But in the USA and other countries, January 6th, in the most unnatural act, is transferred to the following Sunday as though January 6th doesn't exist today. Unnatural to say the least. We do the same with Corpus Christi, Ascension and God knows what other feasts.
But not in Vatican City! The true Ordinary Form calendar is followed without unnatural acts. And thus in the Vatican, this Sunday is going to be the Solemnity of the Baptism of the Lord which in effect is our return to Ordinary Time as it is the First Sunday in Ordinary Time. The following Sunday is the Second Sunday in Ordinary Time.
The question remains, will Pope Francis continue his and Pope Benedict's tradition of celebrating the Baptism of the Lord in the Sistine Chapel where infants of employees of the Vatican are baptized, but celebrating the Liturgy of the Eucharist ad orientem? We will know early Sunday morning.
If an altar is set up in front of the original altar for this Mass, this will be a clear signal to Cardinal Sarah and his sympathizers that they are to forget about it as we say in Italian. This is going to be interesting. If Pope Francis continues the tradition, it is a sign that at least His Holiness begrudgingly sees it as a option in the OF Mass.
I ask the question given the controversy surrounding Cardinal Sarah's suggestion that every parish in the Church celebrate the Liturgy of the Eucharist ad orientem the First Sunday of Advent, only to have Pope Francis slap him down and reorganize the Congregation for Divine Worship. (If only Pope Benedict has been as authoritarian in implementing his vision of the Liturgy!)
But the following is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at St. Peter's for the Solemnity of the Epiphany this morning. Why or why can't all Masses be like this with splendid homilies like Pope Francis' which I print after the posted video? Why O Whine????
And following the homily, I print Pope Francis' Epiphany Angelus talk.
Below is an English translation of the Pope's homily.
“Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we have observed his star in the East, and have come to worship him” (Mt 2:2).
With these words, the Magi, come from afar, tell us the reason for their long journey: they came to worship the newborn King. To see and to worship. These two actions stand out in the Gospel account. We saw a star and we want to worship.
These men saw a star that made them set out. The discovery of something unusual in the heavens sparked a whole series of events. The star did not shine just for them, nor did they have special DNA to be able to see it. As one of the Church Fathers rightly noted, the Magi did not set out because they had seen the star, but they saw the star because they had already set out (cf. Saint John Chrysostom). Their hearts were open to the horizon and they could see what the heavens were showing them, for they were guided by an inner restlessness. They were open to something new.
The Magi thus personify all those who believe, those who long for God, who yearn for their home, their heavenly homeland. They reflect the image of all those who in their lives have not let their hearts become anesthetized.
A holy longing for God wells up in the heart of believers because they know that the Gospel is not an event of the past but of the present. A holy longing for God helps us keep alert in the face of every attempt to reduce and impoverish our life. A holy longing for God is the memory of faith, which rebels before all prophets of doom. That longing keeps hope alive in the community of believers, which from week to week continues to plead: “Come, Lord Jesus”.
This same longing led the elderly Simeon to go up each day to the Temple, certain that his life would not end before he had held the Saviour in his arms. This longing led the Prodigal Son to abandon his self-destructive lifestyle and to seek his father’s embrace. This was the longing felt by the shepherd who left the ninety-nine sheep in order to seek out the one that was lost. Mary Magdalen experienced the same longing on that Sunday morning when she ran to the tomb and met her risen Master. Longing for God draws us out of our iron-clad isolation, which makes us think that nothing can change. Longing for God shatters our dreary routines and impels us to make the changes we want and need. Longing for God has its roots in the past yet does not remain there: it reaches out to the future. Believers who feel this longing are led by faith to seek God, as the Magi did, in the most distant corners of history, for they know that there the Lord awaits them. They go to the peripheries, to the frontiers, to places not yet evangelized, to encounter their Lord. Nor do they do this out of a sense of superiority, but rather as beggars who cannot ignore the eyes of those who for whom the Good News is still uncharted territory.
