"MAORI NATIONALIST REVOLUTION" - WATCH OUT

 To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or Twitter.

 

"Printery for the Papists" https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/pompallier - Bishop Pompallier's endeavour

Pakeha New Zealanders who suffer no angst over the question of race, who revere their forebears who brought Christ and Christian culture to this land, must take a stand and resist the Maorification of our nation and country.

We 'Whiteys' own New Zealand as tangata whenua just as much as people who lay claim to a few drops of Maori blood. Our ancestors came here to build a better world - and they did. We need to thank God for the society they established together with Maori like Sir Apirana Ngata and Sir Peter Buck, and defend it.

And the Catholic Church, whose role in founding New Zealand as a Christian nation was pre-eminent, needs to find its mojo, its mana, stop wringing its hands over Maori, stop patronising Maori and treat them as the equals they are of Pakeha, as "sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ" (Rom 8:17).

 

Sir Apirana Ngata

Sir Peter Buck

Left-leaning political commentator Chris Trotter has a few fairly persuasive remarks to make on what he calls "the Maori nationalist revolution". We'd better hear them. And reflect.

 

IF NEW ZEALAND’S educational curriculum was dedicated to condemning capitalism and uplifting the working class, would that signal a revolution? If working-class culture was elevated above the cultural achievements of the upper and middle classes, would that signal a revolution? If representatives of the trade unions exercised a decisive influence over the editorial direction of the news media and the content of university courses, would that signal a revolution?

Of course it would.

Nearly forty years ago, as the newly-elected Fourth Labour Government was pursuing its nuclear-free agenda, organising women’s forums, and preparing to destroy the achievements of the First, Second and Third Labour Governments, a handful of young trade unionists – Labour Party members all – lobbied the then Minister of Labour, Stan Rodger, for a daily bulletin of trade union news on Radio New Zealand.

Way back in 1984, New Zealanders could keep abreast of what was happening on New Zealand’s farms by tuning-in to “Rural News” Or, keep up with the machinations of industry and finance by listening to “Business News”. There was even a weekly programme called “Focus on Politics”. But, the only time New Zealanders ever got to hear about what was happening in the country’s factories, warehouses, offices and shops was when workers went out on strike.

“So, how about it, Stan, why not a daily, or weekly, round-up of news about the issues confronting working-class New Zealanders?” Now to give Stan Rodger his due, he gave us a fair hearing. Indeed, I think he was personally quite excited by the idea, because, eventually, a short series of programmes entitled “Working Life” did make it to air. But a daily round-up of news from the perspective of those working on the factory floor, or driving a truck, or standing at the check-out counter? Not a chance.

 

David Lange leader of the Fourth Labour Government

Such a programme would have indicated a significant shift in social and economic power in the direction of working people. But, as we all know, the people running the Fourth Labour Government (not all of whom were democratically-elected politicians) were committed to shifting social and economic power in precisely the opposite direction – towards the bankers and the bosses.

That’s why there was a vast expansion in the coverage of business affairs on Radio New Zealand – and right across the news media. That’s why, in just a few years, the ideology of neoliberalism permeated the whole of New Zealand society. There had definitely been a revolution – but not by the workers.confronting working-class New Zealanders?” Now to give Stan Rodger his due, he gave us a fair hearing. Indeed, I think he was personally quite excited by the idea, because, eventually, a short series of programmes entitled “Working Life” did make it to air. But a daily round-up of news from the perspective of those working on the factory floor, or driving a truck, or standing at the check-out counter? Not a chance.

Such a programme would have indicated a significant shift in social and economic power in the direction of working people. But, as we all know, the people running the Fourth Labour Government (not all of whom were democratically-elected politicians) were committed to shifting social and economic power in precisely the opposite direction – towards the bankers and the bosses. That’s why there was a vast expansion in the coverage of business affairs on Radio New Zealand – and right across the news media. That’s why, in just a few years, the ideology of neoliberalism permeated the whole of New Zealand society. There had definitely been a revolution – but not by the workers. 

