Buffalo Pie

Growing up in Toronto we only had a six channels on TV. Two in Toronto, one in Hamilton and three from Buffalo. This was even before PBS and Goldy's fundraising. Who remembers Promo the Robot or Captain Tom a poor cousin of Captain Kangaroo?  Ah Buffalo, the Queen City as I recall. I have family there. South Buffalo, Lancaster, Cheektowaga. Ebeneezer. Uncle Sarkis. born in Lebanon, owned the Wehrle Drive-in Theatre on Transit Road and his brother Frank, The Willamsville Inn on Main Street. Together, they lead the building of St. John Maron Church. Buffalo was my second home. An auntie organised the Variety Club Telethon which was watched in our house all day those Sundays after Mass. How I remember Our Lady of Victory Shrine and all the stories Auntie Mary would tell of the great Father Nelson Baker. How Catholic Buffalo was. German, Polish, Italian, Irish. 

Some of the most beautiful churches in the northeast maybe in all of the United States of America, are in Buffalo. Many look like little Cathedrals. Most would put Toronto's to shame except for a handful. The faith in that Queen City is about as bad as everywhere else. Some say the Church "is not a building." But these buildings were built by the faithful who loved God, respected how to worship Him in beauty and in truth and gave Him their best. Not like those today.

I suppose there were no fires last night in Lackawanna for Irv Weinstein to report on. Wait, Irv's not on Channel 7 anymore? Well, if he were, he'd be reporting on this little dust up that "Jesus had two dads and he turned out just fine." 

That sign in front of Sts. Columba and Brigid Church in Buffalo, a far cry from what was built generations ago, has caused a lot of outcry. Catholic Family News, Father Z, here on this blog, we all wrote about it. The Bishop of Buffalo instantly saw the problem and ordered the phrase removed. The backlash to me includes a comment on the post and an email from the pastor, both of which I received this morning. Let us take a look at them.

Good Evening! It was with great interest that I read the comments that you all posted in the Guest Book of the St. Columba-Brigid Church website.  While I want to allay your concerns, I also find myself wondering where such hatred and vitriol come from.  Did you spend any time at all pondering the true meaning that our billboard was trying to convey?  Or did you snap to judgement as soon as you saw it or heard about it?  Did you hear about it second hand, without seeing it yourself, and join in the condemnation of it based on what someone else shared with you?  These are all things that you should consider. But my task is to provide you with some sense of understanding of our message.  You accept that Jesus Christ had two fathers, God the Father and Joseph - His foster father.  I don’t think that there is any argument there.  He had His heavenly Father and His human father.  Those are the two fathers that we are referring to on our message board.Due to broken marriages and relationships where no marriage occurred, there are literally millions of children in the world who are raised by two sets of parents. Again, there is no arguing this point. Some families actually achieve this quite successfully, with both sets of parents getting along if for no other reason than the benefit to their children. These children flourish in the love and support provided by the love to two families: two mothers, two fathers, several grandparents and shared siblings – a blended family. It is a win-win – wonderful and fulfilling for the children and the parents. This was beautifully exemplified recently on tv by the actions of two dads walking their daughter down the aisle. The biological father suddenly recognized that the stepfather had been equally instrumental in raising their lovely and amazing daughter, and he had him join in the happy ritual of ‘giving her away’ to her new husband.  And that act of love and acceptance resonated around the world.But sometimes children are ridiculed for this circumstance in their lives.  Some children hear snide comments from other children who are lucky enough to be growing up within nuclear families – one set of parents and siblings. The message on the board was put there in support of children who are growing up with two families – two dads- and who may be experiencing some conflict because of it. Your rush to judgement leaves us perplexed because as a good Christian and Catholic you know the Bible very well. Therefore you know that Matthew 7:1-2 says: “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgement you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.”Obviously you read other nuances into our message, things that we did not intend. It was only meant for children who have a step-father and a biological father - to give them understanding, support and encouragement and to let them know that they can have a healthy, normal life in the future.Thank you for your concern. And please keep these children in your prayers. God bless! Fr Roy 

My response.

