November 28th's New York Times carried a fascinating op-ed piece by Kenneth J. Wolfe, the first traditional Catholic to contribute to the left-liberal paper in living memory. Mr. Wolfe explains how it was that Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, who should have been excommunicated, being a Freemason, came to destroy the traditional Mass of St. Pius V, the Tridentine Mass, the Mass of All Time.
The story goes back to 1948, when Pope Pius XII, who was opposed to any modernization of the traditional Latin Mass, in use for over four centuries, nevertheless appointed Bugnini to the Vatican's liturgical commission. One wonders if Pius knew that Bugnini “aimed at appeasing non-Catholics, and…emulating Protestant services…including placing altars to face the people instead of a sacrifice toward the liturgical east.”
Wolfe’s piece quotes Bugnini’s infamous declaration: “We must strip from our...Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”
And he succeeded, at least partly because none of Pius's successors knew or cared much about the liturgy. The next pope, John XXIII, named Bugnini secretary to the Preparatory Commission for the Liturgy of Vatican II, in which position he worked with Catholic clergymen and, surprisingly, some Protestant ministers on liturgical reforms. In 1962 he wrote what would eventually become the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the document that gave the form of the new Mass.
Wolfe recounts how Bugnini changed so many things so quickly and so completely that the popes themselves sometimes did not know the latest directives. He tells how Pope Paul VI once questioned the vestments set out for him by his staff, saying they were the wrong color, only to be told "he" had eliminated the week-long celebration of Pentecost and could not wear the corresponding red garments for Mass. The pope’s master of ceremonies then saw Paul break down in tears.
"What a telling bit of history this is," says Catholic commentator Christopher Ferrara. Since Vatican II, he says, "the Pope has too often become a rubber stamp for the whims of the Vatican bureaucracy, whose functionaries all purport to act in his name and with his 'full authority'. The result of this factory-like process is that a Pope confronted with a fait accompli enacted in his name may lack the hardihood to overturn it."
Thanks be to God, we at last have a Pope, Benedict XVI, who seems to want to undo the incalculable damage of Vatican II. In particular, Benedict seems bent on "reforming the reform", to restore to the faithful the true Mass, the traditional Mass which served us so well for so long.
Wolfe concludes with praise for Pope Benedict XVI’s "counterrevolution". He ends with this indictment of the past forty years of "liturgical reform":
"Bugnini may have finally met his match in Benedict XVI… 40 years of the new Mass have brought chaos and banality into the most visible and outward sign of the Church. Benedict XVI wants a return to order and meaning. So, it seems, does the next generation of Catholics."
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Sham shame
Got your ShamWow yet? Or your Shameez or any of the other knockoffs of that tremendous product being hawked on every channel on your TV?
Mrs. Walt bought a couple of packages. Now we have brightly coloured rags hanging from hooks and rods in the kitchen, the bathrooms, the garage, the laundry room...everywhere. They are constant reminders of the power of well-executed schlock marketing and the dumbitude of North American consumers.
And here's the thing... Even though we know we've been had, we still watch the ShamWow guy -- Vince Shlomi, a.k.a. Vince Offer -- flogging the SlapChop and similar garbage. And I admit to stopping to catch the act of Vince imitators and wannabes at flea markets and county fairs.
Vince may be the best TV pitchman since Ron "Ronco" Popeil, the inventor of spray-on hair and other must-have products. How else could it be that people would part with $20 for a bunch of rags?
Well, they're from Germany, Vince says, and "you know the Germans make good stuff". Really? Germans are famous for making good cars, beer and ovens, but who ever heard of German excellence in textiles? [Military uniforms, maybe? ed.]
But you get a second bunch of rags -- or lately a rag mop -- FREE! All you pay is the shipping and handling on the second package. You know what that means? The product is so cheap to produce and ship that they can ask you to pay 7 or 10 bucks for "shipping and handling" and still make money.
It's really quite amazing. I wish I'd thought of it.
Footnote: You can read Ron Popeil's "How I did it" from Inc. magazine here.
Mrs. Walt bought a couple of packages. Now we have brightly coloured rags hanging from hooks and rods in the kitchen, the bathrooms, the garage, the laundry room...everywhere. They are constant reminders of the power of well-executed schlock marketing and the dumbitude of North American consumers.
And here's the thing... Even though we know we've been had, we still watch the ShamWow guy -- Vince Shlomi, a.k.a. Vince Offer -- flogging the SlapChop and similar garbage. And I admit to stopping to catch the act of Vince imitators and wannabes at flea markets and county fairs.