New Zealand is currently living through another top-down revolution. Though far from complete, it has already captured control of the commanding heights of the public service, the schools and universities, the funding mechanisms of cultural production, and big chunks of the mainstream news media.

The ideology driving this revolution is not neoliberalism, it’s ethnonationalism. A potent amalgam of indigenous mysticism and neo-tribal capitalism has captured the imagination of the professional and managerial class and is relying on the latter’s administrative power and influence to drive through a revolutionary transformation of New Zealand society under the battle-flags of “indigenisation” and “decolonisation”. The glue which holds this alliance of Māori and Non-Māori elites together is Pakeha guilt.

The origins of the present ethnonationalist revolution may be traced back to the early 1980s – specifically the 1981 Springbok Tour. A very large and well-organised anti-racist movement against the Apartheid system in South Africa took to the streets to protest the presence in New Zealand of the Springbok rugby team. There they encountered not only the brutal forces of the state, but a vast number of New Zealanders who were not in the least bit shamed or shifted by the charges of racism hurled at them by the protesters. The Springbok Tour thus revealed a deep divide in New Zealand society, leaving many of the protesters feeling like strangers in their own land.

 

1981 Springbok tour - when Kiwis were idealists

 

The modern Māori nationalist movement, which had taken form during the 1970s, was quick to draw a large number of these alienated liberal Pakeha into its orbit. Using tactics developed by radical social reformers in the United States, Māori activists accused the Springbok Tour protesters of caring more about Apartheid in South Africa than they did about the racism in their own country.

“Learn your own history! Read about the violence done to Māori and the confiscation of their lands! Stop going on about racism in the abstract and pay heed to those who understand it from bitter personal experience! Surrender your privilege!”

It worked. The nationalist activists had created a movement towards “Māori Sovereignty” in which revolutionary Māori would lead, and guilty Pakeha would follow. Not that these guilty Pakeha represented anything like a majority of Non-Māori New Zealanders, far from it, but they did constitute a significant percentage of the well-educated and credentialed members of the Professional-Managerial Class – and that would be enough. The Guilty Pakeha’s “long march through the institutions” had begun.

And what a very long march it has been, but, 40 years after it began, the champions and fellow-travellers of the Māori nationalist movement can look back upon some stunning successes. Fearing that the nationalists were about to unleash a mass movement of the most marginalised Māori against the “Settler State” – fears stoked by reports of Māori nationalists being feted in revolutionary Libya and Cuba – the Crown initiated the Treaty Settlement Process with Iwi Māori. Informed by President of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, Robin Cooke’s, landmark 1987 reinterpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi’s meaning and purpose, this process brought into being the Iwi-based corporations that gave birth to the phenomenon Elizabeth Rata calls “neo-tribal capitalism”. The sons and daughters of the original Māori nationalists now have the resources they need to carry their parents’ dream to fruition.

 

self-explanatory

Only one more strategic victory is required to complete the Māori nationalist revolution: Pakeha pride in their past and in their culture has to be undermined. The men and women once celebrated as nation-builders have to be recast as colonial oppressors. The country famed for being “the social laboratory of the world” has to be re-presented as just another sordid collection of white supremacist, treaty-breaking, killers and thieves.

Māori, too, are in need of a complete makeover: from slave-owning warrior-cannibals, to peace-loving caretakers of Te Ao Māori – a world to which they are bound by deep and mystical bonds. Inheritors of a culture that sanctioned genocidal conquest and environmental destruction, how can the Pakeha hope to lead Aotearoa towards a just future? As in the 1980s, the Twenty-First Century journey requires revolutionary Māori to lead, and guilty Pakeha to follow. And those guilty Pakeha in a position to make it happen appear only too happy to oblige.

Which is why, in March 2023, New Zealand has an educational curriculum dedicated to condemning colonisation and uplifting the indigenous Māori. Why Māori cultural traditions and ways of knowing are elevated above the achievements of Western culture and science. Why representatives of local iwi and hapu wield decisive influence over private and public development plans, as well as the credo and content of media reporting and university courses.

