that the lyrics are not why rock is so appealing . . . It's the music itself that matters.
Christian rock--though it might be well-intentioned in many instances--is just another way for the rock n' roll industry to provide something for everyone . . . even good kids who are trying to do the right thing. Can you imagine Christ listening to rock n' roll, with all of its capacity to incite mindless reactions and physical and mental abandonment? Hardly! . . . .
Rock n' roll is not Christian. To try to make it Christian is an exercise in futility. The concept of Christian rock was a cheap trick pulled off by the music industry to entice good kids into becoming part of the rock culture and, thus, to make more money for the industry. Because of Christian rock, Christians are handing over millions of dollars to the rock music industry in perfectly good conscience. Of course, there are Christian record labels, but these market their products in mainstream record stores, on mainstream television networks, in music magazines and on Billboard's charts. The Christian rock labels are part of the business.
It is also true that many Christian rockers have the best of intentions, but, nevertheless, they are woefully deceived. Christianizing rock n' roll is like carrying a Bible into a house of [ill-repute]--at best, it;s absurd, and at worst it's sacrilegious. Don't be fooled. . . . Christian rock is a farce, and, while Christians try to justify and defend it, Christ Himself is--objectively speaking--mocked by it. (Michael Matt. Gods of Wasteland, The Remnant Press, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 2000, pp. 168-169; p. 175. The book can be purchased at this link: Gods of Wasteland.)
As conciliarism represents an opening up to the "world" going back to the early days of the false "pontificate" of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, it is believed by the conciliar revolutionaries that they can "reach" young Catholics by trying to "relate" the Faith (or, more accurately, the revolutionaries' own Modernist "faith") to the "experiences" of the young so that they can "own" the Faith for themselves. This is pure Modernism, which bases the Faith on an experiential level, as Pope Saint Pius X explained in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, by way of reminding the bishops of the world that this experiential view of the Faith had been condemned by the authority of the [First] Vatican Council:
"If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and that therefore men should be drawn to the faith only by their personal internal experience or by private inspiration, let him be anathema."
In other words, religion must be "received" by individuals in order to make it true for them even though it may have an objectively true dimension to it. This is of the essence of conciliar catechesis and worship. It is of the essence of the whole Modernist philosophy at the foundation of the World Youth Day spectacles, as Mr. John Vennari and Mrs. Cornelia Ferreira noted so well in World Youth Day: From Catholicism to Counterchurch:
Youth are being especially subject to adult faith techniques at World Youth Day, an important tool for building the world community. A Holy Ghost missionary who works with youth "cautions those embarking on ministry to youth that the older formation methods have lost their ability to attract young people." Hence advocates his confrere, Fr. Michael Doyle, CSsp.
There is need to develop programs in tune with the mentality of young people if we hope to accomplish lasting results.
... goals must come from the youth, as their goals and not those important by an "expert" [i.e., not the traditional goals of the Church]. They will be reached in a non-formal inductive process [i.e., no Baltimore Catechism] which will help [them] to move from a passive, cultural reception of the faith to an "owned" Faith in which youth take responsibility for their beliefs, actions and life style, a journey that takes time. . . . This process may even involve criticism of some present structures and a desire to have more input. . . .
During WYD [2002] a youth workshop led by a young lady ... met to produce a draft for a proposed Constitution for the Catholic Church. [The group's] stated purpose was to "encourage other believers to think critically and creatively about the present state of the Church and about possible futures"... what came through in the proposals was the desire of young people for a Church in which they would be heard, and for a method of governance enabling responsible participation at all levels, geared ultimately to the creation of "a more respectful, compassionate and just world community."
How many parents could have known that their children would receive revolutionary training at World Youth Day to prepare them for a democratic Counterchurch and a new world order? World Youth Day is an exercise in adult religious education to make sure youth journey away from the Catholic Church. Youth can be conditioned in a few days if subjected to peer pressure in discussion groups (like the catechesis sessions) or to intense and emotional activity that leaves no rom for thought. (The incessant entertainment at World Youth Day also prevents serious thought.)
Father Doyle makes it clear that
the older generation has unreal expectations of the emotional and spiritual maturity of their offspring [even though some may be as old as 35, according to the Church's current Peter Pan definition of "youth"!] together with the conviction that all will continue as it was before. In fact the "Seventh Continent" as youth has been labeled, has its own language, its own music and its own value system in which peer relationships play an enormous part.