Dear Father Roy,  

Given that you have publicly said that the sign referred to "step-children" I will accept your explanation and apologise publicly here for my rash-judgement and for insinuating otherwise.

However, your decision to put up such a sign was imprudent and careless. At a time when marriage is under attack by a sodomite mafia that is bent, not on marriage for its own sake, but in their own words, the "destruction of marriage and the family," the words you put up contained inflammatory language. Language is important as your fellow New York State priest, Father Tom Rosica (because we Canadians can take responsibility for Justin Bieber okay) likes to remind us. As an educated man you are aware that your sign is the exact dictionary definition of a double entrendre. You are surely aware of the "Heather Has Two Mommies" books. Given the rather "progessivist" nature of your parish and your late "Nun on the Bus," may she receive her just reward, you most certainly would know how the political left uses words to its advantage.

The fact that I, and thousands of others, "read other nuances" into the sign is not our faults, it is the fault of those who put up a sign with those words. To assume that everyone would have seen the video to which you refer is a stretch on your part. To think in this day and age, something so inflammatory and potentially heretical would not make it to social media is foolish. Certainly, the person driving past the church would easily have interpreted the sign as a support for an abomination against the Catholic faith, the raising of children by two sodomite "fathers," well one father actually as the other is his fellow pin-cushion. Nobody is ridiculing any children here. I have children. I had step-children, I had a decree of nullity, I am a sinner. So don't go down that rabbit hole. That is a ridiculous statement on your part. As for "giving away" the bride. You should know, she is not "given away" in the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony. She comes of her own free will, she is not her "dads" property to give to anyone. Some progressive you are. This is not about the children, it is about the sign you authorised to put up that contained a phrase that would be interpreted by the overwhelming majority of those who saw it as support for sodomite so-called "marriage." As for your liturgical abuses at the camp mess, please read Redemptionis Sacramentum. Please accept my apologies for the "rash-judgement) of misunderstanding your sign.

Vox.

Now, to Anonymous in the combox who judges me to Hell.

I just want to say that you and all of the others who have posted comments full of hatred and vitriol are going to burn in hell. People like you that (use) the word of Christ, which I was taught were words of love, and twist them for your own evil purposes. You are no better than the racist Trump, than the murdering members of ISIS, than rapists, than thieves. You name anything that's evil, and you are all worse. I always thought that God didn't make ugly, but I guess He did, because (he??? Vox) you made all of you hatemongers. How do you look at yourselves in the mirror?  God is everywhere. He was at that outdoor Mass, where we sang His praises to the skies. Mass doesn't have to be in a church, because church is not a building, or didn't you know that. To be able to praise God right there in the midst of His creation is a blessing. But you wouldn't know that because you wouldn't recognize a blessing if it hit you in the head. Oh, and by the way, have you ever heard of Kinte Cloth? Try and get a little bit of culture, it would serve you well. Remember that the only judge is God himself. And He will be judging you and using your hatred against you. You all need to repent and atone for the tons of sins that are burning your souls. I know you're not going to publish this because you don't have what it takes to deal with anything or anyone that disagrees. But God is watching you. Have fun in hell!

Dear Anonymous,

First, read the above response to Father "Roy."  Second, look up to your words of "hatred and vitriol," along with your accusations of my "judgement"  and then look in the "mirror" you speak of and consider what you see.  The "racist Trump" comment is calumny and rash judgement on your part. If you don't know what these mean, please contact Father Roy. I have publicly apologised for my rash judgement. As someone who is of Lebanese heritage, who sees my Christian countrymen in Syria butchered because of your derelict malefactor in the White House whom you probably voted for, I would hope that you are as forthright with those who advocate for the murder of babies in the womb as you are at me. For murderers and thieves, you can look at your own leaders.  As for the outdoor Mass, it was an abomination. I suggest you read Redemptionis Sacramentum linked above to see the sinful liturgical abuses committed by your priest. Plastic cups for the Eucharist, the Precious Blood, this is acceptable? Mass in street clothes? We are not in priest holes (you might need to look that up) nor in Vietnamese prison camps (look it up).

