It’s a conspiracy man

I've enjoyed the holiday season as a chance to catch up on reading – one of my favourite pastimes. However I have surprised myself with the course my reading has taken. 

It started with picking up Killing Kennedy from the library. With the 50th anniversary of JFK's passing occuring recently, it was a book that looked interesting to flick through on a summer's day. Basically it's a history of JFK's presidency written in the style of a thriller novel, so an easy quick read.  An impulsive pickup from the new releases stand.

As JFK's life and times occured before I was even born, I knew very little about him other than that which most people of my age would know – the Bay of Pigs, the Kennedy family personalities, and of course his assassination in Dallas. 

Which is where I started disapearing down the wormhole. 

Against my better judgement, I have now moved on to my third book regarding JFK and his death, have spent way too much time on the internet reading up on all the grassy knoll/ second gunman/ it was the French/ it was the Russians/it was the CIA theories, and am finding myself getting way too engrossed in the increasingly crazy theories that are out there. 

For all that it is a fascinating and interesting diversion from the usual reading material I choose to read. It's always good, especially during a quieter, more relaxed time of the year. to find a new interest and to learn new things or to at least try to understand the different theories that are out there. It's almost like pondering the "what ifs" are more interesting than the actual likelihood of what has been proven to have happened (or at least, that's what they want you to think :) ) . 

Which in relation to Being Frank made me think of our Church, which of course attracts it's own conspiracy theorists and "unusual" theological opinionists. Are we broad enough to accept different perspectives – to hear them out, to consider them, to mine for the kernel of truth in even the wackiest of pronouncements? Or do we reject them out of hand because they don't fit with our own understandings? 

I wonder whether sometimes it is too hard to hear another perspective that jars with our own beliefs, which are often precious and/ or lifelong ones. How do others handle hearing opinions that challenge their values or principles? 

Be Sociable, Share!

    Comments: 83

    1. paulinem January 16, 2014 at 3:14 pm

      What I enjoy about reading novels etc documentaries  is the different perspective they give on historical events. I grew up in a time where news was sanitized and debate on issues was really not encouraged, I guess it was seen as unpatriotic. The reality is it is the opposite a good democracy is where dissension in welcomed as it keeps politicians etc on their toes and to be open about policy etc etc.

      For example I remember reading a Bryce Courtney novel on the Korean war,  and another on the Vietnam War these books gave a far different perspective on these events than the BS we were told  when I was at school. So generally I do enjoy readings books of different historical events such as a novel I read of the civil war in Spain during the holidays and how ordinary people were caught up in a nasty conflict through no fault of their own. The recent TV docos on the first war one makes me  horrified at the total lack of respect for human life by the powers to be whom lead the campaign. 

    2. Werahiko January 16, 2014 at 3:48 pm

      I think it would help a lot of people distinguished between opinion fact (or observation) hypothesis and theory. People are entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. In determining what is or is not a fact is is useful to distinguish between levels of proof. we are most familiar with 'beyong reasonable doubt' and 'balance of probabilities'. There are also things which people choose to belief as if they were facts on the basis of faith (e.g. the bodily assumption of Mary). It is useful to distiguish such faith-based 'facts' from those based on observation and the weighing of countervailing evidence. And it is also useful to distinguish between the faith-based 'fact' and arguments defending the 'fact' as not being contradicted by any known evidence. That something is not contradicted, does not proved it happened. Occam's razor 'the least complex explanation is on average more likely to be true' is also helpful in thinking. There are also wonderful accounts from all fields of study leading to actual hard conclusions about the real world, rather than the speculation produced by the meanderings of conspiracy theorists. They make better reading. As a suggestion: get the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (David Crystal) out of the library and then tell me that Kennedy speculation is more interesting than real study of real things.

    3. Benedicta January 16, 2014 at 9:05 pm

      In answer to your questions…if depends on what the topic is, the context, the person and in the final instance how you judge all that in pondering a response.

      For example…a few years ago while attending my husband's nieces Anglican wedding….I found myself in the bride's company for a short time (big wedding she had a lot of meet and greet). I did enjoy the Anglican ceremony and said so…to which she replied approvingly and then queried me, with the friendliest of quirky smiles , as to why I preferred such an old fashioned Church like the Catholic Church.

      I suppose I could have mustered several responses and I honestly can't remember what I said but it was nuanced, friendly and non-confrontational. She only gets one wedding and being a relative I might have several opportunities in a lifetime to answer the question more fully.

      I think in most comments regarding our faith there is a deeper thing going on. We adhere to this or that and take certain positions. Those positions are for the most part not out own but ones we have chosen through some learning process or being in the company of like-minded people. The problem is in isolation we can do that but the art of having a deep and strong discussion on religion is lost. Why? Opinion is posed as knowledge. We are all experts through TV and the media. We are never learners but simply hearers of other peoples thoughts. Then we can't get pass the level of information that can't fit into a sound bite…it has to be short and smart.

      Soren Kierkegaard was a bit prophetic on the media…that we would be all tuned in to something like TV. He said we would hand our minds over and stop thinking. For the most part that has happened on the general level. We are media puppets if we don't exit in some way.

      I can agree with Paulinem re things being sanitised. For the most part I have found historical novels to perpetuate popular myths and interpretations without question. I did watch on DVD the series The Tudors. I am a Reformation junkie. So yes Paulinem I am pleased to say that there was balance in many stories through the series…for instance the Pilgrimage of Grace was included and presented fairly. Blessed Margaret Pole was included and so on. So despite the unnecessary raunchy bit I sped through (yawn) and the role of Henry okay I have to say I have defintely fallen for the Duke of Suffolk….he was well I can't say really but I thought him lovely…

       

       

       

    4. Benedicta January 16, 2014 at 9:06 pm

      So who killed Kennedy? Wasn't it Sirhan Sirhan? What was the motive?

    5. Benedicta January 16, 2014 at 9:07 pm

      More importantly, what happened to Marilyn Monroe?

    6. Don the Kiwi January 18, 2014 at 4:24 pm

      Benedicta.

      Sirhan killed Bobby Kennedy , not JFK. Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK – a poor deluded socialist. He was killed in turn by Jack Ruby. The conspiracy theories revolve mainly about motive, the involvement of the KGB , the CIA – and all sorts of other stuff.

    7. Werahiko January 18, 2014 at 5:55 pm

      Don I agree that Oswald killed Kennedy and that he was a socialist. But not sure why you would raise this in this context, as there is no evidence that he was politically motivated in the killing, and such attacks are not strongly associated with socialists (as compared with, say, anarchists, or fascists). You do not mention Ruby's politics. Why not call him a poor deluded capitalist?

    8. Don the Kiwi January 19, 2014 at 12:50 pm

      That's a part of one of the conspiracy theories, Werahiko.

      It is factual that he was actively socialist and spent some time in the Soviet Union, so it is relevant.  Jack Ruby – from what i understand – acted on his own; although there is another conspiracy theory that he was instructed to eliminate Oswald to hide any clues to the "real assasins".

      Capitalism has never been condemned by any pope – but warnings, as Pope Francis issued last month – have been issued regarding the excesses of capitalism, like "the worship of money/wealth.  Socialism has been condemned by the last nine poes, starting with Leo X!!! in Rerum Novarum. Pope Francis condemned socialism last month, so IMO, it is relevant to point it out,  since our country is riddled with socialism – it has even penetrated our Church.

    9. Werahiko January 19, 2014 at 3:15 pm

      'Socialism" has a wide range of definitions, Don. What is yours?