In other words, Father Doyle coolly informs us, today's Church authorities do not intend to pass on the teachings of the Catholic Faith to the young. Instead, they intend to perpetuate what clinical psychologist Gordon Neufeld and family therapist Gabor Mate call "peer-attachment disorder," "the greatest disorder of our times." According to these specialists, "Children have become attached to their peers and then been given little incentive to break that bond. . . . As a result, parents lose the power to direct their children . . . . If kinds don't care what they parents think, why do what they want?" The parallel between parents and the Church hierarchy is obvious.
The two doctors explain that the peer-oriented syndrome leads to "the death of maturation, of proper development, with an aberrant society rising in its place." Indeed, Father Doyle acknowledges that today's young Catholics are emotionally and spiritually immature. But the solution is not to keep them in this unnatural condition, which amounts to a cult, say Neufeld and Mate. Youth have to be reclaimed from the peer cult, they advise, by removing them from their peers. They must not be encouraged to gain their self-esteem from their peers. Parents "need to establish the hierarchy of the family and of the generations and 'embed" children in it."
Indulging the cult, as the institutional Church is doing, therefore, can only strengthen its anti-authoritarian attitude and guarantee its members will reject the Catholic Church, finding her "irrelevant," as drama teacher Edmond Dixon observed. The question arises: Is the perpetuation of infantilism a mistaken pastoral policy or the furtherance of Masonry's plan to gain control of Catholics in their youth? (Cornelia Ferreira and John Vennari, World Youth Day: From Catholicism to Counterchurch, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Canisius Books, 2005, pp. 60-63.
While disagreeing respectfully with my former colleagues in their belief that the Catholic Church is responsible for one little bit of World Youth Day as it does indeed emanate from a "counterchurch," the counterfeit church of conciliarism, that is the ape of the Catholic Church but is not in fact the true Church, the analysis they provide is quite important to understand the hootenanny that took place in Yonkers, New York, yesterday. That "youth rally" was replete with an immodestly dressed singer named Kelly Clarkson belting out what are called "pop punk" or "pop rock" songs before she changed from a sleeveless shirt and pants (cross-dressing, thank you very much; more on this in a week or so) into a sleeveless dress in order to sing a Latin and English version of the Ave Maria, replete with a few new lyrics, mind you, in front of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.
The planners of this event believe, as mentioned before, that they have to "reach" the young. Many of the planners are themselves "fans" of the "music" played and the "dances" performed. They are are clueless to the harm the sounds of the music and the sight of all of the immodesty and indecency does to the souls of everyone involved as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is to the grave offenses that he has given God this week on so many occasions, especially by daring to violate the First Commandment by receiving with esteem and respect and equanimity and even a bit of joy the symbols of false religions that were hated to him. Ratzinger/Benedict does not believe that God hates false religions. He believes that God "tolerates" such religions and that they can be "useful" in the promotion of a "more just" social order and in the cause of "world peace" (as he noted in his address to the representatives of "other religions" three days ago, on April 17, 2008, and as he noted at the United Masonic Nations two days ago, April 18, 2008).
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is a highly cultured man, a concert pianist. It is probably the case that he has no personal like for the sort of "music" that was played prior to his arrival on the grounds of Saint Joseph's Seminary in the Dunwoodie section of Yonkers, New York, yesterday, Saturday, April 19, 2008. He accepts it being played, however, as a means to reach the young so that they can "own" the Faith for themselves, disbelieving that said "music," which is most likely not in accord with his own taste, is objectively evil in se and that grave harm is done to the immortal souls of those who are exposed to it. The "youth rally" is but a means to an end.
The "end" in question, however, is based upon false premises, laced with the influences of the New Theology of Henri de Lubac, Maurice Blondel, Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Yves Congar, and, of course, Joseph Ratzinger himself. The afore cited Mr. John Vennari wrote an excellent thumbnail sketch of the New Theology about a decade ago now:
Maurice Blondel [1861-1949], a layman, ultimately formulated the philosophy on which the New Theology is based. In order to "win over modern men" who reject objectivism (the submission of the mind to objective reality) Blondel formulated a "subjectivist" philosophy, more in line with other modern philosophies.
