Sister Antonia Brenner dies at 86; nun moved into Tijuana prison to tend to inmates

From the Los Angeles Times:

 

By Richard Marosi

October 17, 2013 

Sister Antonia Brenner, a Beverly Hills-raised mother of seven who became a Roman Catholic nun and moved into a notorious Tijuana prison where she spent more than three decades mending broken lives, easing tensions and dispensing everything from toothbrushes to bail money, has died. She was 86.

Brenner, who had been in declining health, died Thursday of natural causes at the home of her religious order in Tijuana where her fellow sisters had cared for her in her final days, said Christina Brenner, her daughter-in-law.

She was born Mary Clarke in Los Angeles on Dec. 1, 1926, to Irish immigrant parents. Her father grew wealthy running an office supply business, and the family counted Hollywood stars such as Cary Grant among their neighbors. She married and raised four daughters and three sons, all the while becoming deeply involved in charity work.

In 1977, after her children were grown and two marriages had ended in divorce — a source of sadness that she rarely talked about — Brenner gave away her expensive clothes and belongings, left her Ventura apartment and moved to La Mesa penitentiary. She had delivered donations in the past to the prison, each visit filling her with compassion.

"Something happened to me when I saw men behind bars. … When I left, I thought a lot about the men. When it was cold, I wondered if the men were warm; when it was raining, if they had shelter," Brenner told The Times in a 1982 interview. "I wondered if they had medicine and how their families were doing. …You know, when I returned to the prison to live, I felt as if I'd come home."

Small of stature, with blue eyes peeking out from under her traditional black–and-white habit, Brenner cut a strikingly serene presence in the overcrowded prison of 8,000. She lived as any other inmate, sleeping in a 10-by-10-foot cell, eating the same food and lining up for morning roll call.
She would walk freely among thieves and drug traffickers and murderers, smiling, touching cheeks and offering prayers. Many were violent men with desperate needs. She kept extra toilet paper in her cell, arranged for medical treatment, attended funerals.

Guards and inmates alike started referring to her as the prison angel. In the cellblocks she was known simply as "Mama." "There isn't anyone who hasn't heard my lecture on victims," she said in a 2002 Times story. "They have to accept that they're wrong. They have to see the consequences. They have to feel the agony. ... But I do love them dearly."

When prayers didn't work, she took matters into her own hands. On more than a few occasions she broke up fights and quelled brewing riots. Sometimes her presence wasn't enough. In 2008, police opened fire on rioting inmates, killing more than 20. Brenner said she was in the cellblock at the time, but someone had locked the doors to the courtyard where the shooting occurred.

"I didn't know what was happening. That people were being killed," she said in an interview after the siege ended. "I was thinking, all over the world little children have to hear the sounds of guns. It's such a terrible sound."

Brenner was an energetic fundraiser who often visited Southern California to collect food and supplies. Few people said no, though sometimes she didn't leave them much choice.

Father Joe Carroll, who for many years ran the St. Vincent de Paul Village in San Diego, jokingly took to calling Brenner a "thief" for regularly clearing out his charity of donations.

"If I told her she couldn't have it, she'd just be smiling and giggling at me and putting it into her car and leaving," Carroll said in the 2010 documentary "La Mama: An American Nun's Life in a Mexican Prison."

A revered figure in Tijuana, where she counted police chiefs and politicians among her friends, Brenner was honored with the naming of a street after her outside the prison. In the late 1990s, she established her own religious order, the Eudist Servants of the Eleventh Hour. Tijuana Archbishop Rafael Romo said she possessed the qualities of a saint and said her death was a "terrible loss" for the city, the Tijuana newspaper Frontera reported.

Brenner often visited her family in Southern California, where she would regale her more than 45 grandchildren and great-grandchildren with stories about her charity work. "She was a tiny woman with a little fire and a lot of passion," Christina Brenner said. "We called her the Eveready battery. She wouldn't stop. She was always going."

She is also survived by her seven children, James, Kathleen, Theresa, Carol, Tom, Elizabeth and Anthony.

"You walk in her presence and you know you're in a different world," Carroll said. "Rhyme, reason — you can't rationalize why she did it. She has that one-on-one relationship with God."

No scaremongering, please

From Rorate Caeli:

Based on a week-old supposed incident in Rome (first reported by Spanish blogger Francisco José Fernández de la Cigoña five days ago), in which Card. Burke and Abp. Pozzo would have supposedly left a conference by Sandro Magister before it ended, indicating by their rumored action a possible discontent with Sandro Magister's words, the esteemed Fr. John Zuhlsdorf today jumped to wild conclusions.
We did not report it because it is so sketchy, but dear Father considers it relevant enough to drum up fear, instead of passing on serenity:

"Remember, friends. Those of you who uphold the traditional ways had better tread lightly, and with a smile. It is still possible to lose everything."

With all due respect, this is just more of the typical fear-mongering.
Sandro Magister is not a traditionalist - he is just not blind. But his opinions should not hurt traditionalists just because he affords them an impartial treatment, is familiar with traditional liturgy and sacred music, and is sympathetic to their stance.

As for traditional Catholics, those of us who profess it without half-words, we are tired of being afraid. We are the only minority whose persecution within the Church is accepted and encouraged, and yet we "had better tread lightly" or else? We are all for being "wise as serpents and innocent as doves," but not for being cowed into submission.