    10. Don the Kiwi January 19, 2014 at 3:56 pm

      Socialism  has only one definition Werahiko. It is a political and economic system where the means of production, distribution and exchange are owned by the society at large – that is, the government, as formulated by Karl Marx. The popes say that even a mild form of socialism is still wrong, because it denies private ownership and tends toward totalitarianism.

    11. paulinem January 19, 2014 at 4:46 pm

      Don socialism could be said  to be a means of economic system that puts people needs ahead of the economic system. I e a regulated economic system that uses Gods goods and services for the benefit of the people and which prevents the extreme excess of capitalism today.   Such a regulated system  is the Keynesian  economy for example could be said to be a socialist.

      Under this system we NZers enjoyed for years a  peaceful economy which was regulated but we never saw the excess we see today such as  excessive rents for homes  etc which many  families simply not afford to pay. Most NZers did not seem to be driven by the greed we see today under keynesian economy ( socialism )

      We never had half a million of NZ children living below the poverty level. Violence back then to today yes we had some but nothing to the excess today hmm don't remember any children been  deliberately killed by their  dad to punish the mum.

      By the way Don are you aware that Jesus Christ is considered to be the worlds most famous   socialist !

    12. Don the Kiwi January 19, 2014 at 5:20 pm

      Paulinem.

      You have fallen into the classic trap of fa

    13. paulinem January 19, 2014 at 5:24 pm

      Don sorry your reply  has  lost me ???

    14. Don the Kiwi January 19, 2014 at 5:33 pm

      Paulinem.

      You have fallen into the classic trap of falsehood, where the Social Teaching of the Church is completely comfused and mis-represented as Socialism. Because Jesus had concern for the poor and the downtrodden, does not make Him a socialist. It makes Him concerned for the poor, and we must follow Him in that respect after we give our first allegiance to God – our neighbour comes next.

      Jesus said to the young man, "Go sell all you have and give it to the poor". He did NOT say, "Go sell all you have, then give it to Caesar(the government) so they can help the poor."

      The principle of SUBSIDIARITY has been almost completely compromised by those who comfuse the Social teaching of the Church with Socialism; it is NOT socialism, it is CATHOLICISM, which supports freedom for those who have, to distribute as they see fit, to the poor – not to allow the government to do it for those people.

      We must get rid of the idea that the government will do everything for us – it wont. Just look at those countries that have socialist government – they have an increasingly poor population, and the only way they can keep going is by controlling the people – taking away their freedom.

      Please, do not confuse Catholicism with socialism. There must be something very wrong with socialism if all the last nine popes have condemned it.

      And besides, Keynesian economics have been shown to be a disaster. Just look at the countries that have adopted it – Greece, Portugal, Argentina, Cuba……..the list goes on . Those countries are cot cases, and their people are suffering poverty – real poverty that is a reality to them , but is something that does not exist in this country. Again, do not confuse hardship with poverty.

    15. Werahiko January 19, 2014 at 5:43 pm

      So Don when you say 'the means' do you mean all, most, some, or any of the means of production, distribution and exchange?

    16. Don the Kiwi January 19, 2014 at 5:55 pm

      Werahiko. The definition states "all'".

      There are very good examples of "shared ownership" in this country, and that is reasonable – the government is at liberty to step in to fund or partly own an enterprise when it is in difficulty, and needs the resources of the government to assist. But once the enterprise is back operating, it should be handed back to the shareholders – either through sale of the shares, or the enterprise paynig bavk the loan. Once again, the principle of Subsidiarity would require the government to step down. The govenment should not be in the business of running businesses – that is for private enterprise.

    17. Werahiko January 19, 2014 at 5:56 pm

      So by your definition, there has never been a socialist country, as some private ownership has been allowed even in the most extreme cases, such as Albania or North Korea?

    18. paulinem January 19, 2014 at 6:00 pm

      Sorry Don we willhave to agree to disagree with your sentiments re socialism etc  Christ and particularly keynesian …I think you will find the countries mention did not adopt a keynesian economic system, moe the system influenced by the EU economic policy etc  . Vatican for some years has been under influence of  capitalist cartels in Europe which have been a unseemingly strong influence on the Vatican re  economic policy  Re problems with Vatican Bank etc etc

      This is why I thank God for Francis whose attitude and behavior is similar  to Christ as he was in this three yrs of teaching us….  God willing Francis with luck will save the church and the Vatican  from these evil cartels who control Europes economic policy !! This is why I believe Christ told Benedict to resign as he was sending the church on a downward slide with his very european attitudes .

      Obviously to me by the rants above you will not agree with me …which is okay this is a democratic society with different viewpoints on the answers to life's problems….

      Keynesian was not a disaster it was failing becasue we had a power at any cost Govts (thanks to a  very undemocratic FFP election system back then ) that made it possible for the Govt of the day  ( national ) to borrow and bribe the electorate to assure they would get  the narrow margin  they required to regain power of NZ  parliament  …Interestingly  the govts since the change of economics to Rogernomics Free market have borrowed a lot more  for thier own agenda than was ever  done so before we changed from Keynesian

       

    19. Don the Kiwi January 19, 2014 at 7:40 pm

      Werahiko.

      The Soviet Unio was the full flowering of socialism – if you read the Communist manifesto, it describes what socialism is. The Soviet Union did not allow any private ownership – everything was  controlled by the state.

      I would be very interested for you to advise me about any private ownership in North Korea .

    20. Don the Kiwi January 19, 2014 at 7:46 pm

      Paulinem.

      Your view of economics within the EU and the Vatican, and the conduct of Pope Benedict XVI iis as distorted as your view of the Church. Did you realise that Pope Francis discusses most things with Pope Benedict? Your view of a discontinuity between Pope Francis and Pope Benedict, and his reason for stepping down, is a complete misunderstanding.

      Perhaps your conspiracy is as wild as the conspiracies surrounding the assasination of JFK

    21. Don the Kiwi January 19, 2014 at 7:49 pm

      By the way, paulinem.

      It is not my sentiments regarding socialism that is important – but the views and pronouncements of every one of the last nine popes, including Pope Francis. You are such a fan of his – as I am also – so you should listen to what he says.

    22. Werahiko January 20, 2014 at 12:08 am

      Umm, Don it must be some years since you read the Communist Manifesto. And the Soviet Union did allow private ownership in all sorts of ways a different times. And if you google North Korea you will find they have flourishing private production and distribution of farm produce.

    23. Werahiko January 20, 2014 at 12:29 am

      My apologies Don, that last post was too snooty. I should have said plainly waht I meant, which is that you are mistaken about the manifesto, and indeed about Marx and Engels. One of the outstanding characteristics of their work, and one much commented on, is the virtual complete absence of a description of the operation of communist society. The idea of a pre-communist socialist society in a single state awaited Lenin's thought. You will probably find the descriptions you are looking for in lenin (but you won't find it in Marx). And even Lenin offended against your socialism = the socialisation of ALL the means of production distribution and exchange, and argued strongly for the use of private investment, and ownership, espcially during his new economic programme. He saw this, of course, as a means to an end, and I am not saying he did not seek to eliminate private property. He did. But I repeat that by your definition there has never been a socialist country. Your definition is wrong, and not shared by anyone else I can think of, including any Pope. You should change it, to enable reasonable discussion.

    24. paulinem January 20, 2014 at 9:46 am

      No Don you were expressing your viewpoint in all your posts on economic theory, to say this is what the vatican etc says etc is hiding behind the reality that you are devotee to the freemarket economy re our present Neoliberalim economy.

      As I said in a democratic world we live in thats okay you are welcome to your view points.  BUT I disagree with you I think the  neo liberalism free market encourages greed averice etc ( I refer to my previous posting how I mentioned that real NZers mostly families are suffering as result of this system) or to ME the economic system you like  has more in common with Satan  wants for our world than what Christ has preached for us to live by etc.

