When the sun set last night, I was dismayed to see that one of my neighbours down in the holler has his Christmas tree up in the front window already. So it begins, even though it's still only November. Got your shopping done yet?
Well wait a minute. Just what "rush" are you about to get into? The "Christmas rush" or the "winter holiday rush"? In the media- and government-approved drive to be politically correct and "celebrate diversity", we're in danger of losing sight of what...or Who...this season is all about.
Here, thanks to Agent 6, is a new Christmas song that you should listen to carefully.
Think about it! We are (or should be) celebrating the birthday of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God and Saviour of those who believe in Him.
HE is what "Christmas" is all about, yet we forget and ignore Him. Not very nice on our part. If you don't think so, imagine how you would feel if your birthday was forgotten, and turned into a mad frenzy of spending and buying. Would you not feel even worse if your birthday was deliberately downplayed, and referred to as just another part of the great year-round multicultural celebration.
This song has a clear message for each and every one of us. Let's see if we can start to turn the tide and get it right this year. Don't forget Whose birthday is commemorated on December 25th. Walt and Ed. wish you a very Merry CHRISTMAS!
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
The terrible dilemma of Bishop Fellay
Bishop Bernard Fellay, leader pro tem of the Society of St. Pius X, finds himself on the horns of an intellectual and theological dilemma. On November 1st, Bishop Fellay celebrated Holy Mass -- the Traditional Mass of All Time -- at the SSPX seminary in Ecône, Switzerland.
During his sermon, after recalling the spiritual meaning of the Feast of All Saints, he explained the status of the Society's relations with Rome. Unfortunately for him and for the SSPX, Bishop Fellay's discourse expressed more clearly than ever before why his position and that of his wing of the Society is untenable.
Let's examine the logic:
Premise 1. The magisterium is the authentic judge of Apostolic Tradition. It is the magisterium which tells people what belongs to Tradition and what doesn't.
Bishop Fellay accepts this premise. He accepts that "magisterium" means the pope. But that is not good Catholic teaching. "Magisterium" is a neuter noun. It is an objective thing, not a person. Objectively, Tradition is Tradition. Even the pope cannot change Tradition, as it comes from Christ's Apostles. In 1870 the first Vatican Council proclaimed that even the pope does not have the power to change Sacred Tradition. That is dogma!
Premise 2. The Pope claims that the teachings of the Vatican II Council are "Tradition". Benedict XVI goes on and on about the "hermeneutic of continuity" -- whatever that is -- and asserts over and over again that Vatican II is not a break with the past, but part of Catholic "Tradition".
Bishop Fellay accepts this premise too. Therefore, he and his followers in the SSPX -- there are dissenters, notably Bishop Richard Williamson -- must accept the teachings of the Vatican II Council concerning ecumenism, collegiality, religious liberty, and many other modernistic "doctrines" which are objectively not Catholic.
It follows too that Bishop Fellay and those who stand with him must accept the validity of the Protestant-Masonic-Pagan Novus Ordo worship service -- notice I didn't say "Mass" -- of 1969, as well as the status of those admitted to the priesthood under the New Ordinal.
But... in his sermon, the bishop claims that he can not follow these two conclusions. The problem is that -- logically -- if he accepts the two premises, he must accept their two conclusions. Thus, Bishop Fellay exposes himself as either unable to follow the logic or a hypocrite.
In his sermon, he confesses that he tried to have it both ways, to somehow reconcile the Vatican's position with his previous opposition to it. He penned certain changes denying the conclusions to the Pope's proposed "Doctrinal Preamble". But Benedict himself struck out Bishop Fellay's amendments and returned to him the original document, demanding that the bishop and the SSPX accept it unchanged.
According to the Traditio website, from which the foregoing is adapted, Bishop Fellay could redeem his hypocrisy by rejecting the two conclusions and accepting a different premise, i.e. the premise of the Catholic Fathers and Doctors of the Church that even a pope can be a personal heretic.