No, we must keep our heads up, protest as much as liberals do (¡hagan lío!, "make a mess"), but within the limits of licit behavior, and remember: this too shall pass. We are far from 1970, friends, far better in the spread of the Traditional Mass than at any time since Paul VI. If there is still a world a millennium from today, there will still be a Church, and the Traditional Mass will still be celebrated, a Mass that would be recognized by a visitor from the age of Saint Gregory the Great or the great Cluny reformers, this precious Latin gift passed on from generation to generation. And traditional Catholics will still be here, based on the just efforts of those who resisted, under God's blessings: we will not "lose everything", and this too shall pass.

Bishop Fellay on Pope Francis: “We have in front of us a genuine Modernist!”

More from Bishop Fellay.

by John Vennari
Catholic Family News

 
Bishop Bernard Fellay warned on October 12, “The situation of the Church is a real disaster, and the present Pope is making it 10,000 times worse.”

He said this in an address at the Angelus Press Conference, the weekend of Oct 11-13, 2013, in Kansas City.

Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, gave an extensive lecture on Saturday afternoon that focused on the Third Secret of Fatima, and its apparent prediction of both a material chastisement and a great crisis in the Church.
This report will highlight some of the more dramatic aspects of the Bishop’s Saturday conference and his Sunday sermon.
Bishop Fellay quoted in detail Sister Lucia's words, those who have read the Third Secret, and those who have knowledge of the Secret. He noted Sister Lucia said that if we want to know the contents of the Third Secret, read chapters 8 through 13 of the Apocalypse.” (details of the Third Secret will be contained in the upcoming November edition of Catholic Family News)
Sister Lucia’s reference to Chapters 8 through 13 of the Apocalypse is particularly chilling, since the end of Chapter 13 speaks of the coming of Antichrist.
Bishop Fellay noted that Pope St. Pius X said at the beginning of his pontificate the ‘son of perdition’ may already be on the earth. He also noted the original prayer to Saint Michael of Pope Leo XIII mentions that Satan aims to establish his seat in Rome.
The bishop quoted Cardinal Luigi Ciapi, the Papal Theologian of all the Popes from Pius XII to John Paul II who said, “In the Third Secret we read among other things that the great apostasy in the Church begins at the top.”
He also spent a good bit of time on the famous and dramatic 1957 interview of Father Fuentes with Sister Lucia, in which she reiterated that “various nations will disappear from the face of the earth,” and that “the devil will do all in his power to overcome souls consecrated to God.”
Since the ministers of God are struck with this confusion and disorder, the faithful are left to fend for themselves for their own salvation. The help that should be provided by Churchmen is not there. This is “the greatest tragedy you can ever imagine for the Church.”
The times are very serious. We have to be serious about our salvation, “and to do this we are deprived of a very important element, which is the support of the [Church] authorities. What a tragedy.”
He spoke of Sister Lucia’s comforting words that God has given two last remedies for us: The Holy Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate Heart.
Rome/SSPX

Bishop Fellay alluded to the SSPX/Vatican drama of 2012: “When we see what is happening now [under Pope Francis] we thank God, we thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement from last year. And we may say that one of the fruits of the [Rosary] Crusade we did is that we have been preserved from such a misfortune. Thank God. It is not that we don’t want to be Catholics, of course we want to be Catholics and we are Catholics, and we have a right to be recognized as Catholics. But we are not going to jeopardize our treasures for that. Of course not.”
He continued, “To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided [still] to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.”
As for the discussions with Rome: “Any kind of direction for recognition ended when they gave me the document to sign on June 13, 2012. That very day I told them, ‘this document I cannot accept.’ I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.”
“The same for the Mass. The want us to recognize not only that the [New] Mass is valid provided it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I told them: we don’t use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period!’” Of course the Roman authorities “were not very happy with that.”
He continues, “It has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate’”.
“The [April 15, 2012] text we presented to Rome was a very, shall we say, delicate text that was supposed to be understood correctly; it was supposed to be read with a big principle which was leading the whole thing. This big principle was no novelty in the Church: ‘The Holy Ghost has not been promised to Saint Peter and his Successor in such a way that through a new revelation the Pope would teach something new, but under his help, the Pope would saintly conserve and faithfully transmit the deposit of the Faith.’ It belongs to the definition of infallibility [from Vatican I]. That was the principle, the base of the whole document, which excludes from the start any kind of novelty.
“And so take any kind of sentences from the text without this principle is just to take sentences that have never been our thinking and our life. These phrases in themselves are ambiguous, so to take away the ambiguity we wanted to put [in] this principle [from Vatican I]. Unfortunately, maybe that was too subtle and that’s why we withdrew that text, because it was not clear enough as it was written.
“So it is very clear our principle is always the same to stay faithful! We have received a treasure. This treasure does not ‘belong’ to us. We have received this treasure and we have to hand it to the next generation. And what is requested from us is faithfulness, fidelity. We do not have the right to jeopardize these treasures. These are the treasures we have in our hands and we are not going to jeopardize them."
Pope Francis