How did he do this?
By stating that religion is not something that goes from the head to the heart (objective reality), but from heart to head (subjective). He said, "nothing can enter man which does not come from out of him and correspondence in some way to a need he has of expansion." Hence anything supernatural (sanctifying grace) that is in man ultimately comes from the nature of man himself.
What's wrong with that? St. Paul says "Faith comes by hearing" - that is, it comes from God presenting reality to man and then man accepting it. Also sanctifying grace (our created participation in the Divine Life of God) is not NATURAL to us. It is a free gift that is above our nature (more on this later). Neither Faith, nor the supernatural life of grace is "inside" man" already. Yet Blondel said "NOTHING can enter man which does not come from out of him." Blondel's teaching, in fact, is an extension of the Modernist notion of "Divine Immanence" condemned by Pope St. Pius X. That's why many refer to Blondel as a "neo-modernist".
Was Blondel in good faith?
The great Dominican, Father Garrigou-Lagrange believed that Blondel was not in good faith. Blondel manifested the trademarks of a modernist: 1) Blondel quoted texts of St. Thomas to make them mean the opposite of what they say; 2) he repeatedly met well-argued criticism from his adversaries with a mere categorical denial; 3)he continually claimed to be misunderstood; 4)he was always "explaining" how his thinking is really orthodox, so that to this day it is disputed what he is actually saying; 5) years later, he admitted to Fr. Henri de Lubac that he purposely disguised his true ideas in order to escape certain censure from Church authorities.
Who was Father Henri de Lubac?
Father de Lubac [1896-1991] was a Jesuit who saw in Blondel's teach ing the basis of a New Theology. Blondel has rejected Thomistic philosophy, and de Lubac would incorporate this into a new system that would reject Thomistic theology.
Did the New Theology have any sympathizers in high places?
Even though Pope Pius XII had warned against these new teachings, the Vatican Secretary of State, Msgr. Montini, gave encouragement to the New Theology. At the same time, Montini was also conducting back-door dealings with the Stalinists, again, contrary to the will of Pius XII.
What is the heart of de Lubac's New Theology?
Building on Blondel's philosophy, de Lubac taught that the supernatural is a necessary perfection of nature, without which nature is frustrated in its essential aspirations. This means that the super natural is NEEDED to complete nature which remains incomplete without it. Hence, the supernatural is not a gratuitous gift but a part of nature owed to nature; in other words, the supernatural is not supernatural but natural, and lies within the bounds of nature.
Why is this wrong?
The Catholic Church teaches that the whole supernatural order of grace is exactly that: gratuitous-a sheer gift of God. Nature may be capable or well-suited to supernature, but it in no way strictly requires grace which is of a different order, infinitely superior, and given by God, as God wills, in a manner essentially independent of the received nature. This New Theology leads to pantheism. In 1981, in his book Gethsemane, the lone voice of CARDINAL SIRI got right to the heart of de Lubac's confusion. He warned that if de Lubac's theology is taken to its logical conclusion, "it would mean either that Jesus Christ is not God, or that man is Divine - again, modernism!
Was de Lubac in good faith?
Father Garrigou-Lagrange exposed de Lubac's errors in his 1946 article "Where is the New Theology Leading Us?," pointing out that this new theology is just a rehash of modernism. De Lubac simply responded with insults and mockery, accusing Garrigou-Lagrange of having "simplistic views on the absoluteness of truth." When Pope Pius XII condemned de Lubac's theology in Humani Generis, (#'s 29,30,32,34), de Lubac simply stated that this was "highly one-sided...it doesn't concern me."
But wasn't de Lubac a great expert on the Fathers of the Church?
Writing in THE THOMIST (1950) Father David Greenstock warned that the only reason that the leaders of the New Theology overwhelm the reader with the Greek Fathers is in order to GET AROUND St. Thomas Aquinas, whom they actually disdain, no matter how much they pledge their devotion to him.
Anything else about de Lubac?
Henri de Lubac was an avid defender of the evolutionist/pantheist Teilhard de Chardin. Teilhard also propagated great confusion regarding the natural and supernatural orders, claiming that nature EVOLVES into supernature - again, modernism!