      The Vatican can think or preach what they like I dont agree re socialism ( I  suspect you though are geting mixed up with Communism re Vatcan this  it is NOT the same as socialism ) ,

      Christ is my role model on why I support socialism as like him to me the people needs come first not the economic system like we follow in this country and sadly a great deal of the world.

      "What you do to the least of mine you do unto me "

      So yes its not surpriseing those European countries etc you metioned before  are failing, caused by greed etc.of  influential corporates/ people have caused this failing in their  economy.

      I believe our present  NZ economy will fail also as we have so much personal greed  been gained  by a few,meanwhile the gap between the  haves  and the have nots is  growing wider and wider. We only need a external  maco problem with our Dairy industry to  bring us into real deep economic problems. Now with the sale of our people owned important assets like power we will be especially be vulnerable. 

      The reality Don we  the followeres of Christ whether this be ordainary people like myself or the Pope Bishops Vatican etc etc are infaliable sinners. We can and do get into traps with our humanity of been influenced  by manipulative people/corporates who have very much an agenda of their own.

      Sadly it is coming out that  in recent times as communication etc improves that the Vatican has been influenced over the years often by people such as the European cartels.

      This is why I was interested in the Vatican (cardinal I think) representative who was in NZ recently saying there should only be a limited time period for anyone who is  stationed at the Vatican. I see a lot of wisdom in this, he suggested a decided period of time (cant remember  how long ) then the ? (what ever he was etc ) returns back to his own country or own domain and return to his/her original ministry.

      I can also see the  same for a time period could be for a Pope Cardinals etc could work well. As  Pope JP2  from what I hearing and reading  recently, was  towards the end of his reign was not medicaly or mentaly fit to be our pope.   Pope's, Bishops etc  etc  need to retire like us normal humans retire for the benifit of those you have a ministry towards.  As we get older and older  we do not have the necessary wherefore all required to fulfill demanding  leadership roles and no one is indespensible. For our Church  leadership to continue until well past their use by date is not fair on the church members or themselves.

      In brief the law of nature is the old must make way for the young should rule. This is why I do respect Beniditic recognising this reality and resigning from being pope.

       This is why  we  we need God in our lives and we all should importantly have a close relationship with God , we need him to save ourselves, to guide us in decsion making etc.

        Its only those humans that are perfect that dont need God.  Yet  we with any common sense  know in reality that despite what puffed pedal stool some individuals put themselves on there is no perfect human and none but Christ has ever existed.  

    25. bamac January 20, 2014 at 10:35 am

      Paulinem,

      Sorry but I can not take you seriously  … Two questions .

      ! /  You say that the Vatican has beeninfluenced by European cartels … Proof Please?

      2/   You say that sainthoods have been bought by wealthy families who put pressure on the Vatican to canonise some family member …proof please?

      Now you state that someone from the Vatican was here saying that those in the Vatican , the Holy Father  included, should have a certain length of time in their office then step down  …this man, you claim might have  been a cardinal you think  but we are to believe that claim although you give no proof that he , or the Holy Father  have really said what you claim that they said  … other posters here I note give the sourse of their quotes .

      Your understanding of Holy Mother Church is certainly different from that of most of us on Being Frank .

      God Bless,

      Mrs Mac

    26. Teresina January 20, 2014 at 11:09 am

      I second your comments, good one, Mrs Mac!

    27. paulinem January 20, 2014 at 12:36 pm

      The idea of being Frank is that it be a column that we can speak frankly our opinions on the church today without proof as naturally this cannot in most cases be given as it with mine a developed suspected opinion and deep suspicions on reading from different sources different stories etc etc. usually from the outcome to different problems .

      It was always well known for years in the church that if there was someone we felt should be declared a saint needed to raise vast sums of money to assure this person became a saint . Why the need for this money Mrs Mac ??

      I mentioned St Therese as it was well known her very wealthy Father was totally dotty about her and doted his money on her. I said as an opinion I question why did she become a saint as nothing I see shows she deserved such acclaim in comparison to many everyday people in our own neighborhood and pondered how much did her daddy’s money assure she gained sainthood.

      Europeans are well known to enjoy prestige and were not shy to spend money to gain it Why do you think there is so much money in the Vatican bank where did it all come over the years .tourism yes but not all of it. Reality check the Vatican is full of everyday people just like us capable of sinning just like us!

      I have checked some of your sources you have given in the past in all cases I discovered they were just opinions like mine only. No you and Teresina don’t like to made to consider that life in not all what you like to cling on to " a church of 50yrs ago when most Catholics were bland believers. Re your determination to promote ( and your love for the dead European language) of Latin Masses is a classic example of this. The church has moved on now its 2013 not 1953

      Today we are well educated and don’t hang on to blind loyalties like you do and don’t go ga ga because a bishop priest etc expressed an opinion. We healthy question others no matter who they are their opinions and make suggestions as to where they could be coming from!

      I could spend time looking "for opinions" like mine but unlike you I have a life to live and I strongly suspect like the links you promote they will only be opinions like mine … the church re problems like the Vatican bank was well recorded in newspapers approx a year ago when the Vatican employee was taken to court.

      The Cardinal I mentioned and read from I think came from the NZ Catholic magazine where he said something about a time period only in the Vatican …look it up yourself I suspect it will be on the internet if you want to be satisfied etc . My comment re time period for the pope came from reading about JP2 and I think comments from Benedict when he retired. The rest was just my opinion piece as this BLOG Being FRANK encourages :) Have a good afternoon

       

    28. bamac January 20, 2014 at 12:50 pm

      Thank you Paulinem …. you just proved my points from my last comment . ..

      Am glad to see that you have , like me , a life to live and others to to take care of .. I  thank God so often for my family ,my friends along with the inestimable gift of Faith  and the helpful gift of a sense of humour ,

      God Bless

      Mrs Mac

    29. bamac January 20, 2014 at 1:19 pm

      Paulinem ,

      I forgot to mention that I have seen opinions somewhat the same as yours in Tui Motu and N C R.

      Your remark about the Catholics back before Vat 11 being  "bland believers" is just as far off the mark as are so many other remarks …Many prayers,

      God Bless,

      Mrs Mac

    30. Werahiko January 20, 2014 at 4:22 pm

      I just don't get why people cannot see it. At the time that the deluded sociaist Oswald killed Kennedy, and the deluded capitalist Roby killed Oswald, what was happening in the Vatican? Why the second session of Vatican ll of course, during which the  Sacrosanctum Concilium or statement on the liturgy was framed (as they say, no doubt tongue in ecclesiastical cheek). Is it possible that two such events of earth-shattering importance could coincide without the hand of some supernatural force being involved? And as it is unversally conceded that the killing of Kennedy was an act of unsurpassed evil, can Sacrosanctum Concilium be seen as anything other than its monstrous Satanic twin? You don't need to be a rocket surgeon to work out the links between the corrupt Novus Ordo power structure, the Vatican bank, and the mafia, which was linked to Jack Ruby, and the world-wide coruption of morals occaisoned by the vast conspiracy of homosexuals who have infiltrated the Church. Ruby owned a Dallas strip-club, and was himself a part of this undermining of moral standards, so it is no wonder that after the shooting in Dallas there was a massve increase in the number of priests abandoning their vows in search of the pleasures of the flesh. Michael Voris himself seems to have been sucked into this demonic vortex of lies, as he has always skirted around this issue, and failed to draw the obvious links. Archbishop Lefrbre was also very quiet on the matter, and the only SSPX leader remaining who is believed to understand these links has been persecuted into silence ever since his slight slip up about how there never was a holocaust, and how Freemasons were behind the Fonterra melamine scandal. There was a lot of information on http://www.vaticansecretdeathfiles.org.tv but the site was recently taken down (or, I suspect, taken out, probably by a drone).