Bishop Fellay returned to Sister Lucia’s 1957 statement that the Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate Heart are the two last remedies God has given to mankind.
He said there is “definitely a ‘material’ chastisement of the world in sight. There is something big in front of us. "How? When? I have no idea. But if you put everything together, it is clear that God has had enough of the sins of man.”
He then spoke of those sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance, such as abortion, and the sins against nature, which was an allusion to the unnatural ‘re-definition’ of marriage and related sins. He also spoke of what appears to be a coming persecution of Christians.
“What do we do? Don’t panic, because panic is of no use at all. What you need to do is your job – your daily duty. That is the best way to prepare.”
He continued that we are in “very scary times” but we are not helpless. He noted the “the situation of the Church is a real disaster. And the present Pope is making it 10,000 times worse.”
“In the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, I said, ‘the crisis in the Church will continue, but the Pope is trying to put on the brakes.’ It’s as if to say, the Church will continue to fall, but with a parachute. And with the beginning of this [Pope Francis] pontificate, I say, ‘he cuts the strings, and he put a [downward] rocket’.”
“If the present Pope continues in the way he started, he is going to divide the Church. He’s exploding everything. So people will say: it is impossible that’s he’s the Pope, we refuse him. Others will say [and this is presently Bishop Fellay’s position]: “Wait, consider him as Pope, but don’t follow him. He’s provoking anger. Many people will be discouraged by what people in the Church do” and will be tempted to “throw it all away.”
But, he reminded, God is “much, much bigger than we are. God is able to have the Church continue” and even can work through these imperfect ministers. “But once again”, he repeats, “don’t follow them. Follow them when they say the truth, but when they tell you rubbish, you don’t” follow them on those points. “Any obedience to be true must be related to God. When I say I obey to a person” he should be a “a mirror of God.” But “when mirror tells me contrary of God, it is no longer a mirror, then I don’t follow him.”
Bishop Fellay noted that we cannot simply obey the present Popes without question, because then we would destroy ourselves, we would endanger our Faith.
Following the warning of Sister Lucia, Pope Leo XIII and Pius X, Bishop Fellay further warned that we may be entering into the time of Antichrist, but we cannot know when, or how far off in the future this may be.
Sunday Sermon
Bishop Fellay returned to these themes at his Sunday sermon at the Pontifical High Mass offered at St. Vincent de Paul’s Church in Kansas city.
He amplified a few points regarding Fatima, the Secret, the 2012 drama with Rome, and then spoke of some of the many grave problems with Pope Francis.
“From the start,” he said, “we have the impression that we have something wrong with this Pope. From the start, he wanted to distinguish himself to be different from anybody else.”
A small example of this is Francis’ insistence on wearing black shoes instead of the red papal shoes, but this is minor compared to greater issues. We must look, said the bishop, at what is his vision of the Church, his vision of the Council, and what is his plan.
It was around the time of World Youth Day, late July of this year, that Francis began an avalanche of talks, interviews, phone calls, etc. “We may not have the entire picture at this point, we have enough to be scared to death.”
As is typical of the Modernist, as Pius X warned in Pascendi, the Modernist will sometimes speak in a heretical fashion, and then speak in an orthodox manner. Bishop Fellay gave the example of one of these contradictions:
He spoke of interview in early October that Pope Francis conducted with the atheist journalist Eugenio Scalfari in Rome’s La Repubblica wherein Francis appears to promote a dangerous relativism:
Scalfari: “Your Holiness, is there is a single vision of the Good? And who decides what it is?”

Pope Francis: “Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good.”
Scalfari: “Your Holiness, you wrote that in your letter to me. The conscience is autonomous, you said, and everyone must obey his conscience. I think that's one of the most courageous steps taken by a Pope.”

Pope Francis: “And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place."
With a good deal of emotion, Bishop Fellay said of the Pope’s response: “That’s really not Catholic! Because whatever I think has absolutely no value if it does not fit with reality. We have a conscience, but it will only lead us to Heaven if our conscience is a mirror of God.” The conscience must be formed according to God’s law. “So to pretend that anyone can full his own idea is just rubbish,” said Fellay, “It has nothing to do with Catholic teaching. It is absolute relativism.”
About a week after this, however, Pope Francis spoke of the necessity of fighting the devil, the final battle with the devil, that nobody can fight the devil half way, and that we must fight relativism. Francis said the opposite of what he said to La Repubblica. “There is the contraction with him”.
Francis: A Man of the Council

