Headline News Articles
For a moment there, we North Americans watched with a great deal of fascination and much less information as the Holy Father once again wielded his signature weapon of demanding the submission of letters reflecting content he controls, immediately and pending outcomes that could charitably be characterized as draconian. To reiterate, the priests in this diocese have not accepted a bishop appointed by Francis, ostensibly because of tribal tensions, although the priests themselves have contested this portrayal of their motives. But whatever the nature of the conflict itself, the facts which have emerged regarding the way the Holy Father has elected to approach the matter remain both disturbing and undenied. [Note: In response to the situation in Ahiara, which he described as “an attempted taking over of the vineyard of the Lord,” Pope Francis asked “every priest or ecclesiastic incardinated in the Diocese of Ahiara, whether he resides there or works elsewhere, even abroad, write a letter addressed to me in which he asks for forgiveness; all must write individually and personally. We all must share this common sorrow.” Whoever fails to do so within thirty days, the Pope said, “will be ipso facto suspended a divinis and will lose his current office.” MJM]
Certain conservative commentators, uncomfortably critical of Amoris Laetitia and arguably eager to seize upon opportunities to sound supportive of this Holy Father whenever they can be, have commended Pope Francis for acting “decisively” in Ahiara (which is putting it mildly), as is his right. The refusal to accept a bishop is, in fact, a very serious matter regardless of the reasons behind it, compromising the unity of the Body of Christ. Still, in this as in any case, the reality that some kind of intervention is warranted doesn’t automatically mean that every kind of intervention is justified. Praising the way the African situation has been dealt with so far is like contending (as the old saying goes) that any liquid will help put out a fire, including—say—gasoline.
In truth, every Catholic ought to be not only quietly concerned, but even overtly alarmed, by the way this Supreme Pontiff is abusing the office he holds in a pattern that is both escalating and impossible to responsibly ignore. Yes, discipline should sometimes be administered, but never apart from justice. Yes, higher authority is to be recognized, but so is the dignity of the inferior. Yes, action must be taken by the Pope (and by all of us) for the good of the Church, but the personal agenda of any of its members, including that of the servus servorum Dei, may not be slyly substituted for this “good,” nor are the rest of us required to turn a blind eye when such an attempt is made. Pope Francis’ treatment of the clergy in Africa, like his trampling of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, the Knights of Malta, the John Paul II Institute—and the list keeps getting longer—has not been an exercise of authority but of authoritarianism unhinged. Those who have lately proffered their applause would do well to recall what appeasement in the face of such tactics has historically been demonstrated to accomplish.
First of all, the threat of suspending the entire African diocese a divinis is egregious. When an appraiser decides on the value of a property, for example, he looks around at other similar homes in the neighborhood and finds out what they sold for, so that he can determine a price range that might be fair. When we consider the Mexican Standoff in Africa and ask, “How have comparable situations been dealt with?” we find ourselves—like Reepicheep the Narnian mouse in the clutches of the slave traders—reduced to virtual silence by the number of things that need to be said all at the same time. Can you imagine Pope Francis issuing the same kind of ultimatum to, say, Cardinal Marx and what’s left of his diocese instead? Cardinal Kasper? The hierarchy of the troubled island of Malta?
Neither can I.
And neither (more to the point) can they.
Looking at the African situation in context, in other words, makes the suspension threat very difficult to support. If Pope Francis was simply a tough-guy overall, but an evenhanded one, our evaluation could be different. “Cowboy up; this is how he treats everybody, and we’ll all be better off because of it in the end,” would be one thing. “Why is he going after these people now, when the ones who really deserve it are still being left alone?” is quite another. When Jorge Bergoglio personally barges into the office of Father James Martin, S.J., demanding a signature within the hour of a prewritten missive in which Father agrees to pull his Bridges bestseller straight off of the shelves and repent for having harmed the unity of the Body of Christ or lose his good standing as a Catholic priest, I’ll be impressed by the treatment meted out to the clergy in Ahiara—but not before.
