gracia, This is a wonderful and thought provoking post. I think many people that believe in the prophesized "Three Days of Darkness" associate it with the time in between the beginning of Our Lord's passion in the Garden of Gethsemane until His resurrection*. Your post also has me thinking of the Transfiguration which we celebrated yesterday. Since I believe in the alleged apparitions of Our Lady in San Sebastian de Garabandal in the early 1960's, I have begun to wonder if there is connection between the Warning & the Miracle and the Transfiguration. I believe that the purpose of the Transfiguration was to reveal Christ as the Son Of God to three of the apostles (Peter, James and John) for the purpose of them receiving instruction which was necessary for the foundation of the Church. I also believe that it is possible that Chastisement prophesized by Our Lady of Garabandal could be the "Three Days of Darkness" which was prophesized to other seers. My feeling is that God intends to renew the foundations of the Church with the Warning & the Miracle that were prophesized at Garabandal and if this is not successful then the Church and the world will go into a complete eclipse for three days. Iow, we will receive the Chastisement. Since we believe that Jesus' ministry existed for about three years I wonder if there could be approximately three years from the time of the Warning & the Miracle until the Chastisement occurs. This of course is all speculation on my part but thank you again for a very thought provoking post. Edited to add: *The three days of darkness, “Will be on a Thursday, Friday, and a Saturday. Days of the Most Holy Sacrament, of the Cross and Our Lady.” Three days less one night. (“Breton Stigmatist”, p. 44) http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2015/07/marie-julie-jahenny-breton-stigmatist.html
Great piece on this subject written by Charlie Johnston on thenextrightstep website. Mea culpa Charlie.
Excellent post, thanks Carol. I wrote a similar idea on the forum here a while back, except instead of describing the problem as simply bad parenting I compared what is going on in the Church now between faithful Catholics and the upper hierarchy as more of an abusive relationship. We know we are bound and cannot leave the Church, yet we are belittled and worse, made to think that we are crazy and "bad Catholics" for not towing the new party line. In heavily abusive relationships there is often an undercurrent of psychological abuse and I think that is what faithful Catholics are enduring now. Very sad
As Carol stated I think this is a great post Gracia. I actually had to go back and read it again after reading what Carol wrote. It is just some conjecture on my part, but I think possibly during the week before the Passion that the apostles may have been thinking that things were coming to a head and that Christ was going to victoriously somehow turn everything around. Then he was imprisoned, tortured and died... I think this is similar to what we are experiencing. Everyone was looking, hoping, expecting that 2017, then 2018 might be some stupendous year that everything would turn around. Of course it still could, but it seems more likely to me that we are coming to the realization that the reality is there is not going to be some quick end to all of this. The cavalry isn't just over the hill. It looks like the Church is only now truly beginning Her Passion. We may have many years, even decades of hanging on the Cross before the Triumph occurs. The length and intensity of the Chastisement is supposed to be correlated to the degree in which the faithful have done penance and sacrificed. In essence to how well we responded to Our Lady's requests. I think just by looking at how few members of the Church hierarchy are willing to stand up for the truth we can see how badly we failed Our Lady's requests. There seem to be about a dozen or two prelates in the entire world who have even made a noise over what is going on...out of 2500+ Bishops and Cardinals. That is about 1%. A very sad state indeed.