    31. bamac January 20, 2014 at 4:33 pm

      Werahiko,

      That is worth publishing in comic form, or maybe as a  comedy TV show …. just a suggestion

      Mrs Mac

    32. bamac January 20, 2014 at 4:34 pm

      Hey! They left off my smiley

      Mrs Mac

    33. Teresina January 20, 2014 at 6:46 pm

      Pauliinem, both St Therese of Lisieux's parents died while she was alive, so how could her parents have even known that she was going to  be a saint or that she would die so young.  The truth is the book "Journey of a Soul" when it was published took the world by storm and ordinary people found a simple, ordinary way to love God and her cause for sainthood was put forward.

      I suggest you read the book Journey of a Soul because the wisdom of one so young had to come from the Holy Spirit and her whole story is of love of God.

      There are five miracles attributed to her intercession to God that led to her canonisation: "St. Therese is credited with two spontaneous cures that medical science was unable to explain, prior to her beatification. In 1916, Sr Louise of St Germain was cured of stomach ulcers which she had suffered from for three years. The second miracle was the case of Charles Anne, a 23-year old seminarian who was near death from advanced pulmonary tuberculosis. Charles prayed to St. Therese as he lay dying. Later, he was examined by a doctor who proclaimed that Charles' lungs seemed to have been replaced by new lungs. Therese was beatified as a result of these two miracles. She was now called "Blessed Therese." Two additional miracles followed. A woman from Parma, Italy, named Gabrielle Trimusi, who suffered from arthritis of the knee, as well as tubular lesions on her vertebrae, was spontaneously cured. The final documented miracle happened to a Belgium woman, Maria Pellemans, who suffered from pulmonary tuberculosis which had spread to her intestines (the same illness Therese died from). Maria visited Therese's grave, and after returning and being examined by her doctor, was found to be completely cured, and all symptoms had disappeared. Two other doctors had previously confirmed the first doctor's diagnosis before Maria visited Therese's grave. After these miracles were investigated and approved by the Church, Therese was officially canonized a saint by Pope Pius XI on May 17, 1925, a mere 28 years after her death at the age of 24."

      Before she dies she said she would cause roses to fall from heaven and on the day of her canonisation it is reported that coloured petals fell from heaven.  Her intercession is ernestly sought by many and I can attest to having prayers answered through her intercession and I am sure many others on BF can do the same.  The following explains a powerful novena that is often used to invoke St Therese's intercession.

       

      "

      ‘SHOWER OF ROSES’ – THE MANY MIRACLES OF SAINT THERESE THE LITTLE FLOWER

      21 Apr

      “To love, to be loved had been St Therese of Lisieux’ great desire. These miracles are that desire’s fulfilment, the late Pope Pius XI pointed out: ‘We have proof that on entering Paradise she began at once this work among souls when we see the mystical shower of roses which God permitted and still permits her to let fall on earth, as she had ingenuously foretold’. And again: ‘We earnestly desire that all the faithful in Christ should prove themselves worthy of this abundant outpouring of grace, this mystical shower of roses which St Therese of the Child Jesus scatters without ceasing. No wonder that the Holy Father called her a ‘prodigy of miracles’.

      ST THERESE HELPS THE SICK, THE AFFLICTED AND UNBELIEVERS

      From every part of the world came reports of miracles of physical healing and, more important, miracles of supernatural grace. Men and women were not merely restored to bodily health but brought back to their faith and to the Church. Missions that had long been languishing sprang to life. Districts in the mission field where there had been no conversions for years were suddenly overwhelmed by people asking to be baptised and taught. Her help extended to every rank of society, but she seemed to have a special love for the sick and humble, the sick and the abandoned, and especially for little children.

      ST THERESE LOVES TO HELP PRIESTS TO GET NEW ZEAL

      OAbove all her help was lavished upon priests. On every side priests were strengthened in their labours, consoled in their loneliness, comforted in their sickness. All who committed their ministry to her care had the same story to tell of wonders happening which they could not account for on any other basis than that they were her answer to their prayers. Taking her as his model, many a priest who had lost heart and grown lukewarm found his early aspirations rekindled and his soul set on fire again with the Love of God. ‘Pray to her’, said Pope Benedict XV to a priest, ‘it is her vocation to teach priests how to love Jesus Christ.’

      THOUSANDS OF THANK-YOU LETTERS OF THE FAITHFUL

      As a result of this shower of roses came the immense flood of letters with which St Therese’s convent was inundated. The post soon became unmanageable. By the year 1911 it had reached the figure of a hundred letters a day, while in 1923, before her canonisation, the daily number had risen to five hundred. By the 1930s, if we include all the various departments at Lisieux, it surpassed a thousand a day.”
      - V. Johnson

      INVOKE ST THERESE’S HELP TODAY!

      “St Therese,
      the Little Flower; please pick me a
      rose from the Heavenly Garden
      and send it to me with a
      message of Love.
      Ask God to grant the favour I thee
      implore and tell Him
      I will love Him each day
      more and more.
      Amen.”

      The above prayer plus 5 Our Fathers, 5 Hail Marys, 5 Glory be, must be said on 5 successive days, before 11 a.m. . On the 5th day, the 5th set of prayers having been completed, offer one more set: 5 Our Father, 5 Hail Mary, 5 Glory be."

    34. Teresina January 20, 2014 at 7:01 pm

      As regards, Kennedy, I do believe there was a conspiracy to kill him.  I don't know who: whether it was the CIA, big business, anti-Catholics, a power struggle or the Soviets.  Whatever, some element of the US security forces had to have been involved for it to succeed.  I think Jack Ruby killed Oswald so there would be no trial.  Oswald was already dying of cancer so it didn't matter to him (although of course it mattered to his soul).  But there are so many stories as to who did it I don't think we will ever know.

      I do believe there is an element within the Vatican that is evil.  I don't know who they are.  Fr Malachi Martin's book "Windswept House" which is a faction

    35. Teresina January 20, 2014 at 7:19 pm

      Here is what Fr Z has to say about Fr Malachi Martin's book "Windswept House":

      "In any event, during my time working in an office of the Vatican I met some pretty interesting people.  Over a period of years I picked their brains about issues raised in Windswept House.  I can say that some of the things I heard echo many of the issues raised by Martin in the book.  I never heard anyone say that there had been for sure a satanic rite in the Vatican for the sake of undermining the Church from within.  However, given the hatred of the enemies and his servants for the spotless bride of Christ I have little doubt that something like that might have been attempted at one point or other."

       

      http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/06/quaeritur-malachi-martin-and-his-novel-windwsept-house/

    36. Don the Kiwi January 20, 2014 at 9:15 pm

      Werahiko.

      Your comment at 4.22 pm. is a great piece of satirical parody – for a moment I almost thought you were serious.

      With regard to socialism, I urge you to google "What the popes really think about socialism". This will give you many links, and clearly indicates that from a Catholic perspective, socialism and communism are one and the same. Many governments attempt to bring in socialism by stealth – like Obama is doing in the USA, but the problem is that it progressively encroaches on peoples' freedom. Both Marx and Engels called themselves Socialists. Consider also, Russia as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

      In particular read the cmmentaries by Gustavo Solimeo – but there are many others who quote letters and ecyclicals by the last nine popes. Socialism is definitely against all that is Catholic.

       

    37. Rubyshine January 20, 2014 at 9:34 pm

      Does anyone have links or info that explains why the divide between catholicism and socialism that aren't American based? Nothing against Americans but with their history with communists, it's hard to weed through sites to find solid ideas that aren't so culturally biased.