The Māori nationalist revolution is not yet complete – but it has, most certainly, begun.

The Forty Holy Martyrs, March 10

We beseech Thee, almighty God, grant that we who acknowledge the fortitude of Thy glorious Martyrs in the profession of faith, may experience their intercession for us with Thee

- Collect, Lauds

BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THE SSPX

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or Twitter.

26 American SSPX seminarians receive the tonsure and cassock, St Thomas Aquinas Seminary, Virginia USA 

26 American seminarians receiving the tonsure and cassock (above) would seem quite a bit more Catholic than the current pope. But no: a reader of this blog - who threatens hellfire for all SSPX Massgoers - insists on quoting Cardinals Raymond Burke and Gerhard Muller who say the Society of St Pius is in schism. 

So keeping an open mind - except for reservations in regard to use of the honorific 'Esquire' in this day and age - we post Dr Brian McCall's rebuttal of arguments in favour of +Burke and +Muller's position made by one John F Salza, Esq, published on OnePeterFive.

If one were cynical (heaven forbid), one could speculate that cardinals don't get to where they've got to in the 'deep Church' by questioning Vatican II, and that those who champion the SSPX, like Bishop Athanasius Schneider, will not get a red hat any time soon. And surely neither camp could argue with Jesus Christ Who said, "By their fruits you shall know them" (Mt:17).

Just what are the fruits of that creature of Vatican II, the Novus Ordo (a rhetorical question)? 

TLM adherents who assist at the Mass now at the 'Celatus Chapel' - a private location in Hawke's Bay - were privileged to know Fr François Laisney, referenced by Professor McCall in his footnotes. Amateur astronomer, Scripture scholar, a funny, brilliant sermoniser whose rapid delivery (without notes) was made harder to follow by a strong French accent, his encyclopaedic knowledge was exceeded only by his love of God and His Church. 

It made one weep to see how few were the congregants in the funeral parlour which then served as the Mass venue, pre-Covid, and to think of the spiritually starving Catholics at St Patrick's Church Napier, a few blocks away, subjected to the boring mush dished up by the Marists. Surely the holy Fr Laisney would have convinced those NO Massgoers of the rightness of the SSPX. 

But no. Either they didn't know the TLM was on offer so close by, or they were frightened off by that appellation SSPX, made sinister by generations of misinformed clerics. The timidity of NO Catholics is possibly exceeded only by those poor souls who still hide behind their Covid masks. 

Fr Laisney has returned to la Belle France - and who can blame him for that? And if Fr Laisney could champion SSPX's founder, their revered Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who are we to say him nay?

That little congregation at the Celatus Chapel near Napier (which as a house of traditional Catholic prayer survived Cyclone Gabriel) are still served by young priests beautifully formed in the Catholic Faith and dedicated to preaching the Gospel. And for Catholics thoroughly sick of Woke their political incorrectness is a treat.

 

In an article entitled: “Does the SSPX Have an Extraordinary Mission?”, Mr John Salza argues that the ministries of the Society of St Pius X are illegitimate and, although he does not state it explicitly, should be avoided. He concludes:

Neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor any of his bishops and priests have produced a single miracle to justify their ministry without a canonical mission, even though they claim we are suffering perhaps the greatest crisis in Church history. That is because Christ did not send the bishops and priests of the SSPX. Rather, they have sent themselves, and thus, in the words of Fr. Angles (SSPX), ‘have been deceiving good traditional Catholic faithful.’

 

"By their fruits ye shall know them"

I have known Mr Salza for a long time and have endorsed some of his prior work publicly. It pains me to have to pen this article because he had previously done much good for the cause of Catholic Tradition. I am left dumbfounded in wonder why at this precise moment in history, Mr Salza chooses to turn on the Priestly Society of St. Pius X. I know many people that came to the Society because of Mr Salza. His apparent intention from the article seems to be to scare souls away from what appears to be one of the only life rafts that will not be sunk by the Vatican in the coming months.