An entirely different attitude reigned in the palace of Herod, a short distance from Bethlehem, where no one realized what was taking place. As the Magi made their way, Jerusalem slept. It slept in collusion with a Herod who, rather than seeking, also slept. He slept, anesthetized by a cauterized conscience. He was bewildered, afraid. It is the bewilderment which, when faced with the newness that revolutionizes history, closes in on itself and its own achievements, its knowledge, its successes. The bewilderment of one who sits atop his wealth yet cannot see beyond it. The bewilderment lodged in the hearts of those who want to control everything and everyone. The bewilderment of those immersed in the culture of winning at any cost, in that culture where there is only room for “winners”, whatever the price. A bewilderment born of fear and foreboding before anything that challenges us, calls into question our certainties and our truths, our ways of clinging to the world and this life. Herod was afraid, and that fear led him to seek security in crime: “You kill the little ones in their bodies, because fear is killing you in your heart” (SAINT QUODVULTDEUS, Sermon 2 on the Creed: PL 40, 655).
We want to worship. Those men came from the East to worship, and they came to do so in the place befitting a king: a palace. Their quest led them there, for it was fitting that a king should be born in a palace, amid a court and all his subjects. For that is a sign of power, success, a life of achievement. One might well expect a king to be venerated, feared and adulated. True, but not necessarily loved. For those are worldly categories, the paltry idols to which we pay homage: the cult of power, outward appearances and superiority. Idols that promise only sorrow and enslavement.
It was there, in that place, that those men, come from afar, would embark upon their longest journey. There they set out boldly on a more arduous and complicated journey. They had to discover that what they sought was not in a palace, but elsewhere, both existentially and geographically. There, in the palace, they did not see the star guiding them to discover a God who wants to be loved. For only under the banner of freedom, not tyranny, is it possible to realize that the gaze of this unknown but desired king does not abase, enslave, or imprison us. To realize that the gaze of God lifts up, forgives and heals. To realize that God wanted to be born where we least expected, or perhaps desired, in a place where we so often refuse him. To realize that in God’s eyes there is always room for those who are wounded, weary, mistreated and abandoned. That his strength and his power are called mercy. For some of us, how far Jerusalem is from Bethlehem!
Herod is unable to worship because he could not or would not change his own way of looking at things. He did not want to stop worshiping himself, believing that everything revolved around him. He was unable to worship, because his aim was to make others worship him. Nor could the priests worship, because although they had great knowledge, and knew the prophecies, they were not ready to make the journey or to change their ways.
The Magi experienced longing; they were tired of the usual fare. They were all too familiar with, and weary of, the Herods of their own day. But there, in Bethlehem, was a promise of newness, of gratuitousness. There something new was taking place. The Magi were able to worship, because they had the courage to set out. And as they fell to their knees before the small, poor and vulnerable Infant, the unexpected and unknown Child of Bethlehem, they discovered the glory of God.
And the Angelus Talk:
Pope Angelus: Choose to be guided by the star of Jesus
Pope Francis during the Sunday Angelus - AP
Like the Magi chose to be guided by the star of Jesus - said the Pope, "even in our life there are several stars. It's up to us to choose which to follow."
"There are flashing lights that come and go, like the small pleasures of life: although good, they are not enough… “
The Magi invite us to follow the true light that is Lord - said Pope Francis - "a light that does not dazzle, but it accompanies and gives a unique joy. Follow today, among the many shooting stars in the world, the bright star of Jesus! Following it, we will have the joy, like that of the Magi. "
"I would like, the Pope said, to invite everyone not to be afraid of this light and open up to the Lord. Above all I would say to those who have lost the strength to look, to those who, are dominated by the darkness of life, …Courage, the light of Jesus can overcome the darkest darkness. "
"We learn from the Magi not to devote to Jesus only spare time and some thoughts every now and then…”
Concluding the Angelus, Pope Francis donated to those present in St Peter’s Square a small booklet on Mercy which was distributed by more than 300 poor people present in St Peter's Square to whom the Pope offered lunch.
"The Magi offered their gifts to Jesus, And speaking of gifts, I thought I'd give you a little gift: The "Icons of mercy" booklet. The gift of God is Jesus, the Father's mercy; and so, to remember this gift of God, I will give this gift that will be distributed by the poor, the homeless and refugees along with many volunteers and religious whom I cordially greet and thank you wholeheartedly. "
39 comments:
Why? Because of Vatican II.
The Pope's words are about as complete a repudiation of "progressive socialist" politics and economics that one could pen.