Next: what is the vision of Pope Francis on Vatican II? This is found in his much-publicized recent, lengthy interview with the Jesuits, published in various publications throughout the world, and in the Jesuit’s America magazine in the United States
Bishop Fellay says that Pope Francis “takes it for granted that the Council was bright success. What was the main theme of the Council?” To re-read the Faith in light of modern culture. You could say, “to incarnate the Gospel in the modern world.” Francis “is very happy with this…” and believes “The Council brought forth many good fruits. The first example he gives is liturgy – the reformed liturgy. That is the beautiful fruit of the Council. That’s what he says. And he’s very happy with it.”
Francis tells us “this re-reading of the Gospel within the modern culture is irreversible, so we will not go back. We are in front of a major fight.”
Of the Old Mass, Francis speaks of the “Vetus Ordo” (Old Order). Francis believes that Pope Benedict probably helped restore the Old Mass as a prudential act for those who still hold to it. “But don’t expect Francis to come back to the Old Mass. Maybe he will ‘indulge’ it [let us celebrate it unmolested]. God knows.”
But Francis “sees there is a problem with this Old Mass. Because there are people who ideologize this Mass. Guess to whom he is aiming? I don’t need to say much. So what is going to happen with us? What I see: there is quite an obsession in him about those people who look to the past. Listen to the Pope’s words":
Pope Francis: “What is worrying, though, is the risk of the ideologization of the Vetus Ordo, its exploitation. … If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists­—they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies. I have a dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life.”
Bishop Fellay continues, “The impression we have in the present Pope is that he has a zeal for the ‘more or less’, for the ‘about’; and he wants at all cost to escape what is too clear and too certain. But the Faith is like that [it is certain] because God is like that. Well, that’s not what he thinks.”
Another troubling quote from Pope Francis:
“If a person says that he met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of uncertainty, then this is not good. For me, this is an important key. If one has the answers to all the questions—that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt.”
Bishop Fellay exclaims in response: “What Gospel does he have? Which Bible does he have to say such things. It’s horrible. What has this to do with the Gospel? With the Catholic Faith? That’s pure Modernism, my dear brethren. We have in front of us a genuine Modernist.”
"How much time will be needed for people in the Church to stand up ‘by no means!’ [will we accept this new teaching]. I hope and pray this will happen. But that means an enormous division in the Church.”
He speaks of the Pope making a mess, and reminds us that this is what the Pope urged at world Youth Day: he urged the young people to “make a mess”. Bishop Fellay responds, ”Incredible. We have never heard of this [a Pope speaking like this]. But that’s what he wants."
 Francis also tells us he is a greater admirer of the ultra liberal Jesuit Cardinal Martini (now deceased). Martini wrote a book calling for a total revolution in the Church. “And that is what Francis wants. And he told us the eight cardinal he chose to help him ‘reform’ the Church think like him."
The bishop says, "We could go on and on" with such examples.
The final example: Ecumenism.
Bishop Fellay says Pope Francis claims “very little has been done in this direction.” This is astounding, the bishop notes, because ecumenism has launched untold disaster to the Church, to Catholic nations. Yet the present Pope says, "very little, almost nothing has been done in this direction.”
As part of his summing up, Bishop Fellay says: “The mystery of the shadow on the Church has never been so great. We are in front of very hard times. Don’t have any illusions. And it is clear the only solution is to stick to what we have; to keep it, to not let it go by any means.
“Pope St. Pius X said that it was the essence of any Catholic to stick to the past. The present Pope says exactly the contrary: forget about the past; throw yourself into the uncertainty of the future.
“Definitely we need the Immaculate Heart of Mary. What are experiencing is the Secret of Fatima. We know what we have to do: pray, pray, pray, and penance, penance, penance. To pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the means given to us precisely in these hard times; and to pray the Rosary.
“Be certain,” says Bishop Fellay, “The next [Rosary] Crusade is not far off. Go to the Rosary. Pray it every day. We live in very dangerous time for the Faith, and we need this Heavenly protection.”
- Note from JV: I was present at the Kansas City conference both for Bishop Fellay's Saturday lecture and Sunday sermon. The report is taken directly from my notes and from the complete audio recordings of the talks. More on this topic will be contained in the upcoming November edition of Catholic Family News

www.cfnews.org

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos to Celebrate Pontifical in the Basilica of St. Peter in Rome

From The Remnant:

By Alberto Carosa
Rome Correspondent
______________________
10/10/13--The CISP (International Coordination Summorum Pontificum) has announced that His Eminence Dario, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos will be celebrating Pontifical High Mass in St Peter’s Basilica on Saturday 26 October at 11 o’clock during the pilgrimage of the people of Summorum Pontificum to Rome. Holy Mass on 26 October will allow Diocesan and Religious Priests, Seminarians, and the faithful among the people of Summorum Pontificum to show Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos their gratitude and affection for everything he has done in the service of the Church, especially at the time of the preparation of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, during which His Eminence was a witness and of which he is the living memory. The CISP especially wishes also to express their gratitude to His Eminence for coming to say Mass, especially since the 26th of October is the sixty-first anniversary of his ordination to the Priesthood, which he received in the Basilica of the Holy Apostles in Rome on 26 October 1952. This Pontifical High Mass of thanksgiving at St Peter’s will be one of the central points of the Pilgrimage, during which the eternal youth of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite will be seen by all, and by means of which the people of Summorum Pontificum will contribute to the missionary zeal of the New Evangelization. This is the fifth pontifical in the extraordinary rite to be celebrated in St Peter’s Basilica since the promulgation of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum in 2007, and the second one personally celebrated by His Eminence Dario Castrillón Hoyos, after his first celebration on November 5th, 2011, on the occasion of the General Assembly of Una Voce-FIUV in Rome. In his homily the Cardinal forcefully decried “the widespread practice of liturgical abuses in the aftermath of the Council” as having produced “deep wounds in the Church” and blamed what he termed the so-called “spirit of the Council” for being exploited as “a tool to uphold spurious claims often aimed at imposing disturbing ways of thinking and acting” (Cf. Vatican Insider, 5 November 2011).  This senior prelate is also on record for having been probably the staunchest supporter of Benedict XVI in his efforts to reinstate the old rite, which the Cardinal aptly said should be more correctly called the Gregorian rite. All the more so if we consider that he did not limit himself only to preach but also practiced what he was preaching, and his forthcoming celebration in St. Peter’s will be only the latest among many occasions on which he celebrated the Gregorian rite.  “It was a real nightmare putting the Summorum Pontificum into practice”, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos painfully recalled during a book presentation on the opposition to Summorum Pontificum in late 2011 (cf. Vatican Insider, October 2011). This gives us an idea of what he had to endure and how daunting the task was, especially because opposition to the Motu Proprio is rooted in ignorance, he claimed, “of what we have lost and theologically should be viewed in light of the Holy Ghost’s action through the successor of Peter. And the Holy Father wanted to give back to the world such great treasure, the enormous spiritual richness of the ancient liturgy, a powerful tool of sanctification”.  A treasure which is a gift of God and therefore should be made available not only to traditional minded church-goers or the groups who were asking for it, but to all the faithful, and here again we should be grateful to the great courage of the Cardinal, who on 14 June 2008 forcefully told a press conference in London that Pope Benedict would not like to see only “many ordinary parishes” celebrating the Gregorian Rite, but “all the parishes”, which demands that all seminarians be taught how to celebrate it.  This has to be seen against the backdrop of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, that very same day, celebrating a solemn pontifical in the Gregorian rite in the Cathedral of Westminster for the first time in three decades. To give an idea of the above “nightmare”, neither the archbishop of Westminster Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor nor any other incumbent bishops were in attendance.  The cathedral itself, however, was bursting at the seams, with over 1,500 faithful including so many young families in attendance.  At that time, over sixty young priests from around the country had joined a summer course offered by Merton College in Oxford to learn how to celebrate the Gregorian rite. On another occasion, His Eminence is on record for having described as a “time of grace” the period “that we are living since the enforcement of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of the Holy Father Benedict XVI” (cf.  Vatican Insider, 4 November 2012).  All of this is precisely the spirit in which we are called to live the second pilgrimage of the people of Summorum Pontificum to Rome, due in 24-37 October 2013, to cap the Year of Faith.

Captain Phillips

Spent the afternoon watching another great Tom Hanks movie, "Captain Phillips."  Although several of his real life shipmates are now coming out of the woodwork to discredit him, it's still worth watching.

Once again, the U.S. Military (in this case, SEAL Team-6/Dev Group) show that speed, surprise and violence of action tend to work, every time.

If you have not had a chance to see it, don't wait for the DVD.  Get to a theater soon, and enjoy an excellent flick for two hours.

Semper Fi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp6jpeDeQmE

A Catholic Answer for Karl Keating

From Louie Verrecchio's blog, "Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II." 

http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/a-catholic-answer-for-karl-keating/

Apparently, Karl Keating of Catholic Answers is concerned about me; so concerned, in fact, that he took to FaceBook on Friday to ask the people on his “friends list” (of which I am one), “Can anyone explain what’s going on with Louie Verrecchio?”

Though I’ve already provided this answer directly to Karl (as men, at least where I come from, are accustomed to addressing one another), I do so publicly as well since that was the venue in which the query was posed. In truth, this topic concerns all who sincerely wish to follow the way of salvation given by Christ through the Holy Catholic Church alone.  It is a public matter.

Karl’s specific concerns and my response follow:  
Dear Karl,
You are correct, the work I began in 2003 (the Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II Faith Formation Series) has “achieved some level of notoriety for [my] positive work on behalf of the Church … seconded by the episcopal endorsements.”

This recognition remains as the content and value of this work also remains.

Though you are also correct in recognizing a shift in the focus of my writing, what you refer to as “apparently new views” are really better understood as simply a continuation of the original purpose of my apostolate; namely, to shine the light of sacred Tradition upon the conciliar text, so that it may be evaluated and understood for what it truly is.

This work entails measuring the individual propositions set forth in the Council documents, not by anything mutable, but by the Faith that comes to us from the Apostles, the same that is transmitted by this Tradition, the same yesterday, today and always.

More broadly speaking, my work has always been motivated by a desire to “safeguard” from all corruption and misunderstanding, “the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine,” whether such be invited explicitly through error, or implicitly by way of ambiguity and imprecision, regardless of the source. This, incidentally, is exactly what Pope John XXIII instructed the Council Fathers to do as their “greatest concern.”

Initially, my writing on the Council focused primarily on refuting the “spirit of Vatican II” wherein the Council is often misquoted or misunderstood.

Today, I tend to focus more on that much smaller portion of the conciliar text, those that are sources of doctrinal confusion, not based on a misrepresentation, but for what they actually say. This text represents “a little leaven” indeed, but has created much difficulty in the Church. A number of examples exist that I will not list here, but many are treated on this blog. (Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Walter Kasper have both spoken out on this problem with the text as well. Their comments are worthy of examining if you haven’t already.)

You wrote, “Recently Verrecchio has been posting jabs at the last few popes and at the Council.”
Again, I must clarify; what you call “jabs” are not properly aimed at the person of the pope, but rather at individual statements or actions of the pope that run counter to the doctrine of the faith, inviting misunderstanding and confusion. Likewise, with regard to the Council.