With diocesan Traditional Masses and the Ecclesia Dei communities on the execution block, why at this time would he choose to turn away lost souls from a group of bishops and priests who refuse to bow to the “deep church” and thereby deny the Faith and Sacraments to the starving?

[1]Moving on from this sad speculation to Mr Salza’s article, he makes essentially one argument. The Society of St. Pius X can claim only an “extraordinary mission” directly from Christ (and not from and through the Church) and the Church (as represented by his many quotations from saints and popes) requires miracles to prove an extraordinary mission has been given.

I will not take issue with Mr Salza’s argument that the Church requires miracles to prove an extraordinary mission directly from Christ. Although such teaching is not de fide, I will admit it to be at least the common theological opinion.[2]

The flaw with Mr Salza’s argument is that the SSPX has not and does not claim an extraordinary mission in the sense used by Mr. Salza and the holy Churchmen he quotes. The cases Mr Salza references are of people whose mission is per se, in and of itself, outside the ordinary mission of the Church to teach all nations and provide the sacraments.

 

Joan of Arc by John Everet Millais

 

 

An extraordinary mission is usually one Christ initiates to introduce into history (not the deposit of the faith) a new practice or turn of history. Examples of extraordinary missions would include St. Joan of Arc leading the French army to pave the way for the French heir to claim his throne. Other examples would include the introduction of the devotion to the Sacred Heart revealed to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, or the striking of the Miraculous Medal as revealed to St. Catherine Labouré.

We could multiply examples but these few prove the point. These chosen souls were given a unique mission in history that was outside the ordinary mission of the church to teach, govern, and sanctify. By “outside” I do not mean in contradiction to that mission but indirectly supportive of it through some extraordinary means.

The Society of St. Pius X has never claimed to have an extraordinary mission like that of St. Catherine Labouré or St. Margaret Mary. They have merely claimed to participate in the ordinary commission given by Our Lord to the Church by and through the Church. The bishops and priests of the Society exercise this ordinary mission under extraordinary circumstances, but it is the circumstances, not the mission, which are extraordinary. Likewise, St. Athanasius when expelled from his See and excommunicated by the pope continued exercising his ordinary mission as a bishop but under extraordinary circumstances of persecution.

 

St Athanasius defeating Arius
Peter Paul Rubens

To demonstrate that the SSPX does not claim an extraordinary mission directly from Christ, I will quote from the ceremony in 1988 in which Archbishop Lefebvre, together with Bishop de Castro Mayer, consecrated bishops. At the point in the ceremony in which the rubrics require the reading of a mandate from Rome to consecrate, the following was read:

We have this Mandate from the Roman Church, always faithful to the Holy Tradition which She has received from the Holy Apostles. This Holy Tradition is the Deposit of Faith which the Church orders us to faithfully transmit to all men for the salvation of their souls . . . .

[3]Lefebvre does not claim to have an extraordinary mandate from Christ directly. He claims to have a Mandate from “the Roman Church,” which is exactly the way Mr Salza claims that the mission is transmitted (from Christ to the Church to individual priests and bishops). Lefebvre is saying that the Mandate is present notwithstanding the ill-will and illegal attempts to prevent it by those occupying the offices in the Roman Church. He is still claiming the ordinary mandate of the Church although it is transmitted in extraordinary circumstances, a crisis in the Church—a crisis which Mr Salza does not deny exists.

In prior times of crises this perennial mission of the Church has had to be exercised and transmitted in extraordinary ways. I have already mentioned the case of St. Athanasius. To this example we can add the examples of Cardinals Karol Wojtyła (the future John Paul II) and Josef Slipyj who ordained and consecrated without the normal mandate from Rome, and in fact in contradiction to the express will of the Roman authorities, during the Communist persecutions.

Just like these Cardinals did not have to prove with miracles their legal right to continue the ordinary mission of the Church even in ways that contradicted the will of the Roman authorities, so too Archbishop Lefebvre and his successors have no need to prove by miracles their right to do what the Church has always done.