Insofar as the world's governments are MOSTLY centralized bureaucratic socialist regimes ruled by globalist, Islamist or Communist uni-parties that don't share power and that DO INDEED objectify and instrumentalize people as things.... few of his diatribes about 'throwaway' culture and tyranny can plausibly be laid at the feet of "right-wing" or 'conservatives' inasmuch as we don't rule the world and we don't control the governments that do rule over most of humanity.
"The bewilderment of those immersed in the culture of winning at any cost, in that culture where there is only room for “winners”, whatever the price. A bewilderment born of fear and foreboding before anything that challenges us, calls into question our certainties and our truths, our ways of clinging to the world and this life. Herod was afraid, and that fear led him to seek security in crime"
Gee I wonder who he is referring to? Does he ever speak without judging and complaining about someone or something>
Stay tuned for the following statement by... Vatican officials on Southern Orders' latest blog entry:
"We sell no whine before its time."
Globalist. I wonder what people mean when they use the term, really.
We are - and have been for centuries - moving toward a one-world government, a global government, and this makes sense. How many little villages and towns grew into the fiefdoms of yore? How many little fiefdoms then became part of baronies and dukedoms? And how many of these morphed into the nascent nation-states that, in turn, became the nations of today? The process is both natural and unstoppable.
Thirteen colonies became Thirteen Confederated States which became, well, you know the story.
As to rule by "Islamist" or "Communist uni-parties," well, I just don't know what that means, either. Is there a suggestion that some masked Illuminati or Masonic puppet master is behind what governments do? Are we to think that decisions made by "conservative" legislators in our own governments, state and federal, do not have direct impacts on the people of the nations and the many states?
I do worry about financial oligarchs, if that makes you feel any better!
Fr. K, let me spell things out for you.
Islamist regimes control 57 countries. The significance of ISIS is the rebirth of the concept of the Caliphate - a super-state. It is for the Muslims what "Roman empire" is to the West.
As for Chinese uni-party. That just describes the Chinese Communist Party. It is a nationalist regime that has preferential treatment for the Han ethnic group built into its sense of self and sees life in China as optimally controlled by a single political party. It will not allow alternative parties to emerge.
The Globalists of the West are cracking up before the resurgence of Nationalists. One way of seeing the difference is in who ultimately makes the decisions - locals or foreign experts?
I don't see one world government as the "inevitable" result of history. Indeed Revelation itself posits that humanity will remain divided until the very end of time what with Gog and MaGog and "all the nations" still existing even at the end of time.
Globalists tend to deny national borders and see themselves as citizens of "the world (run entirely by themselves of course)". So they'll jet from country to country as it suits them and put on religions like clothing too. That they consider themselves above laws for "little people" is well established by the scandals of the IMF and other billionaires caught abusing people.
As for 'conspiracy theories'. Yes. It is true that people scheme and plot and groups do indeed conspire to advance their world view. Masons do exist. Communists exist. There are Muslim groups seeking domination via peaceful means. I don't see why we have to pooh pooh the idea that shadowy groups exist and seek to manipulate events in their favor.
What I agree on is that 1 or 2 groups don't control 'everything'. But some do indeed control quite a lot!
Father McDonald, thank you for your uplifting posts in regard to the Papal Mass, sermon, and Angelus of the Epiphany.
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass...beautiful homily, and Pope Francis' uplifting Angelus message...that's what it's all about. The Holy People of God focused upon holy things.
The Holy People of God gathered at Mass to worship God, in communion with Pope Francis...holy and uplifting teachings today from our Holy Father...have rendered it another beautiful and positive day in the Kingdom of God.
I hope to fill my heart with God's holy and limitless mercy as preached by Pope Francis.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Jus - What do you mean by "Islamist"? DO you mean simply "Muslim," or is there more to the term as you use it?
The Roman empire was relatively small in terms of the entire world. With the divisions within Islam itself, I see little chance that Radical Islamists will manage much of a caliphate.
Chinese Communism, while it can do much harm to individuals, is as doomed as Soviet communism. It is a self-destructive political reality.
Nationalism is a reaction against globalism, but the latter will win the day. If foreign experts make better decisions, I'm all for those.