Would you like to compare your unholy sacrilege of the camp mess to this?

In honour of Canadian Remembrance Day today or your Veteran's Day on this 11th day of the 11th month, let us look back a few decades to this.

This is Father Emile Kapaun in Korea. He died in a prison camp and his cause is going forward for canonization. Did he disrespect the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as you people under a wayward priest did at Sts. Columba and Brigid?

Father Emile Kapuan in Korea

What about this one? If this priest could vest properly and dress a jeep on Omaha Beach on June 4, 1944, with an antependium, (you might want to look that up) and an antemension (you'll want to look that one up too), then why should we, with all of our modern conveniences, do any less for God.

All that effort in the midst of war and a thanksgiving offering on D Day for making it off the beach. How many did not?

As for Kente cloth, it may be "African" but African priests don't wear it  at Mass so don't patronise them in your arrogant white liberality. 

My South African wife is offended. Should Africans wear denim vestments as a tribute to America? Vestments such as these are not praiseworthy to God and they are insulting to Africans.

Do these look like Kente cloth?

 

Here is a google search for kente cloth vestments. I see no African Catholic priest wearing them but I see some old white guys.

I am shocked, shocked; that a progressive such as you would not see your statement as actually being racist and patronising.

Thanks for your comment.

Vox

Pope Francis stumbles in more ways than one

Reuters is reporting that the Bishop of Rome stumbled yesterday at Mass at the Lateran Basilica on his way up to the altar for the celebration of the Feast of its dedication. This is the second time in three days, the first being Saturday at St. Peter's Basilica. He is aging, stressed no doubt, and may have a brain tumour. We have sympathy for him as a man.

But let me be perfectly clear; he has stumbled in more ways than this.

If there had been any doubt that his appointment of Jozef de Kesel as Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels is a disaster for the faith, erase it from your Catholic mind. The man is a heretic and advocate of sacrilege.

As Carl E. Olson writes at Catholic World Report: 

If an archbishop-elect thinks the word "mercy" is  "somewhat condescending", what must he think of words such as "sin", "damnation", "hell", and "orthodoxy"? We don't know for certain, but perhaps that is just as well, if only for the sake of keeping one's stomach comments in place. The prelate in question is Jozef De Kesel of Mechelen-Brussels, interviewed by Kerknet and translated into English by Mark de Vries of "In Caelo et in Terra", who covers Catholic news in the Netherlands. The fuller quote: You did not take part in the Synod on the family, but will probably get to work with its proposals. What will stay with you from this Synod? “The Synod may not have brought the concrete results that were hoped for, such as allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion. But it is unbelievable how much it was a sign of a Church that has changed. The mentality is really not the same anymore. I may be a careful person, but I do not think we should be marking time. Mercy is an important word for me, but in one way or another it is still somewhat condescending. I like to take words like respect and esteem for man as my starting point. And that may be a value that we, as Christians, share with prevailing culture.” 

You can read his full report together with his erudite commentary and the link to the full interview and its official English translation.

De Kesel needs to be concerned more with esteem for Christ, than "esteem for man." He needs to have some concern for his own soul as well. 

Sandro Magister also reports of a little Jesuitical infighting. It seems there are a few Catholic Jesuits left in the world. Anthony Spadaro, S.J., of the #SpadaroBlockParty which is not quite as busy as the #RosicaBlockParty which actually trended on Twitter a few weeks back, is not one of them. He is the cause of this little storm. The reader may recall our work of this past Saturday on Spadaro based upon Magister's previous letter. The conclusion can only be that Spadaro is, in fact, speaking for the Bishop of Rome and that can be confirmed by the challenge thrown at him by his brother Jesuit at Boston College, of all places. 