St. Paul denounced St. Peter for heresy (Galatians 2:11 et seq.), from which very important example we learn that the faithful must not follow a pope into heresy. But Bishop Fellay rejects that Catholic premise in favor of allowing the Modernists -- led by a thoroughly Modernist pope disguised as a "conservative" -- to occupy and possess the Holy See and the Chair of St. Peter.
Thus (says Traditio), Bishop Fellay has become the Great Hypocrite, and his followers in the Society of St. Pius X follows him into this hypocrisy. What will be the consequences for them of their hypocritical acceptance of heretical principles? St. Matthew 24:51 tells us: "The Lord ... shall separate him, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Click here to learn more about the limitations of papal authority to change Sacred Tradition, from the writings of Roman Catholic popes, councils, saints, and theologians. The second part of this rather lengthy piece is a list -- an astonishingly long list -- of popes who arguably fell into material (personal) heresy.
Finally, the article speaks of two anti-popes. Particularly à propos is the account of St. Bernard's rejection of the validity of a pope (Anacletus II) who was elected by the majority of cardinals, occupied the See of Rome, and was recognized by the whole world!
During his sermon, after recalling the spiritual meaning of the Feast of All Saints, he explained the status of the Society's relations with Rome. Unfortunately for him and for the SSPX, Bishop Fellay's discourse expressed more clearly than ever before why his position and that of his wing of the Society is untenable.
Let's examine the logic:
Premise 1. The magisterium is the authentic judge of Apostolic Tradition. It is the magisterium which tells people what belongs to Tradition and what doesn't.
Bishop Fellay accepts this premise. He accepts that "magisterium" means the pope. But that is not good Catholic teaching. "Magisterium" is a neuter noun. It is an objective thing, not a person. Objectively, Tradition is Tradition. Even the pope cannot change Tradition, as it comes from Christ's Apostles. In 1870 the first Vatican Council proclaimed that even the pope does not have the power to change Sacred Tradition. That is dogma!
Premise 2. The Pope claims that the teachings of the Vatican II Council are "Tradition". Benedict XVI goes on and on about the "hermeneutic of continuity" -- whatever that is -- and asserts over and over again that Vatican II is not a break with the past, but part of Catholic "Tradition".
Bishop Fellay accepts this premise too. Therefore, he and his followers in the SSPX -- there are dissenters, notably Bishop Richard Williamson -- must accept the teachings of the Vatican II Council concerning ecumenism, collegiality, religious liberty, and many other modernistic "doctrines" which are objectively not Catholic.
It follows too that Bishop Fellay and those who stand with him must accept the validity of the Protestant-Masonic-Pagan Novus Ordo worship service -- notice I didn't say "Mass" -- of 1969, as well as the status of those admitted to the priesthood under the New Ordinal.
But... in his sermon, the bishop claims that he can not follow these two conclusions. The problem is that -- logically -- if he accepts the two premises, he must accept their two conclusions. Thus, Bishop Fellay exposes himself as either unable to follow the logic or a hypocrite.
In his sermon, he confesses that he tried to have it both ways, to somehow reconcile the Vatican's position with his previous opposition to it. He penned certain changes denying the conclusions to the Pope's proposed "Doctrinal Preamble". But Benedict himself struck out Bishop Fellay's amendments and returned to him the original document, demanding that the bishop and the SSPX accept it unchanged.
According to the Traditio website, from which the foregoing is adapted, Bishop Fellay could redeem his hypocrisy by rejecting the two conclusions and accepting a different premise, i.e. the premise of the Catholic Fathers and Doctors of the Church that even a pope can be a personal heretic.
St. Paul denounced St. Peter for heresy (Galatians 2:11 et seq.), from which very important example we learn that the faithful must not follow a pope into heresy. But Bishop Fellay rejects that Catholic premise in favor of allowing the Modernists -- led by a thoroughly Modernist pope disguised as a "conservative" -- to occupy and possess the Holy See and the Chair of St. Peter.