      The fact that there is such a divide was brand new information to me, so I'm just starting to look to understand what the issues are.

    38. Don the Kiwi January 20, 2014 at 10:00 pm

      Rubyshine.

      As i suggested to Werahiko, google "What the popes think about socialism". There is plenty of information there. Of course, that doesn't mean that the American view is wrong – in fact, they are pretty much spot on – even from the days of McCarthyism. Many of the "Communist under the bed" stories, although poo-pooed at the time, have turned out to be largely correct.

    39. Rubyshine January 20, 2014 at 10:19 pm

      Yeah I did that google, and I just read a lot of broad, sweeping statements, condemning socialism. I suppose I was looking for a very clear break down of catholic teachings state x, y and z, based on these specific scripture. Socialism creates problems a, b and c (as supported by specific examples) 

      But I'll keep searching and see what I can make out.

       

    40. Werahiko January 20, 2014 at 10:52 pm

      Hmmm. The thing of it is Don that during the period when all this condemning of socialism was going on, the church did a lot of supporting of government which were doing all the things you say the Church has consistently condemned. leaving aside such obvious duck-in-abarrell targets as fascist Italy, Spain and Portugal with their structures which exactly match your definition of socialism, we have the closer-to-home response of the Catholic Bishops to the New Zealand Labour Party. Now generations of Catholics have taken leading positions in that party. Up until the 1970s it had 'socialisation of the means of productions distribution and exchange' on the membership cards given to all who joined, stating it as the party aim. It openly stated itself as a socialist party, and did all those things you feel are outside Church teaching. Now by all means tell me the Church was wrong in its silence, encouragement and support (because all those were present), but it seems rather a big thing for the Bishops of New Zealand to miss the Cahtolic perspective on the major social shift in a century. does it not? These Bishops, of course, included the very uncomradely O'Shea, Liston, McKeefrey and Cleary to name a few.

      Thanks for your comment on my other post. It is an area difficult to parody.

    41. Benedicta January 21, 2014 at 4:22 pm

      Rubyshine and Don the Kiwi

       

      I won't pretend to be a correct exponent on the Church and socialism. But in answer to Rubyshine's question re the division between the Church and socialism (that isn't American) I went back to an earlier BF discussion and have retraced some thoughts from Poorclear.

      Poorclear said this about the ideas and principles of things in a November posting(my bold highlights):

      All the other causes are still operative but the idea is principle. Now we see what happens to work when efficiency is raised to being principle in the name of productivity. Then man can become simply the supervisor of a machine and cease to be a worker who is himself transformed in his work, he no longer develops the 'habitas' or quality in his intelligence of that particular art, he might end up only having a small place on a conveyor belt, losing touch with the finished product and so with all sense of value and achievement in what he's made. Or the work can be done in a way where the matter is not respected but rather exploited, so that the future of the work is undermined.

      There is a lot that can come from seeing a basic thing like work and art in what it really is, in a gaze that seeks what is principle and views the rest in that light.

      The view of the Church and socialism re the human person in relation to work is profoundly different. Socialism may purport some high ideals but those ideals are removed from the concrete situation of the worker and his relation to that work…his work is not his own but a sacrifice in service to progress or in communism a utopia…the future is the ideal proposed but no one knows what it is exactly.

      Its the fruit of Hegel – made political (economic) by Marx. It also relies on a utilitarian view of work and the human person.

      In this way the Church resists forms of social influence and government that see the human person as means to an end. The Church holds that each and every person is a good end in him or herself and all means surrounding that person must be consistent with that good end.

       

       

    42. Benedicta January 21, 2014 at 4:25 pm

      Another wee note…someone mentioned the Vatican Bank?

      Thanks to Lucia Maria and her blog I listened to Cardinal Maridiega when he was in NZ. He made the point that the Vatican Bank was not actually a Bank as we understand it. In the usual sense of Bank the Vatican Bank probably has only one sort of typically bank customer.

      Its customers are the Church's own religious orders and houses and so on. It is simply a place which holds the funds of these.

    43. Benedicta January 21, 2014 at 4:33 pm

      Werahiko

      Re your interesting thoughts on the NZ Bishops and socialism. Support of?

      It is interesting and yes in South America the Church has supported the opposite team and gone deep into fascism i.e. Argentina.

      Its a difficult one…but I would think the true Christian politician should be a purifying influence which ever party he or she is on.

      I think the political form of socialism and capitalism can both resist extremes. There are no utopias coming from either. So the Catholic politician's aim would be to place the human person/the poor traditional family as that which his or her party served as good ends in themselves. Then it would follow with the Catholic politician that the means (laws) which they enacted would have to be consistent with those good human ends. What usually happens is that some ideology is served or the power of the government is served.

      Its a hard vocation but much needed and sadly missing.

    44. Don the Kiwi January 21, 2014 at 5:10 pm

      Benedicta.

      "I think the political form of socialism and capitalism can both resist extremes."

      A valid point, but capitalism.is not a political ideology – purely economic – whereas socialism is both, although major capitalists tend to support "right wing" governments, purely because they disagree with the economic and political aspects of socialism. The main reason why the popes,and therefore the Church – speak out against socialism is because of its deprivation of individual freedom. A good read of Rerum Novarum will show the distinctions. Because there are some good aspects of socialism that align with the teaching of the Church  does not make the Church's teaching Socialism. If there is a close paralell to the Church's teaching, it is an emerging system – developed in Spain in the '50's with the 'Mondragon Experiment' which is now a large corporate in Spain – called Distributism, which has a number of followers in the USA. It is based on the economic principles ennunciated in Rerum Novarum, and favours labour and capital, instead of setting them against eachother, as socialism does.

    45. Don the Kiwi January 21, 2014 at 5:16 pm

      I meant to mention that there is a similar parallel to Distributism that was developed in NZ in the very early years of dairy farming. You may recall all the "Co-operative Dairy Companies" before the days of Fonterra. It certainly suited the times, when all the farmers who supplied their dairy processing company owned a share in the company, and the company employed its  managers and factory workers. It was very successful, and with the changing times, they – and I think some other investors - formed Fonterra – where a large percentage of the shares are reserved for the farmers, and Fonterra is certainly a success story.

    46. Don the Kiwi January 21, 2014 at 5:34 pm

      Werahiko.

      You make valid points. I think the bishops, not only in NZ but around the world in free countires, supported Labour type governments in so far as their policies favoured people, and particularly the not so well off, or on the bottom rung of society. The Church for example, favours trade unions – again, a point in Rerum Novarum – and this is still so today. The Church, as Benedicta says, does not favour "right" or "left" political systems, but rather whether or not people are tread with the dignity that has been given to us by God.

      The Church supported Fascism in Spain – Generalissimo Franco – because he supported the Church – the Socialist government that had taken over instituted a terrible persecution of the Church – thousands of priests and religious, and tens of thousands of Catholics were butchered. Likewise in Mexico 15 years before. There has never been – to my knowledge – a right wing governemt that has persecuted the Church, but only left wing governments. And before you quote the Nazis, remember – they were Socialists – the system was National Socialism, based on the Socialist principles. It was seen as right wing because it opposed the Soviet Union – but it was the same system, just with different stripes.