Particularly striking was the peremptoriness with which Fr. Spadaro drew from the “Relatio finalis” of the synod - a text in effect open to multiple interpretations - a one-way orientation: in favor of communion for the divorced and remarried. The following commentary, however, shows how the director of “La Civiltà Cattolica” and confidant of Francis cannot disguise the fact that his conclusions contradict “the teaching of the Church” that the “Relatio sinodi” itself insists must be respected. In particular, he shows how one cannot shield oneself behind a few lines of John Paul II’s “Familiaris consortio” to draw conclusions opposed to those that are written there. The author of the commentary is a priest of the diocese of New York, Robert P. Imbelli, professor emeritus of theology at Boston College and an authoritative contributor to “L'Osservatore Romano,” in addition to “America” and “Commonweal.” An author of works of Christology and of Trinitarian and liturgical theology, his latest book is entitled: "Rekindling the Christic Imagination: Theological Meditations for the New Evangelisation". 

It's only Tuesday and it's been quite a good start to the week revealing to all, the heresiarchs and homosexualists amongst us in the Church. We've had an abomination, blasphemy and sacrilege in New York City at Our Saviour Church with the Hindu ritual, the same Archdiocese's Cardinal Dolan dancing it up withthe Rockette's (hey, their women, let's cut him some slack), the dear in the headlights Diarmuid Martin in Dublin telling all that the Church "must change" and the little episode yesterday in Buffalo promoting the sodomite agenda which the pastor deny but photos betray.

But it does not stop there. Earlier today in Florence, the Bishop of Rome spoke at the Fifth National Ecclesial Convention Annual saying once again resurrecting his lectures that those who follow the law are Pelagians. Edward Pentin has the story at National Catholic Register. So there we have it. Follow the two thousand year old Law of the Church, obey and preach the Ten Commandments and the words of Jesus, "If you love me, keep my commandments" and you're a Pharisee. Disagree with Francis of Rome, you're a Pelagian. You think that you're "superior" and you're not following the "breath of the spirit." I urge you to read The Radical Catholic's post on this speech drawing the parallels between Jorge Bergoglio and Martin Luther regarding their views on the Catholic Church and the heresy of Pelagianism.  Here is a quote courtesy of Southern Orders where you can also more: 

“We are not living in an era of change but a change of era. ... Before the problems of the church it is not useful to search for solutions in conservatism or fundamentalism, in the restoration of obsolete conduct and forms that no longer have the capacity of being significant culturally. ... Christian doctrine is not a closed system incapable of generating questions, doubts, interrogatives — but is alive, knows being unsettled, enlivened, ... It has a face that is not rigid, it has a body that moves and grows, it has a soft flesh: it is called Jesus Christ.”

For a complete repudiation of Jorge Bergoglio's statement today, given on All Saints Day visit:

http://reginaprophetarum.org/audio/20151101-Do-We-Have-Faith-of-Our-Fathers.mp3

There, did you drink it in? Do you have the Faith of Our Fathers or do you wish to sing a new church into being by these "modernist tyrants" where "even the documents of Vatican II and St. John Paul II are passé."

Do not be discouraged, all of this must come out. Do not let it get you down, Keep faith in Our Lord and His promise that the "gates of Hell will not prevail." Rejoice that we have this vehicle, the Internet - blogs, Facebook, Twitter, Email -- all these tools that our parents and grandparents did not have.

The Reuters story on the stumbling Bishop of Rome refers to the reputed tumour, perhaps, in its denial, the Vatican, “doth protest too much.” If the Pope has a brain tumour there is no way he should be making any decisions along the lines of what Spadaro, Kasper and De Kesel advocate. These men are heretics and malefactors. Does Francis really want to seek counsel from them? Will he soon make De Kesel, Cardinal and add to that the heresiarch and homosexualist Cupich for good measure? Now that Danneels is well over 80 and Cardinal George is dead, what is stopping him. Will he make the faithful Archbishops in Philadelphia and Montreal Cardinals, or will he bypass them because they stand for the faith?