Mr Salza’s comparison, therefore, to the Protestant is not apt. These heretics were changing the dogmas of the faith and undermining ecclesiastical order by claiming an extraordinary mission to propagate their heresies. In our day, the situation is the reverse. Lefebvre and the SSPX are doing what all priests did before the Council according to the ordinary mission of the Church. It is evidence of an extraordinary circumstance that what was once ordinary is condemned as “schismatic.”

One potentially persuasive argument is his appeal to the Council of Trent, which does indeed bring in a de fide proposition when the anathema condemns the Protestants who were “bishops… [not] sent by ecclesiastical and canonical power.”[4] This would indeed be a strong argument, if it applied to our situation. Ultimately Mr Salza either forgets a legal fact or misunderstands that fact.

The Society of St. Pius X did receive a formal canonical mission from the Church in the form of the approval of its statutes and the permission to incardinate priests. If the attempts to revoke that canonical approval were illegal and invalid, then that commissioning of the Church to form and send out priests to preserve the traditional priesthood and all that pertains to it is still valid.

We cannot in this short article cover all the juridical deficiencies in the attempts to suppress the Society, or the purported suspensions and excommunications. These details are related in many other texts.[5] Yet, either Mr Salza forgets that the Society was originally given a canonical mission, or he accepts that the Church is a dictatorial tyranny and that the Roman authorities are not bound by law and justice and can effectively revoke a legitimately conferred mission simply by an act of ill will outside the law.

In other words, at its original founding in 1970, the SSPX was entirely legitimate according to Mr. Salza’s own argument. What changed was not what the SSPX was doing (which was the same thing that bishops, priests, and seminaries did before the Council), but rather the authorities in the Church unlawfully attempted to rescind that ordinary canonical mission.

 The current bishops of the SSPX do not come from “elsewhere.” They come from Tradition. They were consecrated and the priests they ordained received the sacrament to advance the ordinary mission of the Church not to propagate heresies.

Archbishop Lefebvre went out of his way to make clear he was not usurping the ordinary mission of the Church by explicitly stating that he was not in any way conferring jurisdiction on the candidates. Even in extraordinary times only the pope can confer jurisdiction. He was merely conferring the power of orders to confirm and ordain. His careful distinction makes clear that he was not attempting to found a separate church like the Protestant heretics, against whom the anathema of Trent was directed.

Further, Salza’s list of alleged errors (in his most recent reply) of the SSPX between 1970 and 1988 is at least debatable (and no formal condemnation of these alleged errors was issued by Rome), and moreover the central claim of the SSPX – that the Latin Mass had not been abrogated – was unequivocally confirmed by Benedict in 2007’s Summorum Pontificum.

Leaving aside all the details, ultimately the question of the status of the SSPX comes down to this question: do you believe the pope and the Roman authorities are a dictatorship that can legitimately rule the Church capriciously and maliciously without being bound by divine, natural, and ecclesiastical law, or do you believe the Church is a perfect society constituted by and under law and ultimately subject to the source of all Justice, Our Lord Himself?

If you believe the former, then you believe that a pope could, for example, simply for spite effectively excommunicate the entire church except himself. For me, I cannot believe that the Good Shepherd constituted his Church as a personal tyranny; I believe He constituted it as an ordered monarchy subject to law.[6] In which case, the Society of St Pius X today continues to exercise the ordinary mission approved by the Church in 1970 notwithstanding the unlawful and ineffective attempts of the Roman authorities to interfere with the exercise of that mission.

They never have and do not claim any extraordinary mission like that of St Joan of Arc but merely the ordinary mission to hand on what they have received. As confirmed by the lecture of Dom David Pagliarni in Kansas City the weekend of December 10, 2021, the SSPX exercise this mission not for themselves or for some extraordinary group of people, but for the whole Church. He reiterated they are not the Church; they work in and for the Church until that day when the infiltration of the offices of the Church is ended and the manner of exercising that mission can return to normal circumstances.[1] Editor’s note: Mr Salza has a released a statement explaining his reasons for changing his position on his website.

