Each year, at this time, Beth Tikvah holds services and activities for Rosh Hashanah in our church and throughout our campus. Their Hoffman Estates synagogue is not large enough to host these events and we are delighted to share our beautiful spaces of worship and learning with our Jewish neighbors.
Rosh Hashanah literally means “Head of the Year,” and refers to the celebration of a new Jewish year. This holiday marks the beginning of the Days of Awe, and provides an opportunity to examine our actions from the preceding year through prayer. Rosh Hashanah is a joyous and meaningful holiday celebrated by special customs.
When you see members from Beth Tikvah please give them a warm Holy Family welcome. They will be with us September 24 and 25…
Daily Archives: February 9, 2015
I am a bit surprised everytime I read of bloggers and commenters warning about an impending “schism”. I thought I would add a couple of reflections.
St Athanasius refused to obey to Pope Liberius. He went so far as to start appointing bishops of his own initiative and without papal approval. Mind, his were – for all I know – real territorial bishops, appointed to run a diocese. Not bidhops like the SSPX, who have no territorial jurisdiction and whose task is principally to allow the SSPX to survive as acreligious order.
So: was St. Athanasius (and his allies and appointees) “schismatic”? Of course not! They were good, orthodox Catholic caring for the perpetuation of good, orthodox Catholicism. Were they, in their time, accused of schism? I am sure they were. No doubt, the Papal fraction threw at them every insult in the dictionary. But were they, therefore, scismatics? No.
The same will apply to the Burke, Schneider, & Co. Of the world, if in October, the heresy hits the fan. There will be lack of obedience. There may well be own ordination of bishops. I can well imagine a number of diocese and even Countries (African, mainly) refusing en block every appointee of Francis, and basically shutting the Vatican heresy out of their own diocese exactly as Athanasius & Co. did. But they will, most certainly, not be in schism.
I leave it to others to decide if a Pope can himself be in schism, as he refuses to obey to the Petrine Authority as expressed in and practiced by his predecessors. It seems a strange concept to me, that is difficult to digest. A Pope who disobeys to the Church does not seem, to me, in “schism”. It’s a bit like accusing a King of lese majesty.
Personally, I do not care much about how you call it, and I wonder if at the time of Athanasius there were big discussions about it rather than a simple, but very effective hands-on approach to the crisis that plagued them. But I know one thing: a Pope to whom obedience must be refused is a Pope who has put himself in a position of factual heresy, however he may try to deny the fact. It is, therefore, so, that in this case the Pope is outside, and the orthodox Catholics are inside. And it is so, that the latter can never be told – and should never claim for themselves – that they are “in schism”, albeit a justified one. They can – like the SSPX – never be Schismatic, as long as they are on the side of Ortodoxy. You can never be true to Christ and Schismatic at the same time.
We will, no doubt, read more about it in the months to come, as the two opposing fronts of Orthodoxy and Heresy face each other and outright war is a distinct possibility. But I truly would suggest that bloggers and commenters do not put us, the orthodox Catholic, in some “schismatic” drawer merely because we refuse to obey to a Pope of whom our religion says that the very man should not be obeyed.
I do not feel well in the shoes of a “schismatic”, and be they so virtuous. I can’t fathom the Athanasius party as such. I also have difficulties in seeing a Pope as disobedient to himself, and I remind you that the decision that he is not the Pope anymore could not be left to our private judgment, so he would still be Pope pending deposition.
I just can’t see a “schism” in the traditional sense (in the Orthodox, or Henry VIII sense) coming. What I can see is a Pope falling into heresy, and carrying with himself a part of the Church whilst formally still the Pope, until he dies or is declared deposed by a Universal Council in the proper way.
But a “schism”? No.
It is not known to me that Hindus go around massacring their own, besides the others, in huge numbers. Never have I seen Buddhists instaurate a terror regime among their own correligionists. Sikh do not decapitate people on the public square for the “edification” of children and women.
No other religion I know has hundreds of idiots, of both sexes, leaving Europe and choosing to be willing accomplices of such unspeakable cruelty. Nor do they video poor people (of their own religion) as they burn them alive, once they have noticed beheadings do not cause massive shock anymore.
