Tracy Rowland sent me a copy of this speech by Cardinal James Francis Stafford: “Humanae Vitae: The Year of the Peirasmos – 1968”. I don’t think any faithful Catholic could read it without a tear in his or her eye. Forty years afterwards, and we are just beginning to grasp what happened.
Interestingly, the speech and the event at which it was given was noted by the (generally) dissenting journal, the National Catholic Reporter.
I propose that
1) We replace the absentee monarch of Australia (who is also the Monarch of Great Britain) with an elected Australian monarchy.
2) The elected monarch exactly replaces the current monarch in the current constition.
3) The elected monarch has exactly the same powers, duties and responsibilities as those of the current absentee monarch. All the monarch's functions are carried out by his/her personal representatives (as is currently the case): federally by the Governor General, and in the states by the State Governors.
4) The Governor General and the Governors continue to be selected and appointed as they currently are, that is, by the premier with the approval of the monarch.
5) The monarch is elected to sovereignty over Australia for life, but his/her sovereignty is strictly non-hereditary.
6) The elective body is the "college of electors" comprised of the state governors and federal governor general.
7) The election of the monarch must be a unanimous decision on the part of the college of electors.
Thanks for posting this, it made sense of my own experiences. I didn’t weep; I just felt very, very sad.
Fr John, thanks for popping by – I didn’t know you were an SCE reader. We all know of your own trials, and you have been in the prayers of many for many years. I like to remind people of the story of Elijah at Horeb, who was reassured that there were “still 7000 faithful in Israel”. The fact that most of Israel had apostocized did not alter the fact that Israel remained God’s chosen people, and that in every age there are always those who continue to be faithful to him.
Maybe one of these days you’ll get it that HV was hardly the only area in which this sort of thing went on. It also characterised the ascent what you now accept as the other side of the abyss, conciliar Catholicism.
The utter viciousness, conniving and contempt which attended the implementation of the novus ordo and any resistance to it takes no back seat to what Stafford reports here. I was there, I saw it, I knew some of the victims, priestly lives destroyed.
The same pope who issued HV also promulgated the novus ordo. You cannot reject part of a whole and maintain another part of a whole and still have the whole. And that is what you have and why you have it in the “Catholic Church” to-day: so-called liberals and so-called conservatives quite alike in their violent rejection of Catholicism, only differing in which parts. A pox on them all.
But the novus ordo was implemented in OBEDIENCE, not in dissent. Different kettle of fish. It would only have been the same kettle of fish had the traditionalists who rejected the NO utterly outnumbered those who welcomed it.
In fact, is it not odd that the very ones who bemoan the fact that HV was not received with universal obedience are often those who bemoan the fact that the NO was.
The issue is obedience.
Yes, it was a sorrowful read, David.
In fact, is it not odd that the very ones who bemoan the fact that HV was not received with universal obedience are often those who bemoan the fact that the NO was.</i
Yup!
Here’s what’s odd: if you are wong here, you are, well, wrong, but if you are right, you are also wrong.
If you are right that it’s all about obedience, and you may be, for only unquestioned obedience to the Roman hierarchy could find the novus ordo in the line of the Roman Mass, let alone one of two forms of the Roman Mass along with the Roman Mass, then you place that hierarchy above the Apostles, Scripture and even the angels, as even St Paul, inspired of God, said that should I or even an angel deliver a message to you other than the one you have received, let him be anathema. Nothing whatever about if I or an angel says it, then it’s the same even if it’s different. This attitude comes from the state religion of the Roman Empire, not the church founded by Christ.
Not to mention that with the Joint Declaration and other documents the Roman Church now stands under her own anathemas, condemned by her own words, or rather, the bald faced liars now holding her in a Babylonian Captivity in excess of anything seen in history stand condemned, utterly condemned, totally condemned, by the words of the very church they lying say they are.
Truly, the only God of the conciliar church is itself, and honours God, Jesus, Scripture, and the Fathers and the tradition they falsify with every breath, only to the extent they find themselves in them.
You are impossible, PE. The NO was not and is not a “different gospel” from the Tridentine Mass, and obedience to the Church IS obedience to Christ. End of story.
Of course, like a good protestant, you will say that to say “obedience to Church is obedience to Christ” is idolatry. In the same way you Protestants assert that adoring the Blessed Sacrament is idolatry.
Not end of story, not even the story.
Read the Latin of the false Mass (novus ordo), which at nearly every turn blunts, omits or recasts the true Mass.
Obedience to the Church is not at all what you are talking about. You mean, obedience to the Roman Church, which is “the church” only by acceptance of the Roman church’s peculiar claims, whose current claims a Catholic can know are false by contrast with real Catholicism and a non-Catholic can know from the plain sense of Scripture — unless of course, God’s omnipotence is disproven by his inability to speak clearly, as Nietzsche, the only philosopher worth reading, said, from which we are saved by the Roman Imperial pontifices speaking for him.
Interesting you bring up the non Christian practice of adoring the Eucharist, again. No it’s not idolatry, it’s just like all Romanism, perverting what Christ said for another purpose, here, adoring on your own ideas what he said to take and eat.
So, the NO is not only a “different Gospel” from the Catholic Mass, if the Catholic Mass be true, then it is fouler than an explosion of Satanic flatus, a strange fire before the Lord. And, since obedience to the church is obedience to Christ, one flees from later theological inferences claiming “the church” this as a reference to the Roman church, a once pleasant fiction, which if were ever apparently true at some points in history, has been utterly overthrown by the vile and gross charade, whose stench would fell a healthy horse, now under the same name.
Unless of course poor old God can’t speak all that well and needed Rome to clear up for him what he meant.
The asperges me (or asparagus me, as we used to joke, oh sorry, that’s a Catholic thing and as such unknown in the church with which you think) should be replaced by a new rite of handing out breathing masks, needed more by those approaching the novus ordo than the Olympians approaching Beijing.