He muses about a short papacy. May it be so. Not that I wish him any ill will, not at all. May he be inspired by to go for that slice of pizza and mate at a little cafe in Buenos Aires. He should consider it before December 8 and the gross insult to Our Blessed Mother with the motu proprio on Catholic Divorce. 

Benedict XVI has shown him the way. The door is open to him.

Bull Coprophagia in Buffalo

The above photo is of Sts. Columba and Brigid Catholic Church in Buffalo, a city with some beautiful churches, mostly empty. The story is reported from John Vennari at Catholic Family News.

Bishop Malone of Buffalo found out through Vennari and presumably other social media (another victory for the Catholic Internet) and promptly ordered the priest to remove it. In a response to John Vennari, the Bishop wrote:

“Thank you for your message regarding the sign at SS Columba – Brigid Church here in Buffalo. As soon as I learned of this sign, I took immediate action to have it removed. The pastor of SS Columba – Brigid Church told me that the “2 Dads” were meant to refer to a child who has both a father and stepfather. There are several children in his parish who have both a father and stepfather. However, given the potential for the meaning of this message to be misunderstood and even perceived in a heretical way, it was immediately removed.”

Yes, that's right. The priest meant those with a step-dad. Right.

But that's not all. I took a little look through the web page, Photos are always very helpful.

http://www.columba-brigid.org/9.html

Are you ready for "communion?"

Tell us now Father Roy Herberger, is that a rainbow in that stole? Is that a picnic because it certainly is not a Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is an abomination. It is a blasphemy at your hands. You are disgrace to the priesthood. A disgrace to Buffalo.

If you believe that sign wasn't about a couple of sodomites, I've some nice pristine land along the Love Canal for sale too. 

Who gave this man boy his First Holy Communion?

dob@buffalodiocese.org

Heresiarch Archbishop Diarmuid Martin - "Times have changed in Irish society and the Church must change."

Are there any men left in Ireland? Any Catholics?

Are there any men left amongst the clergy and episcopate?

Are they all sodomites and heretics?

Ireland, tell me, I know I have readers in the land of Saint Patrick, Brigid, Columba, Kevin and Malachy.

Tell me.

Or are you all a little queer too?

Dublin Archbishop: Church Must Change With the Times

by Christine Niles  •   November 9, 2015   5 COMMENTS

FILED UNDER: GOVERNMENT, CRISIS IN THE CHURCH, IRELAND, CATHOLIC EDUCATION, GAY MARRIAGE, YES

DUBLIN (ChurchMilitant.com) - Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin is saying the Catholic Church must change with the times. He is also supporting the increased secularization of Catholic schools.

At a Sunday Mass in Dublin held in honor of the 170th anniversary of the Catholic Institute for the Deaf, Martin said in his homily, "The Church is slow to change. Inertia may seem to mean that things can go on as they were and are; but the opposite is the case."

Referring to the June referendum that legalized gay "marriage" in the country, Martin continued, "I spoke some time ago of a 'reality check'; I could also have said 'a wake-up call.' Times have changed in Irish society and the Church must change." 

http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/dublin-archbishop-church-must-change-with-the-times

The days are coming, indeed, they are already here

Originally published on June 26, 2015 and in light of the Abomination of Desolation which took place at Our Saviour's Parish Church in New York City and the heretical and potentially sacrilegious treatment of the Holy Eucharist by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I am re-posting this today as solemn warning.

The Days Are Coming, and Are Already Here

by Giacomo Cardinal Biffi 

The Antichrist, says Soloviev, was "a convinced spiritualist." He believed in goodness, and even in God. He was an ascetic, a scholar, a philanthropist. He gave "the greatest possible demonstrations of moderation, disinterest, and active beneficence."