Secondly, the emphasis on making the African priests apologize to the Holy Father himself, personally and all but exclusively, is deeply problematic. Let’s say an adolescent too young for a driver’s license steals his father’s car keys, and obtains and consumes an excessive amount of alcohol while cruising around town. He predictably loses control of the vehicle, knocking down a teenager who was biking on the sidewalk, and then careens across the park and into the playground, hospitalizing three toddlers before dead-ending into a tree. What kind of a father would, upon being made aware of the situation, seek out his son, shake him by the shoulders, and shout, “You apologize to me this instant, young man! This instant; do you hear? And if you think for one moment you’re going to get away without paying for the damage to the Mercedes, you’ve got another thing coming. Do you realize what you’ve done to the rest of the family that has to drive it—like, for example, me? Well, do you?”
The father in this scenario is well within his rights to count himself as first among to whom his son owes an apology. Still, he is far from the only one. It would say something distressing about the man’s personal perspective and priorities if being apologized to constituted, at this stage in the game, his sole or even his main concern. Yet that is precisely how Pope Francis is behaving.
What about demanding that the African clergy apologize to the rejected bishop, if mere tribal affiliation is truly the basis for the painful ostracization? How about requiring those priests to say they’re sorry to the members of their flocks, traumatized and possibly even scandalized by the spectacle taking place before their very eyes? And would it be asking too much for the Holy Father to take into account even the welfare of the allegedly recalcitrant clerics themselves? The father whose son went out and wrecked the car would hopefully want to know not only how the teenager and the toddlers are doing, but also that the boy himself is still safe and sound, which are separate concerns entirely from justified condemnation of the child’s clear guilt. Pope Francis’ entire modus operandi, from his passive-aggressive refusal to so much as acknowledge the existence of concerns which are not his own to the now-legendary meltdowns constituting the flipside of the same coin, indicate clearly that there exists only one person whom he truly wishes to shield from being offended or even harmed. And I will give you a hint: that person, according to him, is no one else on earth, and no one in Heaven, either.
But wait—weren’t we treated to another trademark Scriptural garbling contesting this very characterization? Yes, the Holy Father did invoke the parable of the workers in the Vineyard as his motive for acting as he has in Ahiara, lending the papal high dudgeon a truly holy tinge. Pope Francis’ point, if not that of the inspired author, comes down to this: he gets to suspend whomever he wants to suspend, whenever he wants to suspend them, because (as he cordially pointed out to Cardinal Müller on the occasion of having dismissed some clerical personnel from the CDF without cause), he is the Pope! Which is why, truth to tell, the “caring for the Vineyard” thing ended up ringing a bit hollow at best.
Guarding and advancing the good of the Bride of Christ is to be accomplished selflessly, primarily, entirely, and without prejudice, not only by members of the hierarchy but by all of the baptized, according to their own stations and measures. This means that a man who becomes our Holy Father incurs greater accountability, not less. The bishop and clergy of a given diocese have a certain portion of the Church entrusted to their care, but the Pope has the whole thing. If Francis the First was actually the fearless guardian of the Vineyard which he styles himself, he would be observed behaving personally and officially according to the same standard he is imposing upon his Ahiara underlings, and then some. But is he?
A Supreme Pontiff like the one Pope Francis is implicitly claiming to be would—to pull a wild example out of nowhere—answer crucial questions put to him about encroachments upon the Church’s timeless Eucharistic discipline in a prompt and forthright fashion (not to mention, correctly). Such a Pope would, at the very least, give first place in his calendar to any Cardinals requesting an audience intended to address their grave reservations in this regard. Are we seeing any such thing? No, we are not. And it is a safe bet that we will see Father Martin turn in his required letter of apology for his “gay-friendly” apologetics first.