[2] Editor’s note: the distinction between a De Fide proposition and a Sententia Communis (common opinion) is that the former is binding on the conscience of every Catholic, whereas the latter is a dominant view, but is not binding. It is permitted for a Catholic to dissent from a common teaching if and only if it is done on the basis of an equal or greater authority. In other words, one is not permitted to dissent from a Sententia Communis based on one’s own personal authority. See T. S. Flanders, “The Meaning of Catholic: Theological Notes.”

[3] Rev François Laisney, Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican (Angelus Press, 1999), 123.

[4] “If anyone saith that bishops…who have neither been rightly ordained, nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical power, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments; let him be anathema.” Council of Trent, On the Sacrament of Orders, Session 23, Canon VI (July 15, 1563).

[5] The reader is recommended Michael Davies, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre (3 vols.); Charles P. Nemeth, The Case of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: Trial by Canon Law; Dr. Rudolf Kaschewski, Is Tradition Excommunicated?

[6]Suárez in fact states that if the Pope excommunicated the whole Church, the pope himself would be a schismatic.  Tract. de Charitate, Disput. No. 12, p. 1 in Monsignor Klaus Gamber, Reform of the Roman Liturgy

Dr. Brian McCall

Professor McCall holds degrees from Yale (B.A., Summa Cum Laude), University of London (M.A. Fulbright Scholar), and University of Pennsylvania (J.D., Summa Cum Laude). He has taught law at the university level and in 2013 he was selected to hold the Orpha and Maurice Merrill Endowed Professorship of Law which became the Orpha and Maurice Chair in Law in 2019. He served as Associate Dean of Academics from 2014-2018. 

He is the author of The Church and the Usurers: Unprofitable Lending for the Modern Economy (Sapientia Press), The Architecture of Law: Rebuilding Law in the Classical Tradition (University of Notre Dame Press), co-author of To Build the City of God: Living as Catholics in a Secular Age (Angelico Press) and editor of A Voice in the Wilderness: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò on the Church, America, and the World (Angelico Press).

In addition to his teaching and writing career Professor McCall serves as the Editor-in-Chief of Catholic Family News, a monthly traditionalist newspaper, and hosts a weekly news roundup from a Catholic perspective as well as conducting various interviews of Catholic leaders and authors.  He was the coordinator of the Oklahoma City SSPX chapel from 2010-2017 and is currently a member of St. Thomas More Church in Sanford, FL.  He has been married to Mrs. McCall since 1991 and they have six children, one of whom is expecting to be ordained in June 2022 and one daughter is trying a vocation with the  Dominicans of Fanjeaux.

Christ Crowned with Thorns
Matthias Stom (c 1633-1639)

For He shall be delivered to the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified

- Antiphon, Magnificat, Wednesday 2nd week of Lent

SSPX 'COMPLETELY CATHOLIC' - +SCHNEIDER

 To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or Twitter.

SSPX founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre with Pope Pius XII

"The SSPX is completely Catholic regarding the truths of the Catholic Faith", says Bishop Athanasius Schneider. "Therefore, it is surely not schismatic."

Music to the ears of the millions - at a guess - of  faithful Latin Massgoers worldwide who are now, following the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes of 'Pope Francis' and Cardinal Roche's rescript weighing up the pros and cons of the Society of St Pius X as a safe haven for truly Catholic worship of their good God.

Given the reputation that the SSPX enjoys in the Francis church as alien, somewhat sinister or even creepy, and the belief of the few NO Massgoers who still think there's a hell that SSPX adherents are well on their way there, a good number of those millions will be reassured by the assurances of the saintly Bishop Schneider. 

It's to be hoped that "driven into the arms of the SSPX" as some pundit put it, they will take their wallets with them. Let Jorge Bergoglio, aka 'Pope Francis' and his hierarchy find funding for their schemes for completion of their take-over of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church elsewhere.