Can Teilhard be defended as orthodox?
Not at all. How is it possible to defend a man who makes pantheistic statements such as, "Catholicism deceived me with its narrow definitions of the World...THE WORLD around me BECOMES DIVINE..."
Did de Lubac have any regrets?
At the end of his life, he started to wonder if perhaps he hadn't allowed himself to stray into forbidden doctrine. He wrote, "This period is as full of error as any...maybe I should have concentrated more on essentials...for the last seven or eight years I have been paralyzed by the fear of confronting head on, in concrete fashion, the essential problems in their scolding reality. Out of wisdom or weakness? Was I right or wrong? By then however, he had already done his damage. Today, his cult lives on. (John Vennari, "A Short Catechism on the New Theology," Catholic Family News, August, 1998.)
Despite all of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's calls for the young Catholics gathered on the grounds of Saint Joseph's Seminary in Dunwoodie yesterday to pursue sanctity in imitating the lives of various Catholics, only one of whom, the great Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini ("Let us work, Cabrini, let us work, for after there is a beautiful paradise") is legitimately canonized, the approach that he takes to the realization of these calls is vintage conciliarism:
At times, however, we are tempted to close in on ourselves, to doubt the strength of Christ’s radiance, to limit the horizon of hope. Take courage! Fix your gaze on our saints. The diversity of their experience of God’s presence prompts us to discover anew the breadth and depth of Christianity. Let your imaginations soar freely along the limitless expanse of the horizons of Christian discipleship. Sometimes we are looked upon as people who speak only of prohibitions. Nothing could be further from the truth! Authentic Christian discipleship is marked by a sense of wonder. We stand before the God we know and love as a friend, the vastness of his creation, and the beauty of our Christian faith.(Address to Youth Rally, Yonkers, New York, April 19, 2008)
There was much in Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's address at the youth rally yesterday that sounded Catholic Modernists, however, do have to drop bits of poison into the well of the Faith here and there, now and again. One of those drops of poison involved disparaging those who speak "only" of prohibitions, as though knowing what not to do was somehow an impediment to contemplating the wonder and the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, thereby positing an implicit tension between the "outdated" catechesis of the "past" and conciliarism's accentuating the "positive," which is the keynote of the "message of hope" that the false "pontiff," a true disciple of Hans Urs von Balthasar, is disseminating during this current visit.
Prohibitions, however, seemed to be a good place for God to start in telling Moses what He expected of His people. They should be a pretty good starting point for us:
- I am the Lord thy God: Thou shalt not have strange Gods before me.
- Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
- Remember to keep holy the Lord’s Day.
- Honor thy father and mother.
- Thou shalt not kill.
- Thou shalt not commit adultery.
- Thou shalt not steal.
- Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor.
- Thou shalt not covet your neighbor’s wife.
- Thou shalt not covet your neighbor’s goods.
The fruit of the "positive," experiential-based catechesis of the past forty years is quite plain. The very fact that young Catholics are drawn to any form of "rock" "music" is itself one of the many proofs of this failure, as is the inability to recognize immodesty when it is right in front of oneself and to recoil from it. The fact that it is necessary to have a "youth rally" to attempt to "reach" young Catholics by using the devil's tools that are abroad in popular culture--and "inculturated" into the stagings of "youth" versions of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service--is yet another sign that conciliarism has failed Catholics of all ages as it has accustomed them to accept certain cultural trends that were once understood universally to be offensive to God and destructive of the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross.
Once again, some might protest by saying that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI warned young Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism against relativism and against being immersed uncritically in the culture. Fine. What was Kelly Clarkson doing singing "Since U Been Gone" at the youth rally? Why was any immodesty permitted on the part of the "performers" or on the part of those who attended the rally? The contradictions that exist in the mind of an Hegelian are stupefying in their scope.
Indeed, as was noted yesterday in one of the three articles that I posted, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is the last person in the world to be in a position to condemn relativism as he believes in the intrinsic evolution of dogma, which he has told us repeatedly throughout the course of his priesthood, doing so also as the false "pope" in his December 22, 2005, address to the conciliar Vatican's curia. A relativist who rejects the nature of dogmatic truth (and thus, whether or not he realizes it, attacks the very nature of God Himself), redefines the nature of the Church so as to "include" in her ranks schismatics and heretic, believes in a false ecumenism and engages in "inter-religious prayer services that have been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church, promotes religious liberty and the separation of Church and State in a manner that is worthy of a Protestant, and who contends that the Missal of Saint Pius V and that of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI are two forms of the "one Roman Rite" is not exactly a sure guide to help anyone, no less the young, to reject relativism.