That is why the Bergoglian “L’eglise, c’est moi!” must not to be given any quarter in our hearts, minds, theological reflections, or public comments—the perceived need to be supportive of this particular occupant of the See of Peter whenever possible notwithstanding. If once Pope Francis is allowed to establish the principle (or, in any case, the credible impression) not that he himself, just like everybody else, has to obey Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, so that Our Lord may be obeyed in truth by all through ordered membership in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church which He established, but rather that submitting to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is crudely and unqualifiedly the same thing as submitting to Pope Francis personally, and to whatever Christian or unChristian thing he chooses to say or do, then there is no question where this pontificate will end up taking us. Anyone who fails to recognize this reality will not be able to use the exercise of “charity,” or of “finding the good in everything,” or of seeking a “balance between right and left” as their shield in the end, either, because any remaining ignorance about the shell game Jorge Bergoglio is playing is far, far from invincible at this stage. All roads lead to Amoris; how far are we going to allow ourselves to led us down this garden path?
After all, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that we Catholics are being desensitized in either direction. When Pope Francis does something illegitimate—like, say, trying to allow for the admission of unrepentant public adulterers to Holy Communion—he does it with elaborately legitimate orchestration. After all, before the promulgation of the objectionable Apostolic Exhortation, surveys were distributed throughout the entire world, endless interviews were granted, and not one but two Family Synods were eventually hosted. That way, any Catholic critical of the absolutely unacceptable end Team Bergoglio was trying to achieve could be neutralized by citing the complete ecclesial correctness of the means that were so painstakingly employed in achieving it. But when Pope Francis does something legitimate—like, say, trying to get the Diocese of Ahiara to recognize a bishop authoritatively appointed—he does it in maximally illegitimate ways. Any Catholic critical of his capricious cruelty towards these particular clerics just has to eat it, because it is the right of the Church hierarchy to retain control over the appointment of its own bishops (just like this same Holy Father has been so careful to do in China—right?). We are gradually being bludgeoned into accepting the idea that being the Pope means, on the one hand, that Francis the First gets to do whatever he wants to and, on the other, that he can do it any way he pleases. Is this really a progression which deserves even the most restrained conservative applause?
What Papa Bergoglio means by the peculiar warping of the concept of Catholic “total obedience” he continues to invoke ever more shamelessly on his own behalf, in other words, and what well-formed but not-entirely-clued-in Catholic commentators naturally assume he means, may be two very different things. Does anyone doubt that the day may not be far away on which letters of assent to Amoris Laetitia and its rank heterodoxies will be demanded from any and all—and on pain, no less, of every sanction that the very highest office of the Church has at its command? And what will there be left to say in support of The One Who Must At All Costs Be Supported, when it dawns?
President Donald J. Trump has backed the fight to save the critically ill British baby Charlie Gard, saying he would be “delighted” to “help” the boy after a European court ruled his parents could not privately fund a final attempt to treat him.The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has been slammed for acting like a “death panel” after denying Charlie’s parents the chance to take their son to the U.S. for “experimental treatment”.
The court argued that little Charlie was too ill, could not be saved, and must “die with dignity” in the UK.
His mother disagreed, insisting, “Charlie should get a chance to try these medications”, explaining: “He literally has nothing to lose but potentially a healthier, happier life to gain.”
The President waded in on the debate on Monday, tweeting: “If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so.”
Read the Rest HERE
REMANANT COMMENT: So remind me again: Why does it make absolutely no difference to pro-life America (and to the unborn) that Trump won the last election? Because I'm still a bit unclear on that.
On Wednesday Pope Francis said that following Christ means taking a path contrary to that of the world, and being prepared to suffer because of this; though we have hope because of God’s constant presence.
“Persecution is not a contradiction to the gospel, but is part of it: if they persecuted our Master, how can we hope that we will be spared the struggle?” he said June 28.
“However, in the midst of the whirlwind, the Christian must not lose hope, thinking he has been abandoned. Jesus reassures his disciples saying, ‘Even the hairs of your head are all counted.’ As much as to say that none of the sufferings of man, even the most minute and hidden, are invisible to the eyes of God.”
“God sees, and surely protects; and will give his ransom.”