    47. Werahiko January 21, 2014 at 6:07 pm

      Don my summary of the Church's position since Rerum Novarum would be: total opposition to Marxism on philisophic grounds (atheism and dialectical materialism); opposition to Leninism on wider but similar grounds (imposition of communist party rule; abolition of private property, restriction of Catholicism (not religion per se); opposition to Catholic education; human misery considered by the church to arise from economic transformation); similar oppostion to later forms of Marxism-Leninism. Guarded support for fascism where Church property and education and worship freedom were allowed; guarded support for both social democracy (Labour-type governments) especially where Church education was supported; and warmer support for Christian-democract (National-type) governments, with concern about the poor expressed regularly ans (in Europe) concern about sexual moral and life issues; no support, or strategic support only, for libertarian (ACT-type) governments because of liberal social politics and/or insufficient support for the poor. Idelogically speaking, this is not entirely coherent. But to return to the point at issue – 'socialism' I think it is clear the Church has supported both fascist and social democratic governments in their 'socialist' efforts. On the Nazi's 'socialism' I think it is pretty clear they were not, although they claimed to be, any more than North Korea is 'democratic', though it claims to be. If we leave them to one side, I think you will find lots of persecution of the Church by right-wing governments of the UK (in Ireland); in Tsarist Russia (in favour of Orthodox) and in the case of Church leaders who spoke up against fascist oppression, lots of examples in South America, and some in Spain, Portugal and Italy. It is true thought that such governments did not seek to abolish the Church in itself. I think the church should ask "why' if it was true to the Gospel. We seem to be agreed though that democracy is in general a good thing because it allows religious freedom. Or are we?

    48. Benedicta January 21, 2014 at 7:02 pm

      Good discussion….I reiterate that I am 'flying on the seat of my pants'!

      Don…I think it very insightful of you to consider Hitler's political form to be that of Socialism. I agree. It is interesting that in the early days of his rise to power it was the Communists he considered his competitor.

      I think Don is right because the fact on the table is materialism…in Marx it presented through economic theory, in Hitler through racial theory and I might add my own little thought in the West through sexual theory i.e. Freudianism. They also all roll out on utilitiarianism where means are subjegated to ends. Does democracy now simply just perform as a vote counting on what ends we agree to pursue?

      It depends on the underlying philosophy being that man is a material being only. The spiritual doesn't exist or is collapsed into the natural.

      Werahiko….democracy is in general a good thing? Of course but I am not sure that democracy without a clear sense of the human person and the needs of the traditional family to generate society will do much more than take polls, gauge the mood of the people in order to organise its most appealing policies to suit. So far it holds to private property but I think that is under continual revue. It amazes me in Britain how after the second world war they brought in such hefty death duties that huge bills had to be paid or family estates handed to the government. In that way they demolished the straggling remnant of the upper class. It seems to be a fixation of socialism. On the other hand Thatcher sought to get the working classes into their own homes (grocers daughter Christian ethics).

      Just some wandering thoughts…

       

       

    49. Benedicta January 21, 2014 at 7:09 pm

      Werahiko

      Democracy a good thing because it allows religious freedom?

      Again religious freedom is a right to be protected.

      But in this global world not all religions value religious freedom for others. So should we grant religious freedom to those who won't grant it to others. So far we do.

      Everything is so mingled we are in territory we haven't been before.

      For what its worth I think the new Hungarian constitution (2011 I think) is interesting reading. The EU don't like it and a continually asking for changes. What is interesting about the HI is that it takes as its starting point its identity as an inheritor of the Christian tradition. At the same time it allows freedom of religion. I think it has done what Pope Benedict hoped the EU would do but didn't…recognise the Christian roots of Europe. I think it important what Hungary has done…as it can come back to this Christian base as a clarifying position if necessary amongst other contenders. Christianity can't be removed by politica stealth as its in the constitution.

    50. Werahiko January 21, 2014 at 7:19 pm

      I think the state should protect the religious freedom of all, and the right of all to be non-religious. If you establish a state with one religion at its core, you entitle other religions to 'take over'. In the past the Church has gone to extremes, such as oppostion to non-Catholic immigration. I for one would not want to claim the traditions of the Hungarian state, and I hope most Catholics would not either. world War l, for example, was a rather bad idea, to say nothing of the Hungarian role in WW ll. Didn't look like any Christian tradition to me.

    51. Benedicta January 22, 2014 at 6:15 pm

      That's interesting comment Werahiko. The Hungarian situation is complex so apart from them being 'exhibit A' as modern nation choosing a constitution which states allegience to its Christian roots…lets not get more into that.

      Do you think the state, I think you are talking a secular state, protect the religious freedom of all (including the right to no religion)?

      So the secular state is unbiased and neutral therefore likely to be more successful at keeping the religious peace? Able to balance the interests of Christians of all types, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists and Muslims because there is no bias from a secular government?

       

    52. Werahiko January 22, 2014 at 7:13 pm

      Yup.

    53. Benedicta January 22, 2014 at 11:00 pm

      So good…a short answer…(the perfect blogger)

      Short question….why?

    54. Benedicta January 22, 2014 at 11:02 pm

      To be fair I should add a few little words…

      Why do you think a secular state is able to balance the interests?

    55. Werahiko January 23, 2014 at 9:56 am

      A religious state can by definition never be fair to other religions. Otherwise it would not be true to its own. It will inevitably use state power to advance one religion.  I support democracy, majority rule with respect for minority rights, and individual human rights. A secular state is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for the support of these rights. Sufficient conditions include a strong judiciary, with separation of powers from the legislature, some form of constitution, and an educated population giving broad support to these principles. And of course I also support the right of people to have no religion. 

    56. Benedicta January 23, 2014 at 8:17 pm

      Werahiko

      I think your implication is that a secular state is 'neutral'. It has no interest in religion so is simply an arbitrator which ensures religious freedom.

      I think there are  problems. Secularism is not neutral; it has to hold to those things which bring about religious pluralism. 

      Religious pluralism as a view has its own ideas about things in a way goaded into action it is belligerent about exclusive truth claims. It dislikes fundamentalism which disturbs the 'peace' of religious pluralism.  Therefore in time and provoked by various religious stances and criticisms freedom of speech is threatened.

      The Alliance of Civilisations is a think tank at the UN which fosters religious pluralism and seeks to control fundamentalism (in the West that is).

      Religious pluralism requires structures and sanctions to make it work when truth claimers get too uppity. So in the end it just imposes its own view on religion on everyone. In this way secularism is at risk of totalitarianism.

       

       

       

       

       

    57. Werahiko January 23, 2014 at 8:53 pm

      Benedicta do you have any examples of what you mean? The words you use are used by some people to claim the right to erect religious symbols on public land etc, but regulating this sort of marginal activity is not 'totalitarianism". Do you have any examples of what you ean in a secular democracy?

    58. Benedicta January 24, 2014 at 10:54 am

      http://www.legal-project.org/issues/european-hate-speech-laws

      Werahiko…..'is not totalitarianism' as you say….but what I said was '…is at risk of totalitarianism.

      I think it poor argument on my part to send you to the above link. But the point is that laws, however comfortable we find them or reasonable we find them at this time, are in situ and can be racheted up depending on the powers of the day.

      Rather like Edward Snowden's exposition of the wide spread powers of the US, while not perhaps threatening in some people's eyes, are in fact the structures of totalitarianism even though at this time targeting 'a tiny minority of threat'. The fact is the government can spy on whoever it likes at any time.

      I don't think hate speech laws and blasphemy laws are necessarily new in western societies but the invasive powers through technology etc make them quite different in effect if deemed desirable.

      So the shift from 'marginal activity' to more than that has no argument of constraint but only as the governing powers see fit.

      Just saying there is a climate of change regarding multiculturalism and making it work by controlling expressions (however legitimate or true) about religion. Being able to criticise or discuss aspects of religion in even a robust reasonable debate is deemed possibly offensive and governments like the UK for example would prefer to limit and restrict the terms of debate.