Let’s look at the latter first. You point as an example to my FaceBook post of Oct. 11 where I wrote:
“Fifty-one years ago today, as the Church celebrated the Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Second Vatican Council opened. On December 8, 1965, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, the Council would close, the work of dethroning her Son having been completed.”

You then ask, “So the purpose of Vatican II was to ‘dethrone’ the Son of God?”

My statement concerns one rather specific, and very tragic, result of the Council’s work; namely, the effective dethronement of Christ the King, otherwise understood as the tacit rejection of what is called His Social Kingship. (A point that Bishop Schneider also notes.)

This incredibly important topic cannot be properly addressed in just  a few paragraphs. In fact, I provided a much more detailed treatment in that very same post, but perhaps you missed it.

Below is a video of a talk that I gave on this topic. It runs approximately 45 minutes and is really just a good start. Beyond that, I would invite you to read (or reread as the case may be) the Encyclical Quas Primas in which Pope Pius XI instituted the Feast of Christ the King.

Religious Liberty: In Defense of Christ the King from Louie Verrecchio on Vimeo.

Though there is much more one might explore in order to grasp this matter, having done just these two things, it should be clear based upon the contents of Dignitatis Humanae (the Declaration on Religious Freedom of Vatican II) and the way in which this document has been interpreted and implemented by the popes since the Council (as evidenced by their treatment, or lack thereof, of humankind’s obligation to recognize the Social Kingship of Christ) that indeed the work of the Council has effectively resulted in His dethronement. (Of course, I speak figuratively since no one – not a pope and not a council – has the authority to truly dethrone Him. Our Lord’s reign is an enduring reality even if the men of our age choose to ignore it, as indeed they do.)

Unfortunately, apart from taking considerable time to become familiar with the doctrine articulated in the pre-conciliar magisterium on the topic of religious liberty and Church-State relations, (as articulated in such documents as Immortale Dei, Libertas, Vehementer Nos, Quanta Cura, for example) a meaningful conversation on the subject will not be possible. Then again, neither will it be possible to apply the “hermeneutic of continuity” that was urged by Pope Benedict XVI, as the traditional teaching is precisely that which provides the basis for continuity.

Moving on to the pope, you pointed out:

Two days ago Verrecchio wrote this, “Does the pope really believe that the entire human race enjoys, in some form or fashion, communion with the Church? Well, yes, apparently so, which explains why he has so much difficulty accepting the Church’s mission as the Lord plainly gave it.”
About which, you declared, “What hubris.” 

I agree. One of us, either me or the pope, is guilty of hubris, but before I address this concern directly, let me first say that I was pleased to see that you had made mention in this same FaceBook post of the Arian heresy since it provides a rather poignant historical precedent for the very serious situation of a legitimate pope embracing doctrinal error to the harm of the faithful.

As you know, during the Arian crisis, Pope Liberius and the majority of bishops fell into this error, with the pope even going so far as to condemn St. Athanasius for upholding the truth! (Notice which one is a saint.)

This, of course, is just one such incident in the history of the Church wherein a pope has publicly invited harm upon the faithful by either his words or his deeds. The first, needless to say, is recorded in Sacred Scripture in the rebuking of St. Peter by St. Paul.

In any event, your mention of the Arian heresy points to the widely unrecognized fact that popes can in fact depart from the doctrine of the faith, and when they do (as Aquinas and others have made very clear) we are obligated to oppose their errors for our own good and for the good of others. I would even say that those, like us, who have a public voice are all the more obligated in this sense.

Now, back to Pope Francis and his difficulty accepting the mission of the Church. (This response is long already, so I will give this an abbreviated, but adequate treatment.)

What is the mission of the Church? We both know that it is, as recorded in Matthew 28, properly summarized as converting the nations to Christ and His Holy Catholic Church, baptizing, teaching all that He commanded; bringing the peoples of the world into the Catholic Church. Simple enough.
I think you would agree with me in saying that St. Peter gave an excellent example of what the Lord expects of His Church on Pentecost when he taught very plainly and very directly, calling the people to baptism, in charity, that they may live.

To this point in his papacy, Pope Francis has made any number of false and misleading statements on this note, one building upon the other, to the point of doing serious harm to the faithful and to unbelievers alike. I offer just a few examples:

“Do you need to convince the other to become Catholic? No, no, no! Go out and meet him, he is your brother. This is enough. Go out and help him and Jesus will do the rest.” (Pope Francis, as reported by CNS, August 7, 2013)

In another venue he said, “Proselytism is solemn nonsense. It makes no sense.”

What is proselytism? Seeking proselytes; i.e., converts. This is, quite simply, the mission of the Church. It most assuredly is not nonsense. Many martyrs died doing exactly this, as you well know.
These are not just isolated incidents.

On a related note, we find another, related, very harmful statement made by the pope in which he called “diversity of religions” whilst addressing a gathering that included Muslims and other non-Catholics, “a gift.”

Now that is hubris. Imagine, a pope daring to profess to the world that false religions, those that honor false gods and cannot save, the same that supplant the worship due as the first demand of justice to Our Lord, is a gift. A gift!