Pope Francis continued his catechesis on the theme of Christian hope during the weekly general audience Wednesday in St. Peter’s Square. This time he reflected on the counter-cultural life of the Christian, which will mean withstanding persecution on some level, and for some, even martyrdom. “Christians are therefore men and women ‘against the current,’” he said. “It is normal: since the world is marked by sin, manifested in various forms of egoism and injustice, those who follow Christ walk in the opposite direction.” READ ARTICLE HERE
REMNANT COMMENT: What in the world has Pope Francis taught that would in any way lead to persecution? No "proselytism”, no dogma, no rigidity, "who am I to judge?", divorce is ok, ecological virtues, etc. The man sucks up to the modern West at every opportunity to the point there is nothing to be persecuted over. It's called human respect. And eventually it's going to run out.
Is Pope Francis finally beginning to sense that there might be a shelf life for Greg Burke's awesomely-humble pope shtick?
Canada introduced the resolution, which was adopted by consensus.
The U.S. said they supported it in "spirit," but not its call for "comprehensive sexual and health-care services" and "safe abortion where such services are permitted by national law."
"We do not recognize abortion as a method of family planning, nor do we support abortion in our reproductive health assistance," said U.S. First Secretary to the U.N. in Geneva Jason Mack. The U.S. "must dissociate from the consensus," he said as reported by Reuters. READ THE REST HERE.
REMNANT COMMENT: As the LSN story further points out, in April, the Trump administration pulled funding from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) over its cooperation with China's forced abortion regime. President Trump also reinstated the Mexico City Policy preventing U.S. taxdollars from funding abortion and the promotion of abortion overseas. And Trump picked the former governor of South Carolina, pro-life Nikki Haley, to serve as U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
So remind me again: Why does it make absolutely no difference to pro-life America (and to the unborn) that Trump won the last election? Because I'm still a bit unclear on that.
Monsignor Nicola Bux
Edward Pentin's significant interview with Monsignor Bux just in from National Catholic Register:
Theologian and former consulter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith calls on the Pope to make a declaration of faith, warning that unless the Pope safeguards doctrine, he cannot impose discipline.
To resolve the current crisis in the Church over papal teaching and authority, the Pope must make a declaration of faith, affirming what is Catholic and correcting his own “ambiguous and erroneous” words and actions that have been interpreted in a non-Catholic manner.
This is according to Monsignor Nicola Bux, a respected theologian and former consulter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith during Benedict XVI’s pontificate.
In the following interview with the Register, Msgr. Bux explains that the Church is in a “full crisis of faith” and that the storms of division the Church is currently experiencing are due to apostasy — the “abandonment of Catholic thought.”
LiturgyGuy.com frontman, Brian Williams writes:
For the past two years the Fort Hood Traditional Latin Mass community has celebrated All Souls Day with an outdoor Mass offered on the hood of a Korean era Army Jeep. While the Mass is offered for the souls of all the faithful departed, it is especially for soldiers who fell in battle, including Father Emil J. Kapaun, chaplain for the 8th Calvary during the Korean War. Fr. Kapaun was famously photographed offering the Mass on the hood of a Jeep during the war, shortly before his capture and eventual death, at the hands of the North Koreans.
Fort Hood’s Latin Mass Community, established in 2015 and comprised of approximately 120 faithful, has been averaging upwards of 50-60 weekly attendees at their Sunday Latin Mass. They have also been profiled on EWTN’s Extraordinary Faith series, in an episode scheduled for broadcast later this year. Unfortunately, all of that may soon be coming to an end.
Like many other service men and women in the Archdiocese for the Military Services, the Traditional Latin Mass community at Fort Hood might become victims to the ongoing vocations crisis. With their current chaplain set to retire from active military duty this summer, they are likely to find themselves without a priest capable of offering the Traditional Mass.
One of the founding members of the Fort Hood Traditional Latin Mass Community, Sergeant Major Johnny Proctor, US Army, III Armored Corps Chaplain Sargeant Major, reached out to Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Archdiocese for the Military Services for help. More importantly, SGM Proctor wrote the archbishop offering a potential solution to the crisis: invite more traditional priests to consider joining the military as chaplains.