A man who has shown everyone in the world, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, that it is acceptable, if not actually pleasing to God, to receive with esteem and respect the symbols of false religions and that it is not offensive to God to enter into places of false worship (a mosque, a synagogue) to treat such places with respect (and to provide "worship space" for adherents of false religions in a major Catholic archbasilica) has nothing at all to teach men of any age, whether young or old. Such a man has much reparation to do for his sins against the First Commandment. He has no business attempting to "teach" anyone about anything. Such a man is an apostate.
Most tellingly, however, is the sad, sad phenomenon that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI continued to be silent about the Mother of God when speaking to young Catholics yesterday. No call to model their lives after her. No call to pray her Most Holy Rosary. No call for them to be totally consecrated to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. Such a neglect of the Mother of God with the young, whom she loves tenderly to the depths of that pure Heart into which our sins caused Seven Swords of Sorrow to be thrust through and through. No mention of the Blessed Virgin Mary. No call to to young Catholic to be faithful to the Fatima Message or to be enrolled in her Brown Scapular. No exhortation to help them understand how she wants them to ask her to pray for each of us nunc et in hora mortis nostrae.
Oh, no, you see, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is too busy "evangelizing" Catholics about the New Theology's distorted, personalist, subjectivist concept of "Christian hope." Perhaps Our Lady will be mentioned in the Novus Ordo service at Yankee Stadium later today, which will be preceded by yet another warmup "show," hosted by the aforementioned Kelly Clarkson and Harry Connick, Jr. Perhaps Ratzinger/Benedict's "homily" today will be all about Our Lady. Nevertheless, however, that she has been mentioned once so far, in the address that Ratzinger/Benedict gave to the conciliar :"bishops" of the United States of America, is tragic beyond all telling, but quite telling of his own misplaced priorities as a champion of the New Theology, which comes from Hell and is a tool of the devil to deceive souls.
Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is not pleased when men are silent about His Most Blessed Mother as they attempt to lead others to Him. Indeed, Our Lord is quite angered by such silence.
Father Frederick Faber has provided us with an important antidote to this neglect of Our Lady and her Most Holy Rosary, whose fervent recitation should be promoted at every opportunity, especially by one who considers himself to be the Vicar of Christ on earth:
Oh, for the sake of Jesus we must learn to increase in our love of Mary. It must be a devotion growing in us like a grace, strengthening like a habit of virtue, and waxing more and more fervent and tender until the hour when she shall come to help us to die well, and to pass safely through the risk of doom.
Do we think sufficiently of this--that devotion to our Blessed Lady is not a thing which, like the possession of a book or a rosary, we have once for all, final and complete? It would be no less untrue to say that when we have received from God the grace of humility, we have simply to hold fast what we have got, and never dream of getting more, than to say that devotion to Mary was an ungrowing thing. I repeat, it must grow like a virtue, and strengthen like a habit, or it is worth nothing at all. Nay, it is worse than worth nothing, as a little thought will show you. Love of Mary is but another for, and divinely appointed one, of love of Jesus: and, therefore, if you love of Him must grow, so must love of her. If a person were to say, "You must not mingle prayer to Mary with prayer to Jesus," he would show that he had no true idea of this devotion, and that he was already on the brink of a very dangerous error. Yet people sometimes thoughtlessly speak as if devotion to the Mother was a little trifle allowably cut off from devotion to the Son, that it was something surrendered by Jesus to Mary; that Jesus was one thing, and Mary was another, and that devotion to the two was to be divided between them proportionately to their respective dignities, say a pound to Him, and an ounce to her. If such persons really saw what they mean, which they do not, they would perceive that they were talking impiety. Love of Mary is an intrinsic part of love of Jesus, and to imagine that the interests of the two can be opposed is to show that we do not understand Jesus or the devotion due to Him. If devotion to Mary is not already, and in itself, devotion to Jesus, then when we show devotion to her we are consciously subtracting something from Him and so actually robbing God, which is sacrilege. So that when people tell us to keep within bounds or to moderate our devotion and not to go too far or to do too much for Mary, they are not, as they fancy, securing to Jesus His rightful honor, but they are making the horrible confession that they themselves do take something from Jesus to give to Mary, though they are careful it should not be very much. How dreadful this sounds, when put in plain words! Devotion to Mary can get wrong in kind; it can never err in degree. If the love of Mary be not love of Jesus, if devotion to Mary be not one of His own appointed devotions to Himself, aye, and the chief one too, then my theology as well as my love tells me I can have no room for Mary at all, for my heart cannot adequately hold Jesus as it is. Dearest Mother! how little I should know of you, if I could think of you so dishonorably! And what a poor, low notion should I have of God Himself! I might as well think grace kept me from God, or Sacraments enabled me to do without Jesus, as imagine that you did aught else but gloriously magnify His love of me, and wonderfully intensify my love of Him!