This is a terrible, terrible offense against God and a gross distortion of the faith of the Church. It also endangers the souls of many.

How can a faithful Catholic not combat such poisonous prose as this?

Is one constrained simply because it comes from a pope? Certainly not.

If a Protestant caller to Catholic Answers Live insisted on these very same things, (religious diversity is a gift, there is no need to for you to labor for converts to the one true faith, proselytism is nonsense) you would reject such propositions plainly and firmly, as you should.

Likewise, if some liberal Notre Dame theology professor was teaching the same, you would rebuke him.

Yet, how much more danger is posed when the pope, the Vicar of Christ, makes such unbelievable statements? We both know that the answer is much, much more. It is a terrible thing, a very painful thing, when these offenses against the faith come from the pope.

As we both know, these kinds of things and worse have happened in ages past. Why Catholics today are willing to check their intellect at the door, as if we are magically immune from such things, is a mystery to me.

In conclusion, while I am flattered by your concern, my loyalty is to Jesus Christ and His Holy Catholic Church.

Where the Council invites error and confusion, I will address it head on. Likewise, if the pope or anyone else does the same, even if he be an angel from heaven, as St. Paul said, I will combat that as well.

In other words, I will always do my best to defend the truths of our faith as they have been handed down to us through the centuries, not because I happen to like them, but because they come from God.

Those who maintain that we must accept with docility everything the pope states, even when such is clearly not Catholic, simply do not know what the papacy truly is. Those who believe the same regarding the Council likewise haven’t a clue what the Council is.

Whether you or anyone else finds what I’ve offered here compelling is of no consequence. My role isn’t to change anyone’s mind, it is simply to defend the truth, and I will gladly relinquish every accolade and endorsement in the process.

Will you?

How to help a truly traditional Roman Catholic college

From Rorate Caeli:

Our 1st-ever Rogatio Moneyblast 

What: We invite you to visit our website every day through Oct. 13th as we post new videos and pictures featuring our students at the Traditional Latin Mass, praying the Holy Rosary, singing the Angelus, chanting Vespers as a community, taking classes, studying and just hanging out with each other; in short, living out the Catholic Faith as a college community!

When: October 7th (Feast of Our Lady of Victory) through October 13th (Anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima), including a special day on October 11th (Feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary).

Where: Please make a secure  online donation here. Your donations are tax deductible.

Why: Help us raise a much-needed $250,000 enabling us to provide scholarships for deserving students and helping us restore our campus building (dedicated to Our Lady of Victory in 1909) back to its original purpose: Traditional Catholic Education and Formation.

Who should participate: One of our goals is that every Catholic who loves the rich and sacred traditions of our Faith, who is certain that fidelity to the eternal teachings and traditions of the Church is essential to a holy and excellent life, regardless of where -- or whether -- they attend the Traditional Latin Mass, will learn about Fisher More College and recognize that we exist for YOU and need YOUR SUPPORT.  

We are a unique college in many ways, one of which is our commitment to graduating students who have not been forced into debt dependency because of their education. We place our confidence in Divine Providence and in the generosity of good people like you to help us make this possible.

All Souls Day Requiem & "Day of Recollection" in Washington, D.C.

Dealing with McBrien on the new, corrected translation

By Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From the dissident Fishwrap‘s long-time dissident columnist, Fr. Richard McBrien, comes this piece about the new, corrected translation.

Pay close attention to the contempt he shows for a vast number of people and also the attitude of disobedience he promotes.

It is not merely that he doesn’t like the new, corrected translation.  He doesn’t like the people who like the new, corrected translation.

Furthermore, note that McBrien will advocate that priests disobey lawful authority and continue to use the obsolete ICEL translation.  He advises them to impose their own will on the people in the pews.  He has advised disobedience before.

McBrien’s suggestion is scandalous in its disrespect toward proper authority.  It also shows contempt for people in the pews, who have the right to a liturgy celebrated as the Church desires.  People have a right not to have the priest impose his pet ideas on their worship.  This is a particularly brutal form of clericalism.

The faithful are obliged to attend Mass.  McBrien would oblige people to endure the oppressive whims of a priest.

In this piece McBrien reveals his ultra-clericalist attitude.

Dealing with the new translation of the Mass
by Richard McBrien on Dec. 26, 2011
There used to be an anti-liturgical joke circulating that said that the only difference between a terrorist and a liturgist is that you can negotiate with a terrorist.  [I think there is another which involves finding yourself with two terrorists and liturgist and having only two bullets in your gun….]

By the same token, there is a seriously mistaken impression abroad that the new translation of the missal was inspired and promoted by liturgists. Nothing could be further from the truth. [I think I know what he means here, in this muddled statement.  I think he means the final product.  But is what he wrote true?  Liturgists did not "inspire and promote" the new translation?  If not, who did "inspire and promote it"?]

The great majority of liturgical scholars were opposed to the new, literal translations. [Fact check: the new translation is NOT a "literal" translation.  And note his phrasing here.  LOL!] Those who favored the changes were adherents of the so-called “reform of the reform.” [I wonder what he thinks that phrase means?]
In other words, the changes were inspired and promoted, not by liturgists, but by traditionalists in the hierarchy and a minority of ultra-conservatives within the Catholic church generally.  [Oooooo.  I guess this means that McBrien's brand of liturgists must be incredibly feckless!  No?]