Sure, other religions have violent elements. When the mob explodes, no minority is safe. But the ISIS is on a different scale altogether. The ISIS is a true statual organisation, built on one thing and one thing only: Islam. Both the scope and ferociousness of their action is fueled by, and could never endure unless fueled by, their own religion. The violence and cruelty that is inherent in Islam finds in the ISIS not its aberration, but its completion. They practice what Mohammed preached, and there is no way to just wish away this brutal fact.
The fight against ISIS is a fight against Islam. They are more dangerous because they are more Muslim. The inherent evil of Islam finds in them an expression unhindered by the common sense of humanity.
Islam is inherently evil and violent. In the ISIS, Islam finds its most complete realisation seen in recent centuries.
So yes: the ISIS is a Muslim problem.
Cardinal Burke’s new interview (this time to a French television channel) is the most explicit warning yet coming from a Cardinal of what will happen if Francis decides to “go nuclear” in October: Burke – and many, many others – will refuse obedience, call on the heresy, and denounce the “Neo-Pagan ideology” (not my words, Bishop Schneider’s) of Pope Francis.
This is another very convincing sign that if Francis thinks he can walk over Truth unpunished he has, as they say, another think coming.
Francis may, of course, choose heresy in a rush of popularity-seeking, grappa-fuelled stupidity; but even he must have understood by now that a nuclear conflict is what he is going to get. I have expressed many time, and repeat today, my fundamental estimation of this man in matter of conflict: in my opinion, Francis simply no tene cojones.
It is, therefore, very good that such warning salvos are fired in the direction of the Casa Sanctae Marthae. They will give Francis something to think about between a grappa and a trannie.
I think he will choose, as always, the comfortable way.
The Gay President, B. Hussein Obama, has dared to smear the Inquisition – and the Crusades, see the other post – by comparing it to the atrocities of the ISIS. I have dealt with the ISIS in the other post. Today, let’s talk about the Inquisition.
The Inquisition is born of the perfectly orthodox desire to avoid the Truth being polluted by internal enemies. If you aren’t Christian, the Inquisition won’t touch you. But if you try to sabotage Christianity from the inside, you will be in their sight.
Is fighting heresy important? How should heresy be punished? If God is the highest Good, the attempt to pollute God’s Truth is certainly one of the highest crimes. Of course it should be punished with the ultimate punishment. To think differently means to state that God’s Truth is less worthy of protection than human life, which is patently absurd and obviously secular.
I know, we don’t “do” Christian Orthodoxy anymore. This is because we do not care for Truth anymore as our ancestors did. We worship “tolerance”, “diversity” and, most of all, human life instead. To our ancestors, God’s Truth was the highest good. To us, it is not even worth being “unkind”.
To our ancestors, as I was saying, God’s Truth was the highest good. As those were Christian times, a natural Christian duty fell on their rulers to care for the protection of orthodoxy. At the same time, the Church had a right of at least supervision and steering, to avoid the abuse of civil authority in religious matters. Therefore, a system of Inquisitions developed.
Some territorial organisation, like for example Florence, delegated the power of heresy trials to the Latin Inquisition, run by Rome. When Galileo was first investigated (Galileo was under investigation twice), he traveled to Rome to be interrogated, but in the presence of a Florentine civil servant who reported to Florence and made sure no abuses were committed.
Other territorial organisations, like France and Spain, had their own Inquisition. These tribunals worked in a way regulated by agreements between them and Rome. The agreements were generally such that whilst the tribunals were under the authority of the State, they had to be run by religious. The Spanish Inquisition was, so to speak, a Ministry of the Spanish Government. But a Ministry that had to be run in a certain way, in which Rome had a say.
All Inquisitions shared one character: they were the most advanced example of criminal procedure ever appeared since the Romans. The defendant had the right of a true defence. There was a degree of fairness that, whilst not optimal when seen with today’s eyes, was more advanced than anything else the world knew at that time. In those time, every interrogation for murder or theft could go on with a brutality unknown to the Inquisition. Not saying the Inquisitors were retiring wallflowers. But far more advanced than everyone else, Christian or not, they certainly were.
Take Galileo again. He is summoned (second time). He hires a lawyer of his own choice. The lawyer discusses the facts with him, and they agree a defence line. The Court listens to both sides, and the matter gets very technical. The Court then appoints a panel of experts to be enlightened about the technicalities. The panel produces its own report. The Court reaches a verdict. This, my friends, is something that should make us proud of the Inquisition, not ashamed.