In his early youth, he had distinguished himself as a talented and insightful exegete: one of his extensive works on biblical criticism had brought him an honorary degree from the University of Tübingen.

But the book that had gained for him universal fame and consensus bore the title: "The Open Road to Universal Peace and Prosperity," in which "a noble respect for ancient traditions and symbols was joined with a sweeping, audacious radicalism toward social and political needs and directives. Limitless freedom of thought was united with a profound comprehension of everything mystical; absolute individualism with an ardent dedication to the common good; the most elevated idealism toward guiding principles with the complete precision and viability of practical solutions."

It is true that some men of faith wondered why the name of Christ did not appear even once, but others replied: "If the contents of the book are permeated with the true Christian spirit, with active love and universal benevolence, what more do you want?" Besides, he "was not in principle hostile to Christ." On the contrary, he appreciated his right intentions and lofty teaching.

But three things about Jesus were unacceptable to him.

First of all, his moral preoccupations. "The Christ," he asserted, "has divided men according to good and evil with his moralism, whereas I will unite them with the benefits that both good and evil alike require."

He also did not like Christ's "absolute uniqueness." He was one of many, or even better – he said – he was my precursor, because I am the perfect and definitive saviour; I have purified his message of what is unacceptable for the men of today.

Finally, and above all, he could not endure the fact that Christ is alive, so much so that he repeated hysterically: "He is not among the living, and will never be. He is not risen, he is not risen, he is not risen. He rotted, he rotted in the tomb…"

But where Soloviev's presentation shows itself to be particularly original and surprising – and merits greater reflection – is in the attribution to the Antichrist of the qualities of pacifist, environmentalist, ecumenist. […]

Did Soloviev have a particular person in mind when he made this description of the Antichrist? It is undeniable that he alludes above all to the "new Christianity" that Leo Tolstoy was successfully promoting during those years. […]

In his "Gospel," Tolstoy reduces all of Christianity to five rules of conduct which he derives from the Sermon on the Mount:

1. Not only must you not kill, but you must not even become angry with your brother.

2. You must not give in to sensuality, not even to the desire for your own wife.

3. You must never bind yourself by swearing an oath.

4. You must not resist evil, but you must apply the principle of non-violence to the utmost and in every case.

5. Love, help, and serve your enemy.

According to Tolstoy, although these precepts come from Christ, they in no way require the actual existence of the Son of the living God to be valid. [...]

Of course, Soloviev does not specifically identify the great novelist with the figure of the Antichrist. But he intuited with extraordinary clairvoyance that Tolstoy's creed would become during the 20th century the vehicle of the substantial nullification of the gospel message, under the formal exaltation of an ethics and a love for humanity presented as Christian "values." [...]

The days will come, Soloviev tells us – and are already here, we say – in which the salvific meaning of Christianity, which can be received only in a difficult, courageous, concrete, and rational act of faith, will be dissolved into a series of "values" easily sold on the world markets.

The greatest of the Russian philosophers warns us that we must guard against this danger. Even if a Tolstoian Christianity were to make us infinitely more acceptable in the living room, at social and political gatherings, and on television, we cannot and must not renounce the Christianity of Jesus Christ, the Christianity that has at its center the scandal of the cross and the astonishing reality of the Lord's resurrection.

Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Son of God, the only saviour of mankind, cannot be transformed into a series of worthwhile projects and good inspirations, which are part and parcel of the dominant worldly mentality. Jesus Christ is a "rock," as he said of himself. And one either builds upon this "rock” (by entrusting oneself) or lunges against it (through opposition): "He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one, it will crush him" (Mt. 21:44). [...]

So Soloviev's teaching was simultaneously prophetic and largely ignored. But we want to repropose it in the hope that Christianity will finally catch on to it and pay it a bit of attention.