Thus (says Traditio), Bishop Fellay has become the Great Hypocrite, and his followers in the Society of St. Pius X follows him into this hypocrisy. What will be the consequences for them of their hypocritical acceptance of heretical principles? St. Matthew 24:51 tells us: "The Lord ... shall separate him, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Click here to learn more about the limitations of papal authority to change Sacred Tradition, from the writings of Roman Catholic popes, councils, saints, and theologians. The second part of this rather lengthy piece is a list -- an astonishingly long list -- of popes who arguably fell into material (personal) heresy.
Finally, the article speaks of two anti-popes. Particularly à propos is the account of St. Bernard's rejection of the validity of a pope (Anacletus II) who was elected by the majority of cardinals, occupied the See of Rome, and was recognized by the whole world!
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Overheard at the bar of the Willard Hotel
Eyes now wide with interest, he responds, "No kidding! I got elected on November 8th too. What district are you from?"
Te salutamus, Agentus Sextus. Ed.
Canada to send out for Chinks?
Walt has it on good authority [the so-called National Post, actually. Ed.] that Canada's quasi-Conservative government is actually getting serious about finding an alternative to the sorely troubled F-35 fighter jet by asking rival manufacturers for information about the cost and availability of their planes.
Rona Ambrose, currently being rehabilitated as minister responsible for defence procurement -- could we call her the chief procuress? -- is going to ask Boeing, makers of something called the Superhornet, and the consortium that makes the Eurofighter Typhoon, what their prices are and how soon they can have something painted with maple leafs... Errr, maple leaves. Whichever is red, not blue.
Just looking, you understand. The pricing and availability information request falls short of a formal tender but government sources said the "market analysis" will send a signal to voters and industry that it is taking seriously the Auditor-General's spring report that was heavily critical of the F-35 procurement process.
Today Walt can reveal that real anger seethes inside the icy exterior of Canadian Prime Minister Harpoon. In the middle of the night, a Canuck agent -- we won't even give his number -- has slipped under Walt's cabin door a brown envelope marked "Top Secret Restricted & Confidential". Here's what was inside.
Rona Ambrose, currently being rehabilitated as minister responsible for defence procurement -- could we call her the chief procuress? -- is going to ask Boeing, makers of something called the Superhornet, and the consortium that makes the Eurofighter Typhoon, what their prices are and how soon they can have something painted with maple leafs... Errr, maple leaves. Whichever is red, not blue.
Just looking, you understand. The pricing and availability information request falls short of a formal tender but government sources said the "market analysis" will send a signal to voters and industry that it is taking seriously the Auditor-General's spring report that was heavily critical of the F-35 procurement process.
Today Walt can reveal that real anger seethes inside the icy exterior of Canadian Prime Minister Harpoon. In the middle of the night, a Canuck agent -- we won't even give his number -- has slipped under Walt's cabin door a brown envelope marked "Top Secret Restricted & Confidential". Here's what was inside.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Ontario court jails HIV+ man for unprotected sex
In May of 2011 Walt told you about "You doesn't have to call me Johnson" Aziga, who was convicted of murder by the courts of Ontario for having knowingly infected several women with the HIV/AIDS virus. Two of them died, hence the convictions.
In spite of playing the race card [no surprises there. Ed.] Mr. Aziga was declared a dangerous sexual offender, and is now languishing in a Canadian jail somewhere, at Her Majesty's pleasure, as they say.
Ian Williams is a bit more fortunate. He knows when he's getting out! The 50-year-old Williams was convicted yesterday of having unprotected sex with two women without disclosing his HIV+ status. He was sentenced to six years in the hoosegow -- 3 years for each victim. That's not unreasonable because, see, they didn't die. Yet.
But get this. This week's convictions are not the first for the loathesome Lothario. Williams was previously convicted in 2006 and served a year in jail after two other women reported they were never informed of his HIV positive status when he had unprotected sex with them.
And there's more. A year earlier, his wife died from AIDS. Although his stepdaughter complained to police that her mom had been infected by Williams, he was never charged. This was before the Azinga case set a precedent.