Does Revelation refer to divided governments? I think we can easily have divisions, even if we have a global government, much as we have divisions in the USA, though we have one federal government.
I don't think that national borders have much meaning since, at least, the invention of the aeroplane.
I pooh pooh that for which there is scant evidence.
Father Kavanaugh, thanks for the laughs. If the UN, a mega kleptocracy and major abortion drooling organization is your idea of a model Global Government, then we're doomed. Don't you believe in subsidiarity?
TJM:
As Father Kavanaugh rightly suggests, it is important to define one’s terms such as “Islamist” or “globalist.” Thus “Islamist” is not synonymous with “Muslim,” and “globalist” is not synonymous with “centralized unitary global government.”
Regarding the latter term, the principle of subsidiarity, which you rightly champion, is perfectly compatible with an international (“globalist”) structure that provides for a distribution of power among different levels of government based on this principle and that therefore allocates power to an international decision-maker (in the form of ad hoc international agreements among states or conferral of power upon a supranational authority, as appropriate) when this leads to “better” results because the matter at hand cannot be “adequately” addressed at a lower level of government. Although there might be a large degree of consensus that certain matters rather clearly fall into this category (WMDs, for example?), reasonable people may reasonably disagree about other matters (trade, for example?). What is unreasonable, unconscionable even, is for people to choose to remain willfully ignorant about critically relevant facts because they prefer to politicize a matter for short-term gain (climate change, for example?).
The idea of a 'world government' as envisaged by the young Tennyson (the Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World) is thankfully unrealistic and unworkable. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was in many respects an admirable institution but it would not have held together even had the Great War not delivered the coup de grace. The Russian Empire was also a casualty of 1914-1918, and although Stalin restored it, it survived him by less than 40 years (to Putin's regret). The unity of India did not survive the British withdrawal, and the writing is on the wall for the European Union, which is a failure both economically and politically.
In his book 'Memory and Identity' Pope John Paul II wrote the following: 'The term "nation" designates a community based in a given territory and distinguished from other nations by its culture. Catholic social doctrine holds that the family and the nation are both natural societies, not the product of mere convention. (p.77)'
So to state baldly that nationalism is a reaction against globalization and that the latter will inevitably prevail (or for that matter a reaction against imperialism) simply will not do. The United States identified itself as a nation state and fought the bloodiest war in its history to preserve that integrity.
'I pooh pooh that for which there is scant evidence.' This from a writer who specializes in sweeping generalizations which actually fly in the face of the evidence (not that he has the slightest interest in citing any). A bit like the speaker who refuses to give way on a point of information by saying 'please don't confuse me with the facts.'
Well, now we know up front that Kavanaugh is a globalist. I pretty much figured that. What a complete loser..all this and a Priest, too. Wow!!
No one has said 1) what his/her working definitions of globalism is, or 2) what is "bad" about it.
When it took months to get a copy of a papal decree or news of a natural disaster to point half way around the globe, "globalization" was impossible. But times have changed.
Most historians agree that the "novel" printing press gave great impetus to the spread of the Protestant Reformation 500 years ago? Why? The spread of information had gone "global."
John - The evidence is, "How many little villages and towns grew into the fiefdoms of yore? How many little fiefdoms then became part of baronies and dukedoms? And how many of these morphed into the nascent nation-states that, in turn, became the nations of today?" (These are the historic facts, by the way.) With minor, nationalistic burps along the way, the process of globalization, it seems to me, is both natural and unstoppable. There is scant evidence that the process is slowing down or stopping, let alone, reversing.
As to the definition of a "nation," who is to say that there cannot be a global nation? Your little island has maintained its "culture" because of its geography. It is not because it is a superior culture, but because it is separated from the mainland by a small body of water. But even islands are subject to larger cultural evolution, much, I am sure, to your dismay. The culture of your little island is changing and there is nothing you can do about it. The Channel is not nearly as wide as it used to be.
Fr K., I am not sure that there is a single definition of 'globalisation'. It seems that the people and groups jockeying for primacy in that area are also trying to establish the meaning. Perhaps you read the column in the Financial Times this week about how the Globalists have an opportunity in the current situation to benefit from a sort of contrarian move and essential rescue the world from the impending chaos that 'nationalism' will bring. For what it's worth one of the major threads common to all of the pro-globalist traffic I have seen lately is to present the anti-globalists as 'nationalists' with the agreed on definition of 'nationalist' as racist, xenophobic, etc. Essentially, the globalists seem to be trying to define themselves by what they are not, and forcing anyone who is not in their camp to assume the burden of the negative.