Vince may be the best TV pitchman since Ron "Ronco" Popeil, the inventor of spray-on hair and other must-have products. How else could it be that people would part with $20 for a bunch of rags?
Well, they're from Germany, Vince says, and "you know the Germans make good stuff". Really? Germans are famous for making good cars, beer and ovens, but who ever heard of German excellence in textiles? [Military uniforms, maybe? ed.]
But you get a second bunch of rags -- or lately a rag mop -- FREE! All you pay is the shipping and handling on the second package. You know what that means? The product is so cheap to produce and ship that they can ask you to pay 7 or 10 bucks for "shipping and handling" and still make money.
It's really quite amazing. I wish I'd thought of it.
Footnote: You can read Ron Popeil's "How I did it" from Inc. magazine here.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Greatest hockey team EVER!
Tonight marks the centenary -- the 100th anniversary -- of the first-ever hockey game played by the team that eventually became the Montréal Canadiens. The Habs, as they are affectionately known, are regarded by Canadians as the greatest team in the history of the sport.The Historica-Dominion Institute (where one of Walt's agents lurks) just released a poll in which 47% of respondents called les Glorieux the "greatest hockey team in history". 33% consider Montréal the country's national hockey team, with the Toronto Maple Leafs placing second.
Ice hockey [is there another kind? ed.] is not as well-known or well-regarded as some other sports, such as soccer, in countries like Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. Walt was saddened to learn that most people in such places have never heard of the greatest sport of all.
Nevertheless, Canadians believe that the Canadiens are not just the greatest hockey team ever, but one of the greatest teams in any organized sport. 65% of us believe the Habs rank right up there with the New York Yankees and Manchester United, who engage in other so-called sports.
"To a large number of Canadians, hockey is Canada and the Montreal Canadiens are hockey's greatest success story," said the Historica-Dominion Institute's Andrew Cohen. "Our love of the Habs is strong even 100 years after their creation, 17 seasons after their last Stanley Cup and in a league with 30 franchises including six in Canada."
You can catch the 100th anniversary game, between today's not-so-hot Habs and arch-rivals Boston, this evening on CBC-TV. Will Don Cherry just for once admit the historic greatness of Montréal? Will the players still be awake after two hours of pre-game videos and ceremonies? Tune in and find out!
Thursday, December 3, 2009
We love our cops
“We can only hope and pray that this case plays out in a way that demands some accountability and brings some justice.”
Those are the words of a mother whose boy was killed by a cop...a Mountie no less. In British Columbia.
No, we're not talking about the Mounties' takedown of Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver airport in October, 2007 -- the infamous death by taser case. But we are talking about one of the "four horsemen of the stungun" who was involved.
Step forward RCMP Corporal Benjamin Robinson, the officer who was in charge of "serving and protecting" the public...except of course for the unfortunate Dziekanski.
Cpl. Robinson found himself on the wrong side of the law about a year later, on October 25th, 2008, when the vehicle he was driving hit a young man by the name of Orion Hutchinson, who was riding a motorcycle. Less than 2 hours after the lethal impact, local cops gave Robinson the usual breath test. Robinson blew over 80.
An open-and-shut case of impaired driving, or at least driving with blood alcohol content higher than permissible, you might say. But not if you're part of the BC Ministry of the Attorney-General. (In some places they call it the Ministry of Justice, but that's an obvious misnomer.)
After an investigation which dragged on for months -- who knows why? -- the city police report on the death of Orion Hutchison was turned over to the A-G's criminal justice branch. And it would be months again before a decision on whether to go ahead with charges was reached.
On Tuesday, the Crown decided against charging Cpl. Robinson with impaired driving, but recommended pressing forward with a charge of attempting to obstruct justice. A conviction on the lesser charge -- much lesser -- would probably result in nothing more than probation and maybe a fine. That's if a conviction were registered.
No explanation for the delay or the laying of a relatively minor charge was given by the Crown. Surely it has nothing to do with the fact that the person who killed Hutchinson was a cop -- a cop implicated in another unlawful killing just a year before.
But that's justice, Canadian style. When was the last time you heard of a cop -- any cop -- being prosecuted with the full force of the law and actually convicted of a serious crime for killing anyone? Answers on the back of a postage stamp please to "Our cops can do no wrong", c/o Walt.
Those are the words of a mother whose boy was killed by a cop...a Mountie no less. In British Columbia.
No, we're not talking about the Mounties' takedown of Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver airport in October, 2007 -- the infamous death by taser case. But we are talking about one of the "four horsemen of the stungun" who was involved.
Step forward RCMP Corporal Benjamin Robinson, the officer who was in charge of "serving and protecting" the public...except of course for the unfortunate Dziekanski.