       

    59. Abenader January 27, 2014 at 10:38 am

      What about the conspiracy within the church which as Fr. Hunwicke states:

      "Summorum pontificum confirmed juridically that the Latin Church had lived for some four decades under the dominion of a lie. The Vetus Ordo had not been lawfully prohibited. Much persecution of devout priests and layfolk that took place during those decades is therefore now seen to have been vis sine lege. For this so long to have been so true with regard to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which lies at the heart of the Church's life, argues a profound illness deep within the Latin Church. And the Big Lie was reinforced by multitudes of Little Lies … that the Council mandated reordered Sanctuaries … that the Council mandated exclusive use of the vernacular … The de facto situation created by the Big Lie and the Little Lies combined ought not to be regarded as normative. Its questionable parentage must give it a degree of provisionality, even (perhaps especially) to those who find it comfortable to live with. The onslaught upon the Franciscans of the Immaculate suggests that there are those, high in the Church's administration, who have still internalised neither the juridical findings of Summorum pontificum nor its pastoral call for harmony".

      Do modern Catholics care to understand why this occurred or are we so caught up in our protestantised worship that blahhh, that's history. We've moved on……

    60. Teresina January 27, 2014 at 11:13 am

      Abenader, I totally agree with that statement of Fr Hunwicke. I do think that among a certain group who consider themselves orthodox Catholics that while they see a problem with the extremely liberal side of things but think the rest should be brushed under the mat as if it never happened. An example of lack of willingness to speak out on abortion, for instance has been highlighted by Harvesting the Fruit from the Nuts:

      "There isn’t a “conservative” Catholic commentator alive who hasn’t publicly confronted the notion that political leaders who promote abortion-on-demand are to be esteemed as champions of “human dignity… non-violence, reconciliation and truth … justice and the common good” as the Church understands them, and they do so for the simple reason that this bastardization of Catholic social doctrine represents a grave danger, not just for society, but for the individual faithful who support such politicians.

      Karl Keating is just one such person among many. Catholic Answers can be applauded for producing a Catholic Voter’s Guide and for offering articles and programs aimed at setting the record straight on the “seamless garment” mentality that, here in the United States, has led to election after election wherein the majority of self-identified Catholics vote pro-death politicians into office.

      For example, how many of these conservative voices, certain members of the sacred hierarchy included, have been raised over the years against the Nancy Pelosis of the world for daring to suggest that their political aspirations are worthy expressions of authentic social justice?

      Now I ask you, who threatens to lead human society and individual souls away from the truth, apart from which each will perish; the pro-death politicians who disguise themselves as praiseworthy promoters of “human dignity …  non-violence, reconciliation and truth … justice and the common good,” or the visible head of the Catholic Church who validates them as such?

      The bottom line here should be obvious: Those conservative Catholic voices who position themselves and their apostolates as dedicated to helping good Catholics become better Catholics, and bringing former Catholics back to the Church, and yet remain silent to the grave dangers posed by the hierarchy’s praise for Nelson Mandela, the pope included, invite one to wonder exactly who they are serving; is it Christ, or is it their own self-preservation?

      This question is especially valid when said persons are willing to go out of their way to publicly single out the supposed danger posed by traditional Catholic voices, some even going so far as to lobby behind the scenes (albeit in vain) for their demise."

      http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/the-deafening-silence-of-conservative-catholics/

    61. Abenader January 27, 2014 at 12:44 pm

      Agree Teresina. Whatever happened to church militant, that speaks the truth, that excommunicates, that issues anathemas. Replaced by dialogue, thanks V2. What do these photo ops say to the world http://theeye-witness.blogspot.co.nz/2014/01/the-pope-and-cretin.html.

      And so division goes. Those who speak the whole truth are attacked, and that includes NZ as well. How many people are lead astray or at least to downplay critical issues http://theleadingedgeblog.com/michael-voris-tries-to-create-divisons-at-the-march-for-life/

    62. Werahiko January 27, 2014 at 5:23 pm

      Your first link Abenader used the word "cretin" as a term of abuse. Interesting, the original form of the word was "Christian", a reminder to see Christ in all.

    63. Abenader January 27, 2014 at 8:08 pm

      Werahiko

      Thanks bro, I'm not aware of that and quite correct, we must see Christ in all. Many parents saw Our Lord in their kids yet still took the stick to them (sometimes for the salvation of their souls). Was it not Pope Gregory VII that made king Henry wait in the snow for 3 days?

    64. Werahiko January 27, 2014 at 8:48 pm

      The only New Zealander likely to be made a saint anytine soon, Suzanne Aubert took the opposite view about hitting children: "They are Jesus. Would you hit Jesus?"

    65. Abenader January 27, 2014 at 10:48 pm

      Interesting question bro. What do you think (hopefully know) the impact of sin is, mine, yours, everybody? When we look at the crucifix, what do we see? 

      And so I ask, if that is your God that you receive in Holy Communion, do you receive Him in your hand, standing up? He who in the greatest humility, in the greatest act of mercy ever known, is still being beaten and betrayed by His ministers and flock who should know better.

      What was sacred then ought to be sacred now. 

    66. Werahiko January 27, 2014 at 11:23 pm

      Hmmm. Beaten and betrayed? Communion in the hand? I'd suggest not using up all available words, so you have some left for actual acts intended to express contempt for the Eucharist.

    67. Teresina January 28, 2014 at 10:56 am

      Werahiko, Christ Himself took a whip to the moneylenders – what say you about that?  Was that Christlike?  A bit of a smack with an open hand on a child's backside never did any harm and probably saved many from getting into trouble at school and even ending up in prison where a lot are these days through lack of discipline.

    68. Teresina January 28, 2014 at 11:04 am

      Abernader, rather than speaking against Michael Voris the Leading Edge should be prepared to uphold Church teaching.  I question how people can be truly pro life and yet support contraception, which includes the day after pill which is an abortificant doesn't the Leading Edge know?  Obviously not the leading edge then.

    69. Abenader January 28, 2014 at 2:22 pm

      Werahiko, the betrayal of Our Lord continues today and a massive part of that betrayal includes a denial of timeless truths. These denials extends to certain acts (knowingly or unwittingly) performed by the faithful (such as communion in the hand) ultimately culminating in mass desertion (apostasy) as well as a lack of belief in the Real Presence (as surveys show). 

      Teresina, dont know if you and others that are interested but came across Original Vatican II schemas prepared under the leadership of Cardinal Ottiavani. Have not read them as yet though it appears that "It was these schemas that would be rejected by the Council Fathers are excessively rigid, condemnatory in tone, and too "Scholastic" in their style. The majority of the documents were rejected in favor of what have gone on to become the sixteen documents of Vatican II".

      http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/historia-ecclesiae/79-history/421-original-vatican-ii-schemas.html

       

    70. Teresina January 28, 2014 at 4:06 pm

      Thanks for the link, Abenader.  Yes, I am very interested in those schemas, it will shed light on what the Church might have been over the past 50 years and what She will be restored to in coming years.  It will take me a while to wade through them but I most certainly will!

      Also, available at Angelus Press, Professor de Mattei's book on the Council which is said to be a must read:

      The Second Vatican Council has transformed the way both Catholics and non-Catholics look at the Church. From claims of a Council in full continuity with Tradition, but which has merely been misinterpreted, to those who see in it a rupture with the integral whole of the past, the Second Vatican Council is still a subject of fiery debate. 

      In the past, any critical review or discussion of the actual events which took place at the Council was brushed aside as a discussion untenable for a Catholic to hold. Now, from the discussions of the Society of St. Pius X to the books of Msgr. Gherardini, or the renewed interest in the work of Romano Amerio, this dicussion is now happening in a never-before seen way. In that vein, the renowned Italian historian, Roberto de Mattei takes up his pen to answer a question that has still not fully been answered, "What happened at the Council?"