Losing the Labels: Let’s be Catholic Again. Steve Skojec | August 9, 2018 | https://onepeterfive.com/losing-labels-catholic/ (please click link for the full article) In a recent online exchange, someone accused me of not being a “real traditionalist.” I suppose that the jibe was supposed to chafe, but it landed pretty far afield. Not only is this not the first time such an accusation (if one could even call it that) has been leveled against me, but it’s an appropriate enough assessment. In point of fact, I’m not a traditionalist. I am a Catholic. I can’t tell you how often I have lamented with friends the way this phrase has been denuded of any real meaning. I’m not old enough to know what Catholic life was like before the Second Vatican Council, but from what I understand, there are people still alive today who can remember a time when saying, “I’m Catholic” conveyed a great deal about one’s life. It meant, at the very least, that a person attended the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (and called it that!) on Sundays and holy days of obligation. It meant that he observed the Church’s fasts and feasts and did penance throughout the season of Lent (and Advent, too, if you can believe it). It meant that he prayed for the pope, the conversion of Russia, the liberation of the Church, and the protection of St. Michael. It meant that he knew what he was made for, when he should and shouldn’t receive communion, who belonged in the sanctuary, and how to pray the rosary. Even those who had never darkened the doorstep of a church knew better than to offer a steak to a Catholic on Friday – not just during Lent, but year-round. The Masses that Catholics attended espoused the universal character of the Church, in that they were all essentially the same. Picking a parish at random in a city far from home wasn’t a game of liturgical roulette, where one might get something reverent or something sacrilegious, depending on the luck of the draw. A priest in those days might have been more or less reverent; he might have been better or worse with the Latin; his homilies might have been inspiring or dull; the music might have been heavenly or hellish; but whether a man heard Mass in Atlanta or Antwerp, he knew, within reasonable boundaries, what he was going to get – and he could follow along. It was a time when Bishop Fulton Sheen’s Life Is Worth Living could be one of the top-rated prime-time television shows on ABC; when biblical epics like The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur were blockbuster films; when The Bells of St. Mary’s and Come to the Stable and The Quiet Man all depicted Catholicism as something real, noble, and worthy of respect. Vocations were on the rise, Mass attendance was high, and decorum was still a notable aspect of Catholic life and thought. But even in the years leading up to the council, the apparent golden age of the Church was anything but. Science tells us that a star shines brightest right before it burns out. The collapse of faith that happened beginning in the late 1960s certainly had architects who helped it along. But only a structure already compromised could fall so far so fast. So what happened? ... With all of this in mind, I would like to submit to you a question: what does it mean to be Catholic? This is the question for the Church in the 21st century. The far-reaching Catholic identity crisis facing us is devastating. Some have argued that catechesis has failed, and to an extent, they are correct. But any catechesis is only as good as the life of faith in the home and in the parish. It is only as strong as the message sent during Church “dialogue” with other religions about whether or not it is important to convert to the Catholic Faith to attain eternal salvation. It is efficacious only if it is reinforced by a liturgical life that is noble, worthy, and fitting, which treats the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as a sacrifice. It makes an impression only if the Church, and those who claim her Faith, are willing to stand with courage and preach Christ crucified to a world that would rather oppress or even kill us than hear this Gospel message. Despite their opposition, it must be said: there is no Christianity without the Cross. Being Catholic could mean something again. Not just that we were baptized or show up in a parish now and then on Christmas and Easter, or that we more or less go to Mass each Sunday but we’d prefer not to be bothered with these irritating teachings on contraception and the Eucharist – and please don’t mind if we show up in beach attire. After all, we have places to go afterward. No, being Catholic could mean something real. Substantive. Specific. Something that shapes our identity. Pope Benedict XVI spoke often of the “hermeneutic of continuity,” which he set up in opposition to a “hermeneutic of rupture.” His idea was that the Church did not break with her past during the tumult of the 20th century, but maintained the connection between the present and what came before. It is true that this connection exists, but it is hardly robust. It is, if anything, a gossamer thread, a thin margin preventing collapse, drawing a line between what was and what is – and what could be again. Catholics have fallen prey to the idea of labels, as if our faith were subject to the petty partisan politics of the secular realm. We speak of “conservative” Catholics and “traditional” Catholics; worse, we speak of Catholics on the “left” or on the “right.” But the perspective of our analysis is wrong. These labels move us from side to side, on a horizontal axis that is focused on the preferences of man, not the objective reality of God and His divinely protected Church. There is no right or left in the Church. In a similar vein, there is no conservative, liberal, or traditional. There is simply orthodoxy, and there is everything else. There is fidelity, and there is laxity. We move on a constant approach as the practice of our faith waxes and wanes, coming either closer to God or farther from Him. I am not defined by the characteristics of any sub-group or ideology. Though the shorthand is easy to fall into, I do not introduce myself to people by saying, “I’m a traditionalist.” I say I am a Catholic, and if the opportunity merits, I tell them that I love the traditional Latin Mass and