Cpl. Robinson found himself on the wrong side of the law about a year later, on October 25th, 2008, when the vehicle he was driving hit a young man by the name of Orion Hutchinson, who was riding a motorcycle. Less than 2 hours after the lethal impact, local cops gave Robinson the usual breath test. Robinson blew over 80.
An open-and-shut case of impaired driving, or at least driving with blood alcohol content higher than permissible, you might say. But not if you're part of the BC Ministry of the Attorney-General. (In some places they call it the Ministry of Justice, but that's an obvious misnomer.)
After an investigation which dragged on for months -- who knows why? -- the city police report on the death of Orion Hutchison was turned over to the A-G's criminal justice branch. And it would be months again before a decision on whether to go ahead with charges was reached.
On Tuesday, the Crown decided against charging Cpl. Robinson with impaired driving, but recommended pressing forward with a charge of attempting to obstruct justice. A conviction on the lesser charge -- much lesser -- would probably result in nothing more than probation and maybe a fine. That's if a conviction were registered.
No explanation for the delay or the laying of a relatively minor charge was given by the Crown. Surely it has nothing to do with the fact that the person who killed Hutchinson was a cop -- a cop implicated in another unlawful killing just a year before.
But that's justice, Canadian style. When was the last time you heard of a cop -- any cop -- being prosecuted with the full force of the law and actually convicted of a serious crime for killing anyone? Answers on the back of a postage stamp please to "Our cops can do no wrong", c/o Walt.
Americans, we're watching you!
Dear American friends... Be afraid! Be very very afraid!!! This is a spy coin -- a super-hi-tech Canadian quarter which Canadian soldiers and airmen will smuggle into US government and armed forces meeting rooms to learn your military secrets and prepare for the invasion!At least that was the rumour when these coins -- really commemorating the sacrifices of Canadian lives in foreign wars -- first appeared about four years ago.
The funny thing is, the US Department of Defense took the story seriously. We know this from classified documents recently obtained by AP under the Freedom of Information Act.
Pentagon officials question whether they should warn military officers in the U.S. Northern Command, who regularly met Canadian counterparts about classified subjects inside bug-free government meeting rooms known as secure compartmentalized information facilities, or "SKIFs". (If it didn't have an acronym it wouldn't be in the Pentagon, eh.)
"Isn't the Canadian piece something that should be briefed to Northcom since the Canadians sit in their SKIFs?" asked the "deputy director for counterintelligence oversight", in emails marked "Secret/NoForn."
"Good point," replied the Pentagon's acting director for counterintelligence. "It is possible that DSS (the U.S. Defence Security Service) sent their report to Northcom. Then again, I don't think it is an issue of the Canadians being the bad guys, but then again, who knows."
Indeed. Who knows? Such is the paranoia of the world's most powerful nation.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Book review: "Ad Nauseam: A Survivor's Guide to American Consumer Culture"
Walt just finished reading Ad Nauseam: A Survivor's Guide to American Consumer Culture, edited by Carrie McLaren and Jason Torchinsky. McLaren and Torchinsky were responsible for the now-defunct Stay Free! magazine. Perhaps I shouldn't say "defunct". The print version has gone, but the blog lives on.
If you went to the blog, you'll see that at the moment it's mostly a serious of plugs for the book. That's OK. The book is well worth reading, unless you're not interested in how we are all victimized and played for suckers by advertisers, marketers and the mass media generally. Here's a quote from the preface.
Consider how consumer culture affects society at large. Nothing is wrong with buying and selling. How else would we secure our morning bagel? The problem starts when the profit motive invades places where it has no business being: schools, courtrooms and hospitals.
The situation is complicated by the fact that advertising has increasingly received First Amendment protection, so that sellers are free to advertise however they like, but you aren't free to get away from it. The result? A society that favors noise and idiocy over logic and quiet contemplation. [My emphasis. Walt.]
Ain't it the truth... You can read more of the preface and find out how to buy the book here. But you should be able to find it in the library. Even Walt's small-town library has it.
Bonus: There are several quizes... quizzes??? OK, there's more than one quiz. See how ad-savvy you are, and have fun. And when you know you're being had -- as in the current "ad wars" between the TV stations and the cable companies -- emulate McLaren and Torchinsky, and holler "BULLSHIT" long and loud!
If you went to the blog, you'll see that at the moment it's mostly a serious of plugs for the book. That's OK. The book is well worth reading, unless you're not interested in how we are all victimized and played for suckers by advertisers, marketers and the mass media generally. Here's a quote from the preface.