Now we see what materials the life of the Blessed Lady presents to us, that we may offer them again to God! Is there any disclosure of His love to a simple creature, or to all creatures together, equal to the grace of her Immaculate Conception, or of her election to the Divine Maternity? Whether we go through her life by the sixty-three Mysteries of which it is composed, or sum it up in what theologians call her three sanctifications, at her Immaculate Conception, the moment of the Incarnation and the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, it furnishes us with innumerable motives most dear and persuasive to the Heart of Jesus. Every act is full of His grace and of her heroic love; every one is more pleasing to Him than all the heroism of His saints; and out of every one of them, because of the supreme love that was in her soul, God gains more glory than out of all the services of three hierarchies of Heaven.
The two devotions, to her Dolors and her Joys, might furnish illustrations of this. Passing over the devotion to her dolors as better known, and hoping to treat of it in another work [which he did so marvelously!--note of Thomas A. Droleskey--in The Foot of the Cross/The Dolors of Mary]. I will speak only of the devotion to her joys, which may be called the Franciscan devotion. It was the practice of our own St Thomas of Canterbury to say the Ave Maria three times in the day, in honor of Our Lady's seven earthly joys: the Visitation, the Nativity, the Epiphany, the Finding in the Temple, the Resurrection and the Ascension. One day our Blessed Mother appeared to him, and said, "Thomas, your devotion is most acceptable to me; but why do you only call to mind the joys which I had on earth? Henceforth remember those also which I now enjoy in Heaven; for everyone who honors both of these I will console, exhilarate and present to my most dear Son at the hour of death." St. Thomas felt his heart filled with a marvelous exultation, and he cried out, "And how, my sweetest lady, can I do this, when I do not so much as know what these joys are?" Our Blessed Lady then told him that he was to "honor with seven Hail Marys the following joys: her joy first, because the Most Holy Trinity honors her above all creatures, secondly, because her virginity has set her above all angels and saints, thirdly, because the great light of her glory illuminates the heavens, fourthly, because all the blessed worship her as the Mother of God, fifthly, because of the grace given her on earth and the glory prepared for her clients in Heaven, and lastly, because her accidental glory goes on increasing to the day of doom." St. Thomas is said to have composed a sequence, "Gaude flore virginali," on these joys, which was sung in some churches, and which is quoted in the Parnassus Marianus (p. 207, ap. Lancis, 2:51) In the life of St. Catherine of Bologna, we read that she had a great devotion to St. Thomas and used to practice this devotion. Br. Francis of the Cross relates also of the Blessed Ranulph, that while he was commemorating Our Lady's seven earthly joys, she appeared to him,. and revealed to him her heavenly joys, the same, but in different order, as those revealed to St. Thomas.