sacraments, the old book of blessings, the exorcisms present in the venerable rite of baptism, and the devotions and practices that made Catholics strong in faith. I love them not because they are old, but because they are profound, and they bring me and those I love closer to God, and they more perfectly praise Him. I don’t care if some choose to measure my actions on an imagined scale of immersion in their ideal, on whether my family perfectly observes the extrinsic aspects deemed suitable for membership in the rarefied ranks of the self-professed. I am not a traditionalist – I am a seeker of truth, and I believe that the Church was more fully invested in understanding and spreading the truth in the past than she has been recently. I also believe that she will rediscover her zeal again in the future. We don’t need labels, which serve only to justify and entrench our multiplying divisions. We need sanctity. We need to rediscover the things that made the Church strong and practice them again. We need to identify her perennial teachings and be faithful to them. We need to shrug off the impulse to innovate, and instead guard, contemplate, and – when necessary – develop organically and expound. We need to love Christ in the Eucharist, pray the rosary, wear our Sunday best to Mass, study our catechisms, obey the Church and evangelize those outside her embrace, carry our crosses and venerate His, and live the example of apostles. We need to teach our children the same. We need to love and support our priests, and pray that God will send us more of them. We are Catholics. If we can rediscover how to act like it again, we might just change the world. Editor’s note: This essay, originally published on September 10, 2014, has been reprinted to help inform our ongoing discussion of Catholic identity. This version has been revised. *** Did Fulton Sheen support Vatican II? by Michelle Arnold on August 4, 2011 https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-fulton-sheen-support-vatican-ii *** I watched the movie "San Francisco" with Jeanette MacDonald, Clark Gable and Spencer Tracy yesterday. The movie is very fitting for our times imho. I am posting two scenes from the movie, if you have not seen it yet and plan to watch it you may not want to watch the second one since it is a short clip of the ending of the movie. I hope that many here will enjoy these clips. Spoiler alert: this is the ending of the movie "San Francisco",
"It is, if anything, a gossamer thread, a thin margin preventing collapse" It is that gossamer thin thread that the Modernists who have usurped power in Rome are now hacking at with all they have. Trying once and for all to kill the old Church and supplant it with some new monstrosity. A Nu-Church with Nu-sacraments of adultery, sodomy, and false ecumenism.
Yes you are right. They are hacking as hard as they can because they know their time is short. The sacrilege of what they are doing, the violence with which they are doing it parallels the last agony of Our Lord in His Passion. Perhaps soon they will run the spear of outright diabolical apostasy right through the heart of the Church. And all will seem lost. But we KNOW it is not lost. We know this. I hope I live to see the restoration of the Church. I may not but as you are much younger you may be privileged to see it. Pope John Paul II told Fr Roux in the early 80’s (I got this from a nun who was close friends with Fr Roux)that he knew the Church was beginning her own passion and he would have to help her carry the cross to the top of Golgotha. He never doubted her restoration. I wonder if he knew what would happen to the papacy. I wonder if he was shown.
They are like dogs on a leash, they are only allowed to go so far. They know this themselves; as do their servants
Well Padraig I've never been to Ireland, but is your gentle Irish shower anything like a cat 5 hurricane?
Actually they are circumventing dogma. Worse than that they are giving every appearance that they are changing it too, while not actually doing so. Everyone can see that. Even New Ways Ministry the heretical sodomite group pushing for Church acceptance of sexual deviancy wrote this regarding the recent changes to the Catechism of the Catholic Church that Pope Francis made about capital punishment: "So, the change is not a contradiction, even though it is the opposite of what came before it? Hmmmm. What does this death penalty news mean for Catholic advocates for LGBT equality? … we now have a clear, explicit contemporary example of church teaching changing, and also a look into how it can be done: with a papal change to the Catechism." It is mind-boggling what they are getting away with.
They are restricted in what they are permitted. Hence Papal Infallibility. It is already written at the very moment they appear to be victorious they will taste defeat. A second Calvary
I read some time ago that 'traditional' Catholic seminarians were delighted when the Catechism was published because they finally had a definitive document that they could use to contradict much of the nonsense that they were being taught. Now, of course, the heretic teachers can counter that the Catechism is proven to be open to change and that they are merely anticipating other change(s) which are bound to come.
I can not make any claims to understanding this mystery although I can say from my own personal experience it was very much what you have described Dolours. For the year + that I was unable to take part in the Sacrament of the Eucharist while entering the Church and doing so in spiritual pleas to Our Father I did receive some graces from Our Lord. Namely the conviction and awareness of my sins and very disordered thinking along with the basic truths of right thinking. After our entrance to the Church and being able to take part in the Sacraments fully however I was granted after a short time a reprieve over a particularly grievous sin. For want of any explanation outside of God's Grace I can only say that the thought of grieving and disappointing God with my selfishness had become a burden which I do not want to bare. I believe that taking part in the Sacrifice and receiving the Eucharist He granted to me a Grace of desire not to be separated from Him. God willing I will continue to sacrifice, reason, be obedient and will remain in Him and He in me!