That the military is suffering a priest shortage is undisputed. Archbishop Broglio has said the need for Catholic chaplains is “desperate”, noting that an already bad situation is about to get worse. READ MORE HERE
REMNANT COMMENT: Unfortunately, the Archbishop's response signals trouble for this Latin Mass community. As the headline of the Liturgy Guy article suggests, for some it is apparently better to have no priests at all rather than priests trained to offer the Latin Mass. Why so much fear and apprehension over the Mass saints, martyrs, popes and faithful Catholics attended for almost two thousand years...before the advent of the Second Vatican Council? This is the Mass St. Thomas More heard. This is the Mass of St. Joan of Arc, St Therese, St. Ignatius of Loyola. This is the Mass St. Maximilian Kolbe offered exclusively. The Mass of Pope John Paul’s First Communion and Ordination. The Mass at which Sister Faustina worshipped every day. The Mass of the Cristeros. The Mass Archbishop Broglio's own grandmother had on her wedding day and every day thereafter.
So why is this Mass treated like a dangerous pariah that must always and forever be somehow subservient to the New Mass---a 50-year-old experiment in liturgical innovation that Pope Benedict XVI himself finally admitted on February 14, 2013 (in his last address to the Roman clergy) has been totally "trivialized", to use his own word, and riddled with massive abuses?
Why? Answer this question correctly and you will have unraveled the secret to the entire Modernist revolution in the Church today.
An American Catholic Cardinal has finally lent voice to an obvious truth that has eluded our virulently-politically correct society: Christianity and Islam do not worship the same God.
“I hear people saying to me, well, we’re all worshipping the same God, we all believe in love,” Cardinal Leo Raymond Burke, an archbishop who once served at the highest court at the Vatican, said at a teleconference introducing his new book on Christian theology.
Making a clear distinction between the two most popular monotheistic faiths, Burke argued that Islam’s God “is a governor.” In contrast, Christianity’s God is “giver of revelation,” Burke explained, saying that for Catholics, God’s law is written “on our hearts” and “we’re given a divine grace to live according to that law.”
“I don’t believe it’s true that we’re all worshipping the same God, because the God of Islam is a governor,” he elaborated. “In other words, fundamentally Islam is, Sharia is their law, and that law, which comes from Allah, must dominate every man eventually.”
Warning parishioners about the dangers of cultural relativism, Burke stated that Christians have to proactively assert the truth about their faith without giving credence to politically correct distortions. READ FULL STORY HERE
REMNANT COMMENT: This, of course, flies directly in the face of the prevailing novel teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium declared:
The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.
The Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, is even more specific:
The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even his inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.
And Pope John Paul II reiterated this novelty on many occasions, perhaps most notably in his August 19, 1985 address to young Muslims in Morocco:
Christians and Muslims, we have many things in common, as believers and as human beings. We live in the same world, marked by many signs of hope, but also by multiple signs of anguish. For us, Abraham is a very model of faith in God, of submission to his will and of confidence in his goodness. We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection.
Cardinal Raymond Burke is going where few high-ranking churchmen have dared to go over the past half-century. He is now challenging key elements of the post-conciliar regime of novelty, making him without doubt one of the most courageous cardinals in the Church today. Pray for him, and ask God to watch over and protect him always.
Pro-life Pick for Prez, Pro-Death Pick for PopeLast week, President Donald Trump appointed a longstanding advocate of abstinence sex education to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and leftwing groups are furious. Valerie Huber, co-founder and president/CEO of Ascend – an organization that promotes abstinence sex education, an approach that normalizes sexual delay – has been appointed as chief of staff to the assistant secretary for health at HHS, under Secretary Tom Price.
Amanda Marcotte at Salon says that, with the appointment of Huber, abstinence education – which she calls the “shame-and-ignorance approach of the Bush era” – is making a “comeback under Trump.”
She bemoans Trump’s pro-life policies and what she views as “attacks” on “contraception access. READ MORE HERE
REMNANT COMMENT: Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Pope Francis has appointed an Anglican minister to the Pontifical Academy for Life who has argued that abortion should be legal until “18 weeks after conception."