The new book by Giacomo Cardinal Biffi from which the passage on the Antichrist was taken:

Giacomo Biffi, "Pinocchio, Peppone, l’Anticristo e altre divagazioni [Pinocchio, Peppone, the Antichrist, and other Meanderings],” > Cantagalli, Siena, 2005, pp. 256, euro 14,90.

Link to original: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/32418?eng=y

And this:

Soloviev And Our Time

By Giacomo Cardinal Biffi

Vladimir Sergeevic Soloviev passed away 100 years ago, on July 31 (August 13 according to our Gregorian calendar) of the year 1900. He passed away on the threshold of the 20th century -- a century whose vicissitudes and troubles he had foreseen with striking clarity, but also a century, which, tragically, in its historical course and dominant ideologies, would reject his most profound and important teachings. His, therefore, was a teaching at once prophetic and largely unheeded.

A Prophetic Teaching

At the time of the great Russian philosopher, the general view -- in keeping with the limitless optimism of the "belle epoque"' -- foresaw a bright future for humanity in the new century: under the direction and inspiration of the new religion of progress and solidarity stripped of transcendent elements, humanity would enjoy an era of prosperity, peace, justice, security. In the "Excelsior" -- a form of dance, which enjoyed an extraordinary success in the last years of the 19th century (and which later lent its name to countless theaters and hotels) -- this new religion found its own liturgy, as it were. Victor Hugo proclaimed: "This century was great, the one coming will be happy."

But Soloviev refused to allow himself to be swept up in this de-sacralized vision. On the contrary, he predicted with prophetic clarity all of the disasters which in fact occurred.

As early as 1882, in his "Second Discourse on Dostoevsky," Soloviev foresaw -- and condemned -- the sterility and cruelty of the collectivist tyranny which a few years later would oppress Russia and mankind. "The world must not be saved by recourse to force." Soloviev said. "One could imagine men toiling together toward some great end to which they would submit all of their own individual activity; but if this end is imposed on them, if it represents for them something fated and oppressive... then, even if this unity were to embrace all of mankind, universal brotherhood would not be the result, but only a giant anthill." This "anthill" was later constructed through the obtuse and cruel ideology of Lenin and Stalin.

In his final work, The Three Dialogues and the Story of the Antichrist (finished on Easter Sunday 1900), one is struck by how clearly Soloviev foresaw that the 20th century would be "the epoch of great wars, civil strife and revolutions" All this, he said, would prepare the way for the disappearance of "the old structure of separate nations" and "almost everywhere the remains of the ancient monarchical institutions would disappear." This would pave the way for a "United States of Europe."

The accuracy of Soloviev's vision of the great crisis that would strike Christianity at the end of the 20th century is astonishing.

He represents this crisis using the figure of the Antichrist. This fascinating personage will succeed in influencing and persuading almost everyone. It is not difficult to see in this figure of Soloviev the reflection, almost the incarnation, of the confused and ambiguous religiosity of our time.

The Antichrist will be a "convinced spiritualist" Soloviev says, an admirable philanthropist, a committed, active pacifist, a practicing vegetarian, a determined defender of animal rights.

He will also be, among other things, an expert exegete. His knowledge of the bible will even lead the theology faculty of Tubingen to award him an honorary doctorate. Above all, he will be a superb ecumenist, able to engage in dialogue "with words full of sweetness, wisdom and eloquence."

He will not be hostile "in principle" to Christ. Indeed, he will appreciate Christ's teaching. But he will reject the teaching that Christ is unique, and will deny that Christ is risen and alive today.

One sees here described -- and condemned -- a Christianity of "values," of "openings," of "dialogue," a Christianity where it seems there is little room left for the person of the Son of God crucified for us and risen, little room for the actual event of salvation.

A scenario, I think, that should cause us to reflect...

A scenario in which the faith militant is reduced to humanitarian and generically cultural action, the Gospel message is located in an irenic encounter with all philosophies and all religions and the Church of God is transformed into an organization for social work.