For our purposes here I would accept your definition of 'globalisation' based on what your forecast will come to pass and try to avoid quibbling over your definition solely to advance the discussion.
I will admit to having a reaction similar to John Nolan in context of your previous defenses of the NO and its obvious decentralisation of liturgical practises.
A 'global nation' is a contradiction in terms. I accept that JP II was seeing things from a Polish perspective - the Polish state was absorbed by its neighbours in the 18th century yet maintained its national identity.
Poland also belongs to a wider cultural identity, that of Western Christendom. In the Middle Ages this meant far more than it does today, which is why the attempt to forge a new pan-Europeanism without reference to Christianity is doomed to failure. Rapid communications are beside the point. If an institution in (say) medieval Scotland wanted confirmation of its privileges from Rome, it would not expect an immediate response. But it would apply nonetheless and get the charter.
When Henry VIII declared 'this realm of England is an empire', St Thomas More would not have demurred - the king's authority in his own kingdom was taken as read. But when Henry tried to claim authority over matters which did not simply pertain to his kingdom, and to set his laws over God's laws, then St Thomas could not acquiesce.
Britain might be an island but actually comprises three nations. Add the smaller island and it makes four. France is not an island but has a national identity - Germany had a national identity long before it was unified in 1871. Yugoslavia never managed to forge a national identity because racial homogeneity could not overcome cultural divisions.
International co-operation is one thing, but supra-national organizations have a limited use; the much-maligned League of Nations actually had a better track record than its successor the UN. And if history teaches anything, it is that supra-national states and empires always fall in the long run. It would not surprise me if China did not implode sometime this century, since the internal tensions are already strongly evident.
European North America (the US and Canada) is the legacy of European imperialism (English, Scots, Irish, French, Spanish) so perspectives are bound to be different from those in Europe. But I see no evidence of a march towards, still less a desire for 'global government'. Apart from anything else, demographics alone would mean we would all be dictated to by hordes of Chinese. Perish the thought!
In the interests of producing more light than heat, here is the article on “globalization” from Wilkipedia, which exhaustively discusses the meaning of the term “globalization” as well as the historical and contemporary processes of globalization:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization#Support_and_criticism
The article also explains that “Globophobia has been used to refer to the fear of globalization, though it can also mean the fear of balloons.” =)
A "unified Italy" would, in pre-Garibaldi days, would have been considered a "contradiction in terms."
Poland's cultural identity today might be very different if 3 million Polish Jews, half of the 6 million Poles who died in that war, had not been eliminated. Circumstances change.
Sometimes those changes are salutatory rather than incremental. Rapid communication - printing in Luther's time and the internet in our own - is such an agent. Sometimes this is to the good, sometimes not.
Supra-national organizations will become more and more necessary and, potentially, beneficial, as our planet becomes more of a global community. Hamilton's "Report on the National Credit of 1790" was a shocker, but he was right. Until the circumstances required it, the assumption of the war debts of the many states by the federal government was of "limited use." The Federal government of the USA assumed the debt of the many states, paid off that debt, and resulted in a more unified United States.
I think it is inevitable. I know it will be uncomfortable. But it is inevitable.
Kavanaugh...RE: national borders not meaning much since the airplane: Try flying over Russia, China, or Korea in a private unidentified aircraft and you will learn all about national borders. Better yet, have another nation's military fly a fighter aircraft over their borders and see what happens. Are all liberals mentally retarded?
And, once again, we have Anon 2 defending his Muslim terrorist buddies. Mohammed was a false prophet by every definition of such. Islam is non-Trinitarian, Arian, and an enemy of the Church. Anyone who thinks otherwise, Pope or pauper, is an idiot.
To celebrate Holy Days on their actual dates one can always attend Mass at a monastery which follows the calendar of its Order, e.g. Benedictine houses of the Solesmes congregation. Alternatively one can attend Mass in the traditional Roman Rite - churches which offer both forms usually schedule an EF Mass on the correct day. I have noticed that people who normally attend the OF will attend the EF on (say) Ascension Thursday despite the fact that the obligation is removed.