According to LifeSiteNews.com, the University of Oxford Professor Nigel Biggar, who was appointed to the Academy for a five-year term, stated in a 2011 dialogue with pro-infanticide ethicist Peter Singer that a preborn baby is “not…the same kind of thing as an adult or a mature human being” and therefore does not deserve “quite the same treatment”. The LifeSite report continues:
Pope Francis began his overhaul of the Academy last year by creating new statutes, that among other things, no longer required that members sign a declaration to uphold the Church’s pro-life teachings. The Pope’s next move was to then remove all of the academy members while promising to make new appointments himself.
Former academy member Judie Brown wrote in an article earlier this year that she was shocked by what she called Francis’ move to “deconstruct” the Academy that was once considered a bastion of orthodoxy.
“The Pontifical Academy for Life is undergoing an overhaul by Pope Francis and his political operatives within the Vatican’s hierarchy, and it is one of the most heartbreaking events I have seen in my lifetime. But given the politics of the Vatican, it is not surprising,” she wrote at that time.
So the Pope appoints a pro-abort in Rome while the President gives the nod to a pro-lifer in Washington. What's going on here? Must be another "translation error", right? Or perhaps the media are once again making things up about our dearly beloved and very conservative Pope. But, then again, on more than one occassion Professor Biggar has indeed gone on the record in favor or abortion. So what was Pope Francis thinking? Maybe he just forgot to Google this guy. Otherwise, it begins to appear that even Donald Trump is a bit more Catholic than the Pope--at least when it comes to pro-life appointments to key positions. And that can't be right. Right?
The Washington Post reports:
On Monday, Aug. 21, in the middle of the day, the sky will go dark. The temperature will suddenly get several degrees colder. Birds will stop chirping and retreat to their nests. And tens of millions of people, crammed into a 60-mile-wide path that crosses from Oregon to the Carolinas, will stand in America looking up at the sky.
It’s easy to understand why many people will view this as an act of God.
The total solar eclipse that will cross America this summer — an event that last happened 99 years ago — will be an important moment for scientific observers and a massive nationwide spectator event. It will also, for many people of faith, be evidence of God’s majesty — and even, to a few, a harbinger of the coming end of the world. READ MORE HERE
REMNANT COMMENT: So in this 100th anniversary year of Our Lady's apparitions at Fatima, this is rather interesting. In 1689 Our Lord made it known to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque that the king of France was to consecrate his country to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, if France were to survive. The king failed to do so; and in 1789--one hudred years later--an evil revolution beheaded the king of France and executed the ‘eldest daughter of the Catholic Church’. Though France recovered from that bloody revolution against altar and throne, the Church in France never did.
So one hundred years ago Our Lady appeared at Fatima, and, over the course of the next few years, it became known that she'd instructed the Sr. Lucia of Fatima to tell the Holy Father to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Several attempts were made by various popes, but the consecration of Russia, by a pope united with the bishops of the world, never happened.
Our Lady still waits for the consecration, and the hundred years are up.
Wear those scapulars, pray those beads--you never know. This madness can't go on much longer.
This from the Zuiddam website:
Rome – For more than a thousand years the Vulgate was the ‘authorized version’ of Western Christianity. Not anymore.Vatican II initiated a silent revolution which has now replaced the ancient Vulgate with a new translation. This new official Bible is no longer based on Latin manuscripts and lacks any historic worship tradition in the Church. This Nova Vulgata, as it is presented on the Vatican’s website, is a verse by verse reconstruction of what modernist scholars think the original Hebrew and Greek texts must have looked like.
The Pope was Catholic and the Vulgate was the Bible of the Western Church. For centuries these were truths that were considered too ridiculous to question. In today’s context, rightly or wrongly, ‘Is the Pope Catholic?’ has taken on a new meaning, but for the Vulgate the situation is worse.
Jerome’s monumental translation has officially lost its status and has been replaced by a product of critical scholarship. When one searches for the ‘Vulgate’ on the Vatican’s website, the only results that come up are links to this new translation Nova Vulgata. Even Google directs it clients, also those who specifically look for the ‘Clementine Vulgate’ to the Vatican’s new Bible.