There is another revelation, to the Blessed Joseph Herman, the Premonstratensian, which shows how dear to our Blessed Lady is this devotion to her joys. There were at that time constant instances of sacrilegious plunder of churches, and it often fell to the lot of the Blessed Joseph to act as sentinel in the church. This caused him occasionally to intermit one of his usual devotions, which consisted in reciting certain Hail Marys in honor of Mary's joys. She appeared to him and not as usual, in youth and beauty, but old and wrinkled. He ventured to inquire the reason of the change, and she replied, "I am become old to you; where is now the representation of my joys? Where those Hail Marys? Where those exercises of piety, by which I was made young to you and you to me? Do not intermit my service under the pretext of guarding the monastery, for I am its best guardian." Whereupon the Blessed Joseph returned to his usual exercises, much consoled at finding how much his Blessed Mother rejoiced in this devotion to her joys. St. Peter Damian also, in his Epistle (Lib. 3, Ep. 10), mentions a similar incident. There was a certain monk who every day as he passed in front of Our Lady's altar, used to salute her with the following antiphon, "Rejoice, O Mother of God, Immaculate Virgin, rejoice with the joy thou receivedst from the angel; rejoice thou who didst bring forth the brightness of eternal light; rejoice, O mother, rejoice Virgin Mother of God, rejoice thou the sole Virgin Mother; all creation praised thee; Mother of Light intercede for us." One day, as he was crossing the church, he heard a voice from the altar, saying, "Thou announcest joy to me, and joy shall to thyself."
But it is not only to our Blessed Lord that we may offer the sorrows, and the joys, the gifts, graces, and greatness of His Mother, but to herself also. One day, when St. Gertrude was invoking her with those words of the Church in the Salve Regina, "Ah! then: our advocate," she saw our dear Mother, as if drawn by ropes, incline toward her. By this she understood that as often as anyone names Mary his advocate with devotion, her motherly tenderness is so much moved by the name, that she is as it is were unable to prevent herself from granting his prayers. At these words, "Those thine eyes of mercy," Our Lady gently touched her Son, and turned Him toward the earth, saying to St. Gertrude, "These (meaning the eyes of Jesus) are those most merciful eyes of mine, which I can incline to the salvation of all who invoke me, from which they receive the most rich fruit of eternal salvation." Hence she learned from Our Lord at least once a day to invoke that most Kind Mother with these words: "Eja ergo, Advocata nostra, illos tuos misericordes oculos ad nos converte"; and she was assured by Him that she would thus secure for herself no little consolation in the hour of death. (Rev. lib. 4).
St. Bernard tells us to offer all our offerings to God through the hands of Mary; and though the passage is so well known, I must not omit it here. (De Aquaeductu). "Whatever you are going to offer, remember to commend it to Mary, that grace may return to the Giver of grace through the same channel whereby it flowed into you. Not that God was unable to infuse grace as He willed without this aqueduct, but He chose to provide a channel for you. For your hands, perhaps, are filled with blood, or soiled with gifts, which you have not altogether shaken off from them: therefore, that little which you are going to offer, take care, if you do not wish to be repulsed, to give it to Mary to offer with those most worthy and acceptable hands of hers. For those hands are whitest lilies, and the lover of lilies will never reprove as not found among the lilies what is found in Mary's hands." And Lancisius says we should do this for two reasons: first, because as God has willed that we should receive His gifts through Mary, so we should offer our gifts to Him through her; and secondly, because oblation through her implies the great esteem which God has for her, which is at once the essence of her interior veneration, and the origin of her public honor. (Father Frederick Faber, All for Jesus, first published in 1854, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 114-119.)
Who can be silent about so great a Mother at any time when given the opportunity to speak about the Faith so as to inspire souls at all time and on every occasion to turn to Our Lady, she is our Queen, our Mother, Our Advocate, our Co-Redemptrix and the Mediatrix of All Graces?
We must ask Our Lady to repair the damage that has been done in the past few days by Ratzinger/Benedict, mindful, as always, of the huge debt that we owe to God for our own sins and thus the reparation we need to make for them before we die.
We ask Our Lady to repair the damage of the last few days and of the last nearly fifty years of the unremitting efforts on the part of the conciliar revolutionaries to impose upon ordinary Catholics a synthetic "faith" that is the synthesis of all heresies. We do so as the totally consecrated slaves of her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, and most happy to bear whatever sufferings we are ask to bear as her devoted clients.
This era of apostasy and betrayal will end. Our Lady's Immaculate Heart will triumph. May it be our privilege to plant a few seeds for this triumph as we cling to true bishops and true priests in the catacombs who make no concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its shepherds, including the chief conciliarist who dares to treat false religions with esteem and who considers silence, at least on some occasions, about Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces, to be of benefit in the exercise of the "new evangelization"
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