Gene (at 4:58):
(1) “And, once again, we have Anon 2 defending his Muslim terrorist buddies”
Please either justify this slur by showing where I have defended terrorists or withdraw it.
(2) “Anyone who thinks otherwise, Pope or pauper, is an idiot.”
Translation: “Anyone who thinks otherwise than Gene is an idiot.”
Salutatory should be saltatory.
A global body such as the UN is a grave threat to Catholicism, so Father Kavanaugh and his ilk should be careful what they wish for: the UN is rabidly pro-abortion, rabidly population control, their "peace-keeping" forces in Africa have committed rape with impunity, and they have denounced the only Democracy in the Mideast, Israel. I guess the term "useful idiots" is as applicable today as it was in Lenin's time. According to the political left, world wide Communism was inevitable. Kavanaugh is always good for a laugh and Exibit A for why the Catholic Church is floundering.
Gene:
I am still waiting for a response to my request regarding your defamatory slur.
TJM:
There you go again—throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Of course the U.N. is an imperfect body, in some respects indeed a very imperfect body. But not in all, or even in most, respects. The U.N. has also done a great deal of good in the 70 plus years since its founding. The following Wikipedia article will provide an overview of its many activities (including those of its specialized agencies addressing matters as varied as telecommunications, postal services, monetary stability, health, meteorology, civil aviation, and intellectual property):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_specialized_agencies_of_the_United_Nations
You may as well impugn the entire U.S. government because certain aspects are flawed, or indeed the entire Catholic Church because of the sex abuse scandal, or the U.S. military because of rapes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the widely reported culture of rape that has existed within it in recent years.
What is needed is reform of the U.N. not wholesale rejection, although I recognize that apparently this is an impossibly nuanced distinction for the new world order conspiracy crowd.
As for your point, then, that “the term ‘useful idiots’ is as applicable today as it was in Lenin's time,” the questions are: Who are the “idiots”? And to whom are they “useful”? Clearly, the answers are a matter of one’s perspective.
Anonymous 2,
You can defend the indefensible if you wish. On the abortion issue alone, any FAITHFUL Catholic should reject this evil organisation because it will never be possible to change its evil policy of promoting an intrinsic evil. The only time the UN has done ANY good is when the US prodded this essentially worthless organization to do so. This loser organisation is just another left-wing loon fantasy. The US, England, Canada, Australia and other countries which are democratic and support individual freedom should dump this kleptocracy and if they deem it necessary form another organization to pursues goals of mutual concern on an as needed basis. If you want to see a useful idiot, look in the mirror.
Bee here:
My parish did celebrate the Epiphany on Friday Jan. 6th with Mass in the Extraordinary Form. It was a splendid high Latin Mass with 3 celebrants, a master of ceremonies, four altar boys (young men) and a bevy of acolytes. The Propers were chanted in Latin, both the Epistle and the Gospel were chanted, we even heard the Announcement of Easter on the Epiphany of Our Lord (in Latin), the choir sang beautifully, and incense smoked up the whole place!
After the Mass the priests gathered at the entrance of the church with the congregation and prayed the blessing of the church for the Epiphany, marking above the door with 20 + K + M + B + 17. They had 3 large containers of Epiphany Holy Water which had been blessed before Mass using the Latin rite, to take home to bless your home, and blessed chalk and incense in small boxes to take home to say the prayers and mark above the entrance doors at home.
The marking above the door in chalk is an Eastern European custom that has the first two digits of the year, then K for Kaspar, M for Melchior, and B for Balthasar, then the last two digits of the year. Our parish is a traditionally Polish parish, and although there are few Poles that still attend, the pastor carries on the tradition.
I must say it was like celebrating Christmas again, and it was very joyous. It was very well attended, and people seemed to be so joyful as they left the church. Maybe at least sometimes wishes come true, Fr. McD!
God bless,
Bee
Anon 2
The UN agencies do useful work, although some of them predate the organization itself. However, the UN's uncritical acceptance of anthropogenic climate change is ideologically driven and has the potential to be damaging, particularly to third-world economies.