So, as the guys at the track say, Mr. Williams has form. If you were a betting man [unlike Walt. Ed.] you would be tempted to bet on him to repeat, just as soon as he gets out of the gate. After credit for 15 months of pretrial custody, that would be in four years and nine months.
Unless of course the Canadian immigration people are alert enough to deport Mr. William to his native Trinidad. Oh. Didn't I mention that? I knew you'd guess.
In spite of playing the race card [no surprises there. Ed.] Mr. Aziga was declared a dangerous sexual offender, and is now languishing in a Canadian jail somewhere, at Her Majesty's pleasure, as they say.
Ian Williams is a bit more fortunate. He knows when he's getting out! The 50-year-old Williams was convicted yesterday of having unprotected sex with two women without disclosing his HIV+ status. He was sentenced to six years in the hoosegow -- 3 years for each victim. That's not unreasonable because, see, they didn't die. Yet.
But get this. This week's convictions are not the first for the loathesome Lothario. Williams was previously convicted in 2006 and served a year in jail after two other women reported they were never informed of his HIV positive status when he had unprotected sex with them.
And there's more. A year earlier, his wife died from AIDS. Although his stepdaughter complained to police that her mom had been infected by Williams, he was never charged. This was before the Azinga case set a precedent.
So, as the guys at the track say, Mr. Williams has form. If you were a betting man [unlike Walt. Ed.] you would be tempted to bet on him to repeat, just as soon as he gets out of the gate. After credit for 15 months of pretrial custody, that would be in four years and nine months.
Unless of course the Canadian immigration people are alert enough to deport Mr. William to his native Trinidad. Oh. Didn't I mention that? I knew you'd guess.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Where to find P.J. O'Rourke's best stuff
When I became a man, I put away the things of a child. St. Paul: I Corinthians 13:11
Me too. And one of the childish things I put away -- in a hermetically sealed container under the front porch -- was a complete collection of National Lampoon, right from Number 1 until it went bi-monthly and stopped being funny.
At that time (latter part of the 1970s) the editor of NatLamp was P.J. O'Rourke, possibly the funniest reactionary and humorist of the entire 20th century. (He stopped being funny about the 1st of January 2001, but I've said that before.)
A conservative with a sense of humour is rare but not unique. Walt always admired William F. Buckley Jr. and chuckled at his wry comments, albeit understanding them with the help of Funk and Wagnall. Ron Paul often seems to me to have his tongue stuck firmly in his cheek, although there's always the possibility that he's 100% serious 100% of the time. It's hard to tell.
But the quality O'Rourke stirs into the mix -- a quality seemingly lacking in Buckley and Paul -- is a healthy dose of depravity. In that, P.J. more closely resembles the late great (but not conservative) Hunter S. Thompson, Doctor of Gonzo Journalism.
The resemblance is best seen in what Walt considers O'Rourke's piece: "How to Drive Fast on Drugs While Getting Your Wing-Wang Squeezed and Not Spill Your Drink". Reading it -- even for the umpteenth time -- puts me in mind of my misspent youth. [Last year? Ed.]
So do HST's descriptions, in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, of driving across the desert in the shark, but Thompson's narrative discloses a certain unhealthy depravity, compared with P.J.'s behaviour, which seems to me pretty much normal for a young man of our generation. A judge might disagree with me -- at least one judge has taken serious issue with my views on what's "normal" -- but whether you agree or not, you can't help but LOL at O'Rourke's recipe for a cocktail of hedonistic, reckless fun. A small sample:
Even more important than being drunk, however, is having the right car. You have to get a car that handles really well. This is extremely important, and there's a lot of debate on this subject -- about what kind of car handles best. Some say a front-engined car; some say a rear-engined car. I say a rented car.
Yeah, sure. I can hear all the progressive thinkers say that's totally irresponsible, no social conscience, yada yada yada. But my experience -- and I have had some -- is that you have to go through that verging-on-the-insane phase before you can truly understand the meaning of sanity or even normality. Show me someone who's "normal", and I'll ask him (or her) if he (or she) has always been that way. Chances are the answer will be "Oh no. Back in the day I used to..." Etc.