Consider how consumer culture affects society at large. Nothing is wrong with buying and selling. How else would we secure our morning bagel? The problem starts when the profit motive invades places where it has no business being: schools, courtrooms and hospitals.
The situation is complicated by the fact that advertising has increasingly received First Amendment protection, so that sellers are free to advertise however they like, but you aren't free to get away from it. The result? A society that favors noise and idiocy over logic and quiet contemplation. [My emphasis. Walt.]
Ain't it the truth... You can read more of the preface and find out how to buy the book here. But you should be able to find it in the library. Even Walt's small-town library has it.
Bonus: There are several quizes... quizzes??? OK, there's more than one quiz. See how ad-savvy you are, and have fun. And when you know you're being had -- as in the current "ad wars" between the TV stations and the cable companies -- emulate McLaren and Torchinsky, and holler "BULLSHIT" long and loud!
Cuckoo clocks and chocolate, but no minarets, please
For anyone unfamiliar with the term, a minaret is a tower built into at least one corner of a Muslim mosque. Think CN Tower attached to a Walmart. It is from the minaret that the muzzein calls the Muslim faithful to prayer, five times a day, with the aid of a pwerful amplifier.
In non-Muslim countries this annoys the neighbours. But it's not just the noise. Some see the minaret as "a political symbol of Islamization … a symbol of political victory.” Minarets are sprouting up all over Europe and in many areas of North America. Look outside. Can you see a strange tower that wasn't there yesterday?
Even though only 4 of Switzerland's 160 mosques (160! In Switzerland!) have minarets, the right-wing Swiss People's Party decided they were fed up and weren't going to take it any more.
They called for -- and won! -- a referendum on a constitutional ban on the construction of new minarets. Four of the nation’s 160 mosques currently have minarets-- the spires from which Muslims are traditionally called to prayer.
Turnout was high at 53%, as was the margin of victory. In spite of the opposition of the oh-so-politically-correct Swiss government and the Roman Catholic church, nearly 58% of voters approved the initiative.
Why? What does this mean? It means that the tolerant and fair-minded Swiss are getting up on their hind feet to oppose the Islamization of the West! The Swiss public, in spite of their wealth, education and traditional civility, has come to believe that minarets are symbols of fundamentalism.
They believe, it seems, that the Muslims in their midst harbour extreme beliefs and practices. And they complain, rightly, that Christians in Muslim countries would not be free to build churches and otherwise make their faith visible, as are Muslims in so-called Christian countries.
Reaction has been swift and predictable. The Vatican, which of late has never heard of a heathen religion it couldn't live with, released a statement saying that the Swiss voters' decision was a setback for religious freedom and for the cause of coexistence among peoples. An international boycott of Swiss goods and an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights are under discussion. Seems to me it's all part of the liberal humanist deathwish for the Christian West.
The nation of 7.5 million is 44% Catholic and 4% Muslim.
In non-Muslim countries this annoys the neighbours. But it's not just the noise. Some see the minaret as "a political symbol of Islamization … a symbol of political victory.” Minarets are sprouting up all over Europe and in many areas of North America. Look outside. Can you see a strange tower that wasn't there yesterday?
Even though only 4 of Switzerland's 160 mosques (160! In Switzerland!) have minarets, the right-wing Swiss People's Party decided they were fed up and weren't going to take it any more.
They called for -- and won! -- a referendum on a constitutional ban on the construction of new minarets. Four of the nation’s 160 mosques currently have minarets-- the spires from which Muslims are traditionally called to prayer.
Turnout was high at 53%, as was the margin of victory. In spite of the opposition of the oh-so-politically-correct Swiss government and the Roman Catholic church, nearly 58% of voters approved the initiative.
Why? What does this mean? It means that the tolerant and fair-minded Swiss are getting up on their hind feet to oppose the Islamization of the West! The Swiss public, in spite of their wealth, education and traditional civility, has come to believe that minarets are symbols of fundamentalism.
They believe, it seems, that the Muslims in their midst harbour extreme beliefs and practices. And they complain, rightly, that Christians in Muslim countries would not be free to build churches and otherwise make their faith visible, as are Muslims in so-called Christian countries.
Reaction has been swift and predictable. The Vatican, which of late has never heard of a heathen religion it couldn't live with, released a statement saying that the Swiss voters' decision was a setback for religious freedom and for the cause of coexistence among peoples. An international boycott of Swiss goods and an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights are under discussion. Seems to me it's all part of the liberal humanist deathwish for the Christian West.
The nation of 7.5 million is 44% Catholic and 4% Muslim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)