In terms of peacekeeping and conflict resolution the UN has not been a success. In the former Yugoslavia it failed dismally, and had to be bailed out by NATO. Who can forget the sight of armed UN forces standing idly by in Rwanda while civilians were being massacred? Also, check out the record of MONUC/MONUSCO in the DRC (forget the UN propaganda, even the Guardian with its internationalist credentials was highly critical).
Granted, the Korean War was technically a UN operation, but only because when N.Korea invaded, the USSR was boycotting the Security Council.
Anon 2, You have defended Muslims, of whom terrorists are part and parcel. You have a long history on the blog of rushing to defend that false religion and its minions. I won't even respond to your second statement, which is just childish nonsense.
Anon 2
You know Gene will not respond. And we know why - He can't.
His accusations against you and others are, without exception, based on nothing more than his own fears and insecurities. He'll keep doing it, so I would not waste a nanosecond waiting for him to man-up and respond properly.
That's his M. O. It's how he sees the world. It is sad, but I think he circumstances are unalterable, short of divine intervention.
And while we are at it, lets go by the old calendar like the such and such Sunday after Epiphany and Pentecost instead of the ABC Sunday in Ordinary Time. The latter sounds secular to those not attuned with Church lexicon. Heck, even the liberal Episcopal Church still uses the older, traditional calendar!
And "The Second Sunday after Epiphany" is more understandable to those not attuned with Church jargon? How so?
unless you are just another typical, untrained post-Vatican II Catholic, you know the Ephiphany is January 6th. I think you can figure the Sunday out from there.
Gene:
So, as I suspected and as Anonymous recognizes, you fail to show that I have defended terrorists because you can’t. And you can’t because I haven’t—ever, anywhere. What I have said about Islam and Muslims has all been consistent with Catholic teaching about them, which of course you reject.
My second point is related to your rejection of this and other teachings of the Church of course. But which is more childish—my reframe of your comment or you calling the Pope an idiot? Inquiring minds want to know.
TJM:
Your continued exploitation of the abortion issue to rationalize your extreme views borders on the unconscionable.
TJM:
Also, the Catholic Church does not agree with your extreme views on the worthlessness of the United Nations. Here is but one example among many:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2008/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080418_un-visit.html
Notice in particular the following passage in Pope Benedict’s address:
“My presence at this Assembly is a sign of esteem for the United Nations, and it is intended to express the hope that the Organization will increasingly serve as a sign of unity between States and an instrument of service to the entire human family. It also demonstrates the willingness of the Catholic Church to offer her proper contribution to building international relations in a way that allows every person and every people to feel they can make a difference. In a manner that is consistent with her contribution in the ethical and moral sphere and the free activity of her faithful, the Church also works for the realization of these goals through the international activity of the Holy See. Indeed, the Holy See has always had a place at the assemblies of the Nations, thereby manifesting its specific character as a subject in the international domain. As the United Nations recently confirmed, the Holy See thereby makes its contribution according to the dispositions of international law, helps to define that law, and makes appeal to it.”
But hey, what does he know. He’s only the Pope.
Well, 206pm, I think more people have heard of "Epiphany" than Ordinary Time. Like "the 12 days of Christmas."
Sorry to be a bit late on this one, but Fr K's 'historical facts' are more nuanced than he seems to realize. There was certainly a tendency for smaller communities to coalesce into larger ones, but it is not a universal principle. In 1066 William of Normandy had himself crowned as Rex Anglie; he then subdivided his lands into fiefs (grants of land in return for military service) with the proviso that he was still overlord.
Charlemagne ruled over an empire which included France, Germany and Italy; it did not long survive his death. Charles V was both King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor but he himself found it necessary to subdivide his realms. And what about the British Empire, which in living memory encompassed a third of the globe?
The inevitable march towards larger and larger entities is not inevitable when seen in the context of history.
Anonymous 2
Benedict XVI was reminding the UN that the Holy See has been a major player on the diplomatic stage for centuries.
In 2010 Stephen Fry, the nations favourite know-all, was slapped down by an historian for pooh-poohing this, on the grounds that the Vatican State has only been around since 1929!
Do you accept my criticisms of the UN? You haven't refuted them.
Post a Comment