St Anthony's SSPX Whanganui 

Bishop Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop for Kazahkstan and internationally known and respected for his polite, patient and entirely proper resistance to the plans of 'Pope Francis' to turn the Catholic Church into a New World Church under the direction of Herr Klaus Schwab at the World Economic Forum, was speaking to Michael Matt of the Remnant newspaper.

Matt had posited that if it can be permissible for faithful Catholics to attend a formally schismatic liturgy according to the Code of Canon Law and only in certain extraordinary circumstances, then obviously it would be permissible to attend Masses offered by the priests of the SSPX for the same reason, provided one does not do so with schismatic intent. 

"Do you agree?" Matt asked +Schneider.

Bishop Schneider: "The situation of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) cannot be compared to an Orthodox church, since the SSPX is completely Catholic regarding the truths of the Catholic Faith, they recognise the current Pope, they mention the Pope and the respective local bishops in the Canon of the Mass and pray for them even publicly.

"Therefore, the SSPX is surely not schismatic. The situation of SSPX consists in a deficient canonical status within the Church, and this is not because of their own will or evil intention, but uniquely because of the extraordinary grave crisis of the Faith and the Liturgy within the Church, a crisis promoted or tolerated by the Holy See.

"The conditions which the Holy See requests from the SSPX for a full canonical regularisation are ultimately difficult to accept, since they demand the SSPX to recognise the goodness of the New Mass and the II Vatican Council as being as a whole a part of the Catholic Tradition, even though this Council had by its own declaration and that of the Popes John XXIII and Paul VI a primarily pastoral character and had no intention to propose to the faithful its own teachings with definitive character.

That seems to be pretty clear. Latin Massgoers - or Novus Ordo Massgoers seeking to escape - will perhaps want to view the video "Loyal Opposition" - Michael Matt's interview with +Bishop Schneider.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDgld5uoYUYDuring the Catholic Identity Conference 2022,

The Transfiguration
Raphael

This is My Beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him. And this voice we heard, brought from Heaven, when we were with Him on the holy mount (2 Peter 1: 17, 18).

ARDERN, HIPKINS' 'LUDICROUS' - DAWKINS

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or Twitter. 

"Air NZ think it's a cute idea to invokeMāori gods in their safety briefing"
- and lift the ban on staff tattoos

Richard Dawkins, celebrity atheist and pop scientist, is " in New Zealand, climax to my antipodean speaking tour, where I walked headlong into a raging controversy.

Jacinda Ardern’s government implemented a ludicrous policy, spawned by Chris Hipkins’s Ministry of Education before he became prime minister.

Science classes are to be taught that Māori ‘Ways of Knowing’ (Mātaurang Māori) have equal standing with ‘western’ science.

Not surprisingly, this adolescent virtue-signalling horrified New Zealand’s grown-up scientists and scholars.

Seven of them wrote to the Listener magazine. Three who were fellows of the NZ Royal Society were threatened with an inquisitorial investigation. Two of these, including the distinguished medical scientist Garth Cooper, himself of Māori descent, resigned (the third unfortunately died).

I was delighted to meet Professor Cooper for lunch, with others of the seven. His resignation letter cited the society’s failure to support science against its denigration as ‘a western European invention’. He was affronted, too, by a complaint (not endorsed by the NZRS) that ‘to insist Māori children learn to read is an act of colonisation’. Is there an implication here – condescending, if not downright racist – that ‘indigenous’ children need separate, special treatment?

One presumes that an erudite chappie like Dawkins would know there is, if not conclusive proof, plenty of dispute over Māori claims to being indigenous. Maybe that's why he used sneer quotes. 

Ngapuhi leader David Rankin said books by authors such as investigative journalist Ian Wishart and historian Noel Hilliam presented "clear evidence" that some of New Zealand's earliest residents might have arrived before the Polynesians.