The best compliment – and evidence – in favour of the Inquisition is that the Italian criminal trial in force until 1989 was called inquisitorio, exactly because its fundamentals were taken from the inquisition. In 1989, the trial procedure changed to a system called accusatorio, the Anglo-Saxon trial system you see in the movies. This was made not, mind, because the new system is inherently more just – though an argument might be made for that – but primarily because it is faster, more flexible, and cheaper.
The Inquisitorial system was not only right in principle, but it constituted a notable advancement compared to the praxis used up to then. If it was at times brutal, it is because the times were more brutal. But that it was less brutal than whatever else you would find at the time inside and outside Christianity there can be no doubt.
There were differences, of course. The mildest Inquisition was the Latin one (Rome). Those who were steered by foreign Government partially followed the interrogation techniques and trial customs prescribed by those Government. This is, then, not even the Church’s responsibility. One lives in one’s own time.
Unfortunately, we live in times where people think they can be the measure of centuries of Western History whilst showing an appalling ignorance of it. Obama, a product of Affirmative Action if ever there was one, is one of the worst examples (his wife is clearly another).
It is high time to rediscover these two great example of Church-steered bravery and progress, the Crusades and the Inquisition(s).
But to do so, we must rediscover the beauty of our Civilisation and the robustness of our cultural and civilisation roots, instead of committing impure acts with the Baddy White Christian Man who is so mean to peaceful Muslims or Maya/Incas/Aztec kingdoms or nature-bound Redskins.
We, the Christian West, are the crème de la crème of every Civilisation ever appeared, and we must stop whipping ourselves without pause. When we start recovering a proper perspective all pieces will fall into places again.
The Crusades were not only a meritorious work, but they were probably the most glorious point in the history of the Christian West. For the first time, not one but many nations rose together, all moved by their glorious Christian Faith, and set up to the re-opening of the then vital link to the umbilical cord of Christianity: the pilgrimage route to Jerusalem. A feat, this, that for economic and logistical effort had no equal in anything after the end of the Roman Empire of the West. A feat more notable because the result of a multinational effort, rather than of a well-oiled, centralised Statual machine.
Were atrocities committed during the Crusades? You bet they were! Show me a war without war crimes and I will show you that you are dreaming. By its nature, war lends itself to abuse by the more violent elements. This is why the Church has a doctrine of war. But war crimes do not make a just war less just. If it were to be so, no one would ever have any right to wage war, and the world would be the playing ground of Muslims, Nazis, Communists and other bastards.
Different, of course, is the case of the ISIS. They do not have rules of war. The concept of “total war” applies to them even more literally than to the Nazis. The ISIS are at war all the time and everywhere. They are at war with the old, the women and the children. They do not refrain from unspeakable cruelty. They are, in a word, at war with humanity.
Why do they do that? Because they are very orthodox Muslims. They are merely more zealous in doing what their religion preaches than their own correligionists. If in any other war (not only the Crusades) atrocities and war crimes constitute a pathology of warfare, in the orthodox Muslim world of the ISIS there is no pathology, only warfare. In their inhuman torturing and massacring, they are doing what they think is right and orthodox and very Muslim, and I do not doubt they are right as far as the last one is concerned.
Islam, properly followed, lead to ISIS. Christianity, properly followed, leads to just law. Therefore, to compare the ISIS to the Crusades shows not only ignorance of History but the inability – or the unwillingness – to understand Islam.
The Gay President, Obama, who does not know jack of anything, should inform himself from cultured people before giving air to his teeth in a very stupid defence of his closet cultural religion.
The Inquisition Reblog
Holy Family welcomes Beth Tikvah Congregation
View original post 301 more words
Good Lord, how the times change…
When I was a child, cremation was actually not contemplated by your mainstream Italian (churchgoing or not) and from what I seem to understand not allowed in principle, though I think no one really cared. As to keeping them in urns at home, this is something you saw in American movies, and cringed.
If you want to know in what confused times we live, you can read here Italian Catholics are now not allowed to scatter the ashes or to have an urn at home.
If you read the article, you will notice a rather important thing: the mention of “burying the dead” as a work of mercy is not even mentioned.
Instead, we are treated with this beautiful snippet of post-Vatican II thinking: the Church will not defend a custom honoured by the centuries, and will happily allow Catholics to import masonic/protestant ways…
View original post 387 more words