Are we sure Soloviev did not foresee what has actually come to pass? Are we sure it is not precisely this that is the most perilous threat today facing the "holy nation" redeemed by the blood of Christ -- the Church?

It is a disturbing question and one we must not avoid.

A Teaching Unheeded

Soloviev understood the 20th century like no one else, but the 20th century did not understand Soloviev.

It isn't that he has not been not recognized and honored. He is often called the greatest Russian philosopher, and few contest this appellation.

Von Balthasar regarded his work "the most universal speculative creation of the modern period" (Gloria III, p. 263) and even goes so far as to set him on the level of Thomas Aquinas.

But there is no doubt that the 20th century, as a whole, gave him no heed. Indeed, the 20th century, at every turn, has gone in the direction opposed to the one he indicated.

The mental attitudes prevalent today, even among many ecclesially active and knowledgeable Christians, are very far indeed from Soloviev's vision of reality.

Among many, here are a few examples:

• Egoistic individualism, which is ever more profoundly leaving its mark on our behaviors and laws;

• Moral subjectivism, which leads people to hold that it is licit and even praiseworthy to assume positions in the legislative and political spheres different from the behavioral norms one personally adheres to;

• Pacifism and non-violence of the Tolstoyan type confused with the Gospel ideals of peace and fraternity to the point of surrendering to tyranny and abandoning the weak and the good to the powerful;

• A theological view which, out of fear of being labeled reactionary, forgets the unity of God's plan, renounces spreading divine truth in all spheres, and abdicates the attempt to live out a coherent Christian life.

In one special way, the 20th century, in its movements and in its social, political and cultural results, strikingly rejected Soloviev's great moral construction. Soloviev held that fundamental ethical principles were rooted in three primordial experiences, naturally present in all men: that is to say, modesty, piety toward others and the religious sentiment.

Yet the 20th century, following an egoistic and unwise sexual revolution, reached levels of permissivism, openly displayed vulgarity and public shamelessness, which seem to have few parallels in history.

Moreover, the 20th century was the most oppressive and bloody of all history, a century without respect for human life and without mercy.

We cannot, certainly, forget the horror of the extermination of the Jews, which can never be execrated sufficiently. But it was not the only extermination. No one remembers the genocide of the Armenians during the First World War.

No one commemorates the tens of millions killed under the Soviet regime.

No one ventures to calculate the number of victims sacrificed uselessly in the various parts of the earth to the communist Utopia.

As for the religious sentiment during the 20th century, in the East for the first time state atheism was both proposed and imposed on a vast portion of humanity, while in the secularized West a hedonistic and libertarian atheism spread until it arrived at the grotesque idea of the "death of God."

In conclusion: Soloviev was undoubtedly a prophet and a teacher, but a teacher who was, in a way, irrelevant. And this, paradoxically, is why he was great and why he is precious for our time.

A passionate defender of the human person and allergic to every philanthropy; a tireless apostle of peace and adversary of pacifism; a promoter of Christian unity and critic of every irenicism: a lover of nature and yet very far from today's ecological infatuations -- in a word, a friend of truth and an enemy of ideology.

Of leaders like him we have today great need.

Born in Milan on June 15, 1928, Biffi was ordained on December 25, 1950. A Milan seminary professor, he became a bishop in 1976, then archbishop of Bologna in 1984 and a cardinal on May 25, 1985.

In Bologna, he is the 110th successor of St. Petronius.

Link to source: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3430

Timmy Dolan raises his leg

While at Our Saviour Church in New York a Hindu "service' of worship to the devil is permitted to take place before the Holy Altar of the One, True, God. Timmy Dolan attends the Rockettes and lifts a leg.

Well, if I meet Timmy Dolan one day, I'll bring Roxy with me and she can lift hers too. Right on his.

Of course, it could have been worse. He could have visited the Why Em See, Eh.

http://nypost.com/2015/11/05/cardinal-dolan-gets-a-kick-out-of-meeting-the-rockettes/