He pointed to numerous Maori oral histories which referred to people being here when the first Maori arrived, including fair-skinned people. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/rankin-maori-are-not-the-indigenous-people-of-new-zealand/JQ5D57RDLCVRZFMWQKOI7XPWTU/  

Perhaps the most disagreeable aspect of this sorry affair is the climate of fear. We who don’t have a career to lose should speak out in defence of those who do. The magnificent seven are branded heretics by a nastily zealous new religion, a witch-hunt that recalls the false accusations against J.K. Rowling and Kathleen Stock.

Professor Kendall Clements was removed from teaching evolution at the University of Auckland, after the School of Biological Sciences Putaiao Committee submitted the following recommendation: ‘We do not feel that either Kendall or Garth should be put in front of students as teachers. This is not safe for students…’ Not safe? Who are these cringing little wimps whose ‘safety’ requires protection against free speech? What on earth do they think a university is for?

To grasp government intentions requires a little work, because every third word of the relevant documents is in Māori. Since only 2 per cent of New Zealanders (and only 5 per cent of Māoris) speak that language, this again looks like self-righteous virtue-signalling, bending a knee to that modish version of Original Sin which is white guilt.

Mātauranga Māori includes valuable tips on edible fungi, star navigation and species conservation (pity the moas were all eaten). Unfortunately it is deeply invested in vitalism. New Zealand children will be taught the true wonder of DNA, while being simultaneously confused by the doctrine that all life throbs with a vital force conferred by the Earth Mother and the Sky Father.

Origin myths are haunting and poetic, but they belong elsewhere in the curriculum. The very phrase ‘western’ science buys into the ‘relativist’ notion that evolution and big bang cosmology are just the origin myth of white western men, 

... which is exactly what they are are ... 

a narrative whose hegemony over ‘indigenous’ alternatives stems from nothing better than political power. This is pernicious nonsense. Science belongs to all humanity. It is humanity’s proud best shot at discovering the truth about the real world.

Note that word, 'proud'. Pride goes before a fall. As Lucifer's pride went before his fall from grace. We note that in the pic of Dawkins accompanying this piece in the Spectator he looks remarkably young. 

Dawkins in Right to Life UK: it's 'sensible' to abort Down Syndrome babies

My speeches in Auckland and Wellington were warmly applauded, thoughone woman yelled a protest. She was politely invited to participate, but she chose to walk out instead.

I truthfully said that, when asked my favourite country, I invariably choose New Zealand. Citing the legacy of Ernest Rutherford, the greatest experimental physicist since Faraday, I begged my audiences to reach out to their MPs in support of New Zealand science. The true reason science is more than an origin myth is that it stands on evidence: massively documented evidence, double blind trials, peer review, quantitative predictions precisely verified in labs around the world. Science reads the billion-word DNA book of life itself. Science eradicates smallpox and polio. Science navigates to Pluto or a tiny comet. Science almost certainly saved your life.

Science works.

Like when the world followed "the science" during the Covid pamdemic shamdemic plandemic? Did science work then? Unfortunately, science is only a tool in the hands of fallible and/or evil human beings who unless guided by Truth Itself can make remarkable fools of themselves - and of humanity, as we tragically see now in the millions of excess deaths reported globally, following that oh-so-scientific Covid-19 'vaccine'.  

Richard Dawkins - as in the Spectator

Postscript on the flight out:

Air New Zealand think it a cute idea to invoke Māori gods in their safety briefing. Imagine if British Airways announced that their planes are kept aloft by the Holy Ghost in equal partnership with Bernoulli’s Principle and Newton’s First Law. Science explains. It lightens our darkness. Science is the poetry of reality. It belongs to all humanity. Kia Ora! https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-im-sticking-up-for-science/?fbclid=IwAR1ypej-N5Gy1pzHtewgfqyv6CVCvdSLtbshKnTnYFIrQZDzEBGhnRRehUw

 

The Descent of the Holy Ghost

 

Almighty God, in making known to us that His one divine Nature is possessed by three distinct Persons, reveals to us something of His own interior life. Let us, with the Church, say to the Holy Ghost, "Come, O Holy Ghost, and fill the hearts of Thy faithful, and kindle in them the fire of Thy love."