      Sample Chapters:

      The Pontificate of Pius XII: Triumph or the Start of a Crisis?

      The Reactions to Neo-Modernism during the Pontificate of Pius XII

      Angelo Roncalli: Conservative or Revolutionary

      Italy "Opens" to the Left

      The Break With Council Procedures

      "Some Fresh Air in the Church"

      The Anti-Roman Party in the Second Session

      Why Doesn't Vatican II Speak of Hell?

      The Pacifist Appeal in the Council Hall

      1968: The Revolution in Society

      The Secularization of the Liturgy

      These and many more are available in this learned and insightful work, The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story

      http://angeluspress.org/the-second-vatican-council?keyword=de%20mattei

      I know Angelus Press is associated with the SSPX but I believe that the book is very difficult to get hold of otherwise since the clampdown on the Franciscans of the Immaculate.  Just another sign of censorship by the modernists!

    71. Werahiko January 28, 2014 at 10:01 pm

      Teresina I note your objection to 'censorship by the modernists'. Could you point me please to some spirited defence of freedom of speech, pre Vat ll, by traditionalists? Possibly the relvant passage of the Syllabus of Errors?

    72. Abenader January 28, 2014 at 10:50 pm

      Thanks Teresina. I had taken note of the mentioned book though the other which would also be quite interesting, available on the Angelus press website: "100 years of midernism". 

      Werahiko: Was a defence of freedom of speech necessary pre Vat II? Can you show the relevant evidence that it was necessary and while you are at it, the reasons why? Also, what is your take on the earlier quoted passage by Fr Hunwicke that "Summorum pontificum confirmed juridically that the Latin Church had lived for some four decades under the dominion of a lie. The Vetus Ordo had not been lawfully prohibited. Much persecution of devout priests and layfolk that took place during those decades is therefore now seen to have been vis sine lege. For this so long to have been so true with regard to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which lies at the heart of the Church's life, argues a profound illness deep within the Latin Church. And the Big Lie was reinforced by multitudes of Little Lies … "

       

    73. Teresina January 28, 2014 at 11:07 pm

      Werahiko, the difference is the Syllabus of Errors dealt with errors against the faith.  What we have with the Franciscans of the Immaculate is a mainstream Catholic order whose  publishing house has been shut down.  If that is not censorhip, what is?  Can you point to anything similar?  As you so often mention the infringement of people's rights, I am surprised that we haven't heard a peep out of you on this matter, nor does it appear to be of concern to any of the "conservatives" who comment on Being Frank.  Imagine if the publishing house of Opus Dei, for example, was shut down would there be any comment then?  You betcha!  "And of course you have heard of the comment of how they came for the Jews and I said nothing; they came for so and so and I said nothing … and then they came for me".  So, it is the think end of the wedge and other conservative publishing houses could indeed be shut down if this sort of thing is allowed to flourish unchallenged.

      "The Franciscan of the Immaculate Conception described in his letter that he passed by   the office of Order internal publishing,  Casa Mariana, in Frigento recently. ”My heart beat. I felt in me an unusual emptiness and dismay at the thought that we can no longer write for our own publishing house, and are not even allowed to distribute the books of our own publishing company in our convents.

       

      I look at the house. In there are our books. Many of them we have written, and much more contributions to our religious journals: Fides Catholica , Annales Franciscani , Immculata Mediatrix … Many books have been translated by us from  Latin, others we have from Italian, the language most used in the order, translated into other languages.

      That  is our life inside, years of study, sweat and sacrifice. The Apostolic Commissioner has ruled that we are no longer authorized to use them. What sin do they represent?

       

      I took courage and rang the bell at the door. A sister opens and I ask her about the new liturgical calendar of the Order, because we didn’t have one in the monastery.

      “I can not give you one Father, you know that it requires a permit,” replied my sister, kind and understanding.

      What could be sinful about a liturgical calendar?

      “But it needs a permit.”

      Exactly the permit.

      Whose?

      “From the Apostolic Commissioner of course!”

    74. Werahiko January 28, 2014 at 11:15 pm

      Freedom of speech can be defended in principle, or defended in specific cases because you agree with the speech in question. If the latter is your intent, it is helpful to make that point, in case people are able to accuse you of unprincipled argument.

      Incidentally, can you tell me Teresina and Abenedar: whose teachings do you accept and follow, and how do you decide?

    75. Teresina January 28, 2014 at 11:16 pm

      Thanks, Abernader, good points about the lies told about the Traditional Latin Mass – and I will take a look at the book you mention: 100 years of Modernism.

      It is very interesting how we have had complaints from some posters on BF that the Church prior to Vatican II was too strict, too this and too that, but not a peep from those people against the inquisition of the Franciscans of the Immaculate.  I think it is because certain groups are more worried about their own self-preservation than the problems that beset the Church.

    76. Teresina January 28, 2014 at 11:19 pm

      Werahiko, you seem to defend freedom of speech in principle, so why aren't you then speaking out against what is being done to the Franciscans?

    77. Teresina January 28, 2014 at 11:20 pm

      More to the point, Werahiko, whose teachings do you support and follow because on a number of occasions you do not seem to accept the teachings of the Church at all?

    78. Abenader January 28, 2014 at 11:53 pm

      Teresina, it appears that the cult of man is firmly entrenched within Holy Mother church. The focus is on the person and their experience and their thoughts. So much for submitting to Holy Mother church and Her timeless truths including esp. Her 'mode' of worship. This could (amongst others) be largely due to the underlying philosophy which has crept into the church (such as phenomenology). Im sure that a possible response to this would go something like " Blessed John Paul utilised phenomenology, therefore it not necessarily has been sanctified but it is ok). It is also possible that with the New Theology mentioned by Fr. Garrigou-Legrange ("Where is the New Theology leading us") wherein the very definition of truth has been subverted and is not what St. Thomas has stated "adequation of intellect and reality but the conformity of mind and life".

       

      Btw, I wont be holding my breath awaiting a response from cuzzy bro Werahiko re: persecution in the church over the last 40 years and also the current FFI scandal. Maybe he's also of the opinion that "Hey, these guys must've done something wrong cos they would'nt be treated so roughly as they currently are esp. within this time of compassion and mercy"?

    79. Werahiko January 29, 2014 at 8:55 am

      The fact is: we do not know what is happening to the FOTI. I don't. You don't.

    80. Abenader January 29, 2014 at 12:12 pm

      Cuz, the fact is that there has been a suppression of the Holy Mass of the ages. Fact! (as pointed out by Fr. Hunwicke).

      I'm sure that you have read posts by Teresina and Bamac attesting to this. And as is known, the Catholic understanding of truth is conformity of the mind with reality. It appears that you possibly have acquiesced to the modernist understanding of truth per chance?

    81. Abenader January 29, 2014 at 12:20 pm

      As regards the FFI, can you possibly make a list of things/acts/deeds/words that this order could have possibly done/said to deserve such harshness? 

    82. Werahiko January 29, 2014 at 11:16 pm

      Abenader as far as I am aware the Church continues to celebrate Mass. As to what might have been going on – well, who knows? As we have seen with one or two other cases, some very strange things happen in some surprising places. 

    83. Abenader January 30, 2014 at 11:02 am

      " As to what might have been going on – well, who knows?"

      More likely, who cares? And you are correct, some very strange things happen in some surprsisng places. How about the "gay mafia" in the vatican for starters?

      As the mass is the centre of our very existence, these strange things are called liturgical abuses, and the like. But again, who cares?