Hold that thought. What I really wanted to tell you was where -- outside of my complete set of National Lampoons -- to find a selection of P.J. O'Rourke's better articles and essays. Walt recommends Republican Party Reptile (Atlantic Monthly Press, 1987), which contains half a dozen from NatLamp plus a number of pieces which previously appeared in Rolling Stone, House and Garden [Really?! Ed.] and Car and Driver.
One of the C&D items is "High-Speed Performance Characteristics of Pickup Trucks", which all those who have never deviated from "normal" can skip, because you won't understand it. No. Read it so you'll understand those of us who have on occasion broken the confines of conformity.
Footnote: Walt's collection of National Lampoons is for sale. Condition is fine to very fine. If you pay enough I'll throw in the Harvard Lampoon parodies of Time and Life, and the famous High School Yearbook. Exchange of cash and a treasury of humour to be made under the UN flag at the border. E-mail your offer to the usual address.
Me too. And one of the childish things I put away -- in a hermetically sealed container under the front porch -- was a complete collection of National Lampoon, right from Number 1 until it went bi-monthly and stopped being funny.
At that time (latter part of the 1970s) the editor of NatLamp was P.J. O'Rourke, possibly the funniest reactionary and humorist of the entire 20th century. (He stopped being funny about the 1st of January 2001, but I've said that before.)
A conservative with a sense of humour is rare but not unique. Walt always admired William F. Buckley Jr. and chuckled at his wry comments, albeit understanding them with the help of Funk and Wagnall. Ron Paul often seems to me to have his tongue stuck firmly in his cheek, although there's always the possibility that he's 100% serious 100% of the time. It's hard to tell.
But the quality O'Rourke stirs into the mix -- a quality seemingly lacking in Buckley and Paul -- is a healthy dose of depravity. In that, P.J. more closely resembles the late great (but not conservative) Hunter S. Thompson, Doctor of Gonzo Journalism.
The resemblance is best seen in what Walt considers O'Rourke's piece: "How to Drive Fast on Drugs While Getting Your Wing-Wang Squeezed and Not Spill Your Drink". Reading it -- even for the umpteenth time -- puts me in mind of my misspent youth. [Last year? Ed.]
So do HST's descriptions, in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, of driving across the desert in the shark, but Thompson's narrative discloses a certain unhealthy depravity, compared with P.J.'s behaviour, which seems to me pretty much normal for a young man of our generation. A judge might disagree with me -- at least one judge has taken serious issue with my views on what's "normal" -- but whether you agree or not, you can't help but LOL at O'Rourke's recipe for a cocktail of hedonistic, reckless fun. A small sample:
Even more important than being drunk, however, is having the right car. You have to get a car that handles really well. This is extremely important, and there's a lot of debate on this subject -- about what kind of car handles best. Some say a front-engined car; some say a rear-engined car. I say a rented car.
Yeah, sure. I can hear all the progressive thinkers say that's totally irresponsible, no social conscience, yada yada yada. But my experience -- and I have had some -- is that you have to go through that verging-on-the-insane phase before you can truly understand the meaning of sanity or even normality. Show me someone who's "normal", and I'll ask him (or her) if he (or she) has always been that way. Chances are the answer will be "Oh no. Back in the day I used to..." Etc.
One of the C&D items is "High-Speed Performance Characteristics of Pickup Trucks", which all those who have never deviated from "normal" can skip, because you won't understand it. No. Read it so you'll understand those of us who have on occasion broken the confines of conformity.
Footnote: Walt's collection of National Lampoons is for sale. Condition is fine to very fine. If you pay enough I'll throw in the Harvard Lampoon parodies of Time and Life, and the famous High School Yearbook. Exchange of cash and a treasury of humour to be made under the UN flag at the border. E-mail your offer to the usual address.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)