Such Catholics were never supportive of the liturgical reforms initiated by the Second Vatican Council: turning the altar around so that the priest would face the congregation during Mass, [Where is that in the documents of the Council?] receiving Holy Communion in the hand, [Where is that in the documents of the Council?]celebrating the Mass in the vernacular, [The Council said that the liturgy was to remain in Latin.]having altar girls as well as altar boys, [Where is that in the documents of the Council?]and so forth.

In the extreme, they attended Latin Masses wherever they were available. [Imagine such a thing! Members of the Latin Church going to Mass in the language the Council said Mass should be used. No. Wait. Again, McBrien is playing fast and loose with terms. I think he means the Traditional Latin Mass. "Latin Mass" can be Novus Ordo.] Their celebrants continued to wear the so-called fiddle-back chasubles and birettas. A Catholic Rip Van Winkle awakening from a long sleep beginning sometime in the 1950s would assume that nothing had changed in the meantime. [puhleez]

To be sure, the advocates of the “reform of the reform” have won only a partial victory with this new translation (for example, “I believe …” rather than the more communal “We believe …” in the Credo). [Is the writer unaware that Latin credo means "I believe"?  But, no!  Wait! "I believe" would be literal.] But the Mass is still in the vernacular; the altar is still turned around; the great majority of people receive Communion in the hand; and there are more likely to be altar girls in the sanctuary than boys. [And there won't be any vocations from the parish.]

Such changes as these are anathema to traditionalist Catholics, who continue to receive Com-munion on the tongue (as is their right), grit their teeth when they see girls serving Mass and attend a Latin Mass from time to time. [Which is their right.]
But they are happy nonetheless to see so many of their fellow Catholics out of sorts because of the new translation of the Mass. They know that it galls Catholics for whom Pope John XXIII is a hero and Vatican II was a great event. [Is this an example of "rash judgment"? Cf. CCC 2477-78.]

I’ve heard Catholics say that their pastors, though not conservative, have praised the new translations. Either their pastors are not being honest because they don’t want to be reported to their bishop or they are deep-down right-wing in their thinking. [Again? So, McBrien, apparently a psychic who can read minds at a distance, is accusing the aforementioned pastors of being liars. Did I get that wrong?]

A retired pastor I heard prepare his congregation the week before the changes were to go into effect had the congregation practice giving the simple response, “And with your spirit.” But he said by way of introduction that the “what” of the changes he and they could handle; the “why” he would leave to the Holy Spirit. [And that is supposed to be proof of... what exactly?]

I suspect many older priests had the same reaction. Only some of the younger (or not-so-young), conservative priests, ordained during the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, would more likely be in favor of the changes than opposed to them. [He finally got something right!]

But what good would come of outright opposition? A well-respected priest in Seattle led a movement recently to have the U.S. bishops slow down the process until all the kinks could be worked out, but that movement, though it gained thousands of supporters, fizzled and died in the end. [Again the word that pops into my mind is feckless. So many people. So little power. Maybe they were just wrong.]

The Vatican had already made up its mind, and the largely conservative U.S. hierarchy [Have you gotten his not so subtle point yet? Liberals/liturgists good... conservatives bad.] would not buck the Vatican, even if it were disposed to do so.
Some Catholics may continue to say “And also with you” rather than “And with your spirit,” or “We believe …” instead of “I believe …” in the Creed, or “one in being with the Father” instead of the highly technical and indecipherable “consubstantial,” also in the Creed. [Do you find it disconcerting that McBrien, who taught what was billed at theology at Notre Dame, finds the word "consubstantial" to be "indecipherable"? Or does he mean that it is "indecipherable" to everyone else?]

Presiders at Mass will have the most difficult time because there have been many tongue-twisting changes in the texts of the Eucharistic prayers. [Maybe they will have to slow down a little.]

Those priests who have been reciting these prayers for many years will inevitably stumble over the new wording, and those priests whose eyesight has failed them and who have memorized unchangeable parts of the Mass will continue to recite the words with which they have been long familiar. At least, that is what I would advise them if they were silly enough to ask. [Tu enim dixisti.]

This column will return to this subject a number of times in the future because it affects us all. In the meantime, I wanted to dispel a few of the most common misunderstandings about the new translations and their origin. [When will that take place?]

What happened at the beginning of Advent 2011, and the implementation of a more accurate translation, was a tiny change compared to the imposition of an artificially created, “New Order” of Mass in Advent of 1969.

Since McBrien uses his liberal psychic powers, I will use my even more powerful conservative psychic powers.

I think McBrien doesn’t like the new translation because he doesn’t like the theology of the Latin prayers, even those of the Novus Ordo, which now comes through more clearly with the new, corrected translation. Therefore he rains his atrabilious scorn down on those who respect their Catholic identity and want both what the Second Vatican Council actually asked for and also what their legitimate liturgical tradition has passed down through the centuries.

A Wonderful Way to Start Your Day

Request a Prayer for My Dad's Soul

I have been away from my blog for some time due to the death of my father.  I would request all who pay a visit to this blog, to remember my dad in your prayers and to pray for his soul.