I just came across this in my email this morning. Thought it might be of interest to a few friends here. I realize some of you have rather "uncharitable" or ill feelings about the author. While listening to EWTN after work yesterday, I heard the same idea, of a commission comprised of the laity proceeding with an investigation. THE MCCARRICK MESS by Bishop Robert BarronAugust 09, 2018 When I was going through school, the devil was presented to us as a myth, a literary device, a symbolic manner of signaling the presence of evil in the world. I will admit to internalizing this view and largely losing my sense of the devil as a real spiritual person. What shook my agnosticism in regard to the evil one was the clerical sex abuse scandal of the nineties and the early aughts. I say this because that awful crisis just seemed too thought-through, too well-coordinated, to be simply the result of chance or wicked human choice. The devil is characterized as “the enemy of the human race” and particularly the enemy of the Church. I challenge anyone to come up with a more devastatingly effective strategy for attacking the mystical body of Christ than the abuse of children and young people by priests. This sin had countless direct victims of course, but it also crippled the Church financially, undercut vocations, caused people to lose confidence in Christianity, dramatically compromised attempts at evangelization, etc., etc. It was a diabolical masterpiece. Sometime in the early aughts, I was attending a conference and found myself wandering more or less alone in the area where groups and organizations had their booths. I came over to one of the tables and the woman there said, “You’re Fr. Barron, aren’t you?” I replied affirmatively, and she continued, “You’re doing good work for the Church, but this means that the devil wants to stop you. And you know, he’s a lot smarter than you are and a lot more powerful.” I think I just mumbled something to her at that moment, but she was right, and I knew it. All of this has come back to me in the wake of the Archbishop McCarrick catastrophe. St. Paul warned us that we battle, not against flesh and blood, but against “powers and principalities.” Consequently, the principal work of the Church at this devastating moment ought to be prayer, the conscious and insistent invoking of Christ and the saints. Now I can hear people saying, “So Bishop Barron is blaming it all on the devil.” Not at all. The devil works through temptation, suggestion, and insinuation—and he accomplishes nothing without our cooperation. If you want to see the principle illustrated, Google Luca Signorelli’s image of the Antichrist in the Orvieto Cathedral. You’ll see what I mean. Archbishop McCarrick did wicked things and so did those, it appears, who enabled him. And we have to come to terms with these sins. Before I broach the subject of how to do this, permit me to say a few words about unhelpful strategies being bandied about. A first one is indiscriminate scapegoating. The great philosopher René Girard taught us that when communities enter into crisis, people typically commence desperately to cast about for someone or some group to blame. In the catharsis of this indiscriminate accusation, they find a kind of release, an ersatz peace. “All the bishops should resign!” “The priesthood is a cesspool of immorality!” “The seminaries are all corrupt!” As I say, these assertions might be emotionally satisfying at some level, but they are deeply unjust and conduce toward greater and not less dysfunction. The second negative strategy is the riding of ideological hobby horses. So lots of commentators—left, center, and right—have chimed in to say that the real cause of the McCarrick disaster is, take your pick, the ignoring of Humanae vitae, priestly celibacy, rampant homosexuality in the Church, the mistreatment of homosexuals, the sexual revolution, etc. Mind you, I’m not saying for a moment that these aren’t important considerations and that some of the suggestions might not have real merit. But I am saying that launching into a consideration of these matters that we have been debating for decades and that will certainly not admit of an easy adjudication amounts right now to a distraction. So what should be done? The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has no juridical or canonical authority to discipline bishops. And even if it tried to launch an investigation, it has, at the moment, very little credibility. Only the Pope has juridical and disciplinary powers in regard to bishops. Hence, I would suggest (as a lowly back-bencher auxiliary) that the bishops of the United States—all of us—petition the Holy Father to form a team, made up mostly of faithful lay Catholics skilled in forensic investigation, and to empower them to have access to all of the relevant documentation and financial records. Their task should be to determine how Archbishop McCarrick managed, despite his widespread reputation for iniquity, to rise through the ranks of the hierarchy and to continue, in his retirement years, to function as a roving ambassador for the Church and to have a disproportionate influence on the appointment of bishops. They should ask the ecclesial version of Sen. Howard Baker’s famous questions: “What did the responsible parties know and when did they know it?” Only after these matters are settled will we know what the next steps ought to be. In the meantime, and above all, we should ask the heavenly powers to fight with us and for us. I might suggest especially calling upon the one who crushes the head of the serpent. https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/the-mccarrick-mess/5873/ cont.