While the name suggests continuity, this Nova Vulgata is not a new or improved Vulgate edition. It is not even based on Vulgate manuscripts. Instead, the Nova Vulgata is a new translation into Latin. It is only presented as ‘New Vulgate’ because the Vatican has adopted it as the new authorized standard for Church and academia alike. As will be addressed later, both Catholics and scholars have reasons to revolt. In matters of sacred liturgy, secular reason and faith traditions often prove incompatible. READ MORE HERE
REMNANT COMMENT: Of course, scripture tampering has been going on for a long time in the post-conciliar Church, revising Scripture being sort of the classic plaything of Modernists everywhere. Nevertheless, I'd encourage scripture scholars to examine the latest versions of the Catholic Bible being quietly posted over at Vatican.va
The thing seems to have been "evolving" steadily since the Second Vatican Council, which put forth the mandate for a revision of the Latin Psalter in order to bring it in line with “modern text-critical research”. In 1965, Pope Paul VI established a commission to expand the revision to cover the entire Bible. The revised Psalter was completed and published in 1969, followed by the New Testament in 1971, and the entire Vulgate was completed in 1979. A second edition was then published several years later in 1986. What’s been happening since? Well, let’s find out.
This new & improved Bible has long been under fire by those who see it as a new translation rather than a revision of St. Jerome's work. So perhaps monitoring what’s going on lately might be a good idea. It’s not that we don’t trust the Vatican to do the right thing when it comes to the inspired written word of God, of course. Perish the thought, in fact! It’s just that we’re rather fond of the old Russian proverb (which became Ronald Reagan’s motto): “Trust, but verify”—especially when it comes to our Modernist friends in the Eternal City.
This just in from the AgendaEurope website:
Thanks to the initiative of a Polish MEP, former Sejm Marshal Marek Jurek, there is now a Catholic Mass in the so-called “extraordinary rite” (i.e. the rite that was in common use prior to 1969, and which was defined as the universally valid rite of the Catholic Church by Pope Pius V following the Council of Trent) on the premises of the European Parliament in Brussels.
A first such celebration took place on 4 May, and a second is scheduled this week on Thursday 18th May at 8 a.m. in the “meditation room” ASP 00H152 (located behind the desk of the Office of Tourism, on the ground floor).
This is truly important. The Christian faith is at the center of European culture and identity, and the traditional mass is the quintessential expression of Christian faith. With these celebrations, if they assume a regular character, the European Parliament will at long last be re-establishing a linkage to Europe’s true fundaments.
REMNANT COMMENT: Obviously, this development is significant and important indeed! I'm thinking back now, in fact, to when I was a child, and the Latin Mass was available only at a Howard Johnson's conference room on Sunday mornings. Other than that (SSPX), it was gone and it was never coming back...abrogated forever.
But as the world became more Godless and degenerate, the Traditional Latin Mass made a slow but steady comeback, until today not only is it available in most major cities in the U.S., but even in Europe--and now--incredibly! -- at the HQ of the EU itself. Clearly, God will not be mocked. Those old enough to have lived through the immediate post-Vatican II period, will feel confident that there's no cause for defeatism or pessimism or surrender here in 2017. The darkest days of revolution in Catholic Church are behind us now, as a rather buffoonish pope shocks millions out of their post-conciliar coma.
Yes, things are bad, but God's hand is perceptible in all of this. He is in His heaven, hearing and answering every prayer of those who still believe in Him. I know, I remember the heyday of the Revolution in the Church. And never did I imagine it would all begin to crumble and fall in my own lifetime. But the men of faith of those early days--Michael Davies, my father, and so many others--never for a moment doubted that it would. Why? Because they never for a moment doubted Him. People are waking up.
Don’t believe me? Watch this video, and pinch yourself----this is EWTN, formerly Neo-Catholic Central. Praise God and never give up the fight! The enemy is not nearly as invincible as he'd have us believe, especially if we believe--not in his power--but in God's.