The Catholic “Manly Men Movement” may well be a good faith attempt to remedy a real problem, but it’s as much a symptom of the feminist infiltration of the Church than it is a solution.
TRANSCRIPT
A couple of clarion calls for men to be manly men have been making their rounds on Catholic social media of late, and to a great deal of applause, much of it from friends.
One comes from a recent interview of Cardinal Raymond Burke, the other, a video produced by the Diocese of Phoenix, AZ.
I get it, I suppose. The applause, that is. These things give voice to those of us who lament the virtual castration of men that is so evident in the Church, and indeed the world, today.
That said, the reality is that while both of these offerings contain some praiseworthy insights – like the necessity of frequent confession, the power of self-denial, and the value of ordinary work, etc…
For the most part, they simply state the obvious:
Men are built for sacrifice; we are called to be providers, protectors and leaders and so on.
That’s all well and good and true, but pretty much everyone save for the most militant of feminists and feminized of the mezza-finocch’s already know this.
The question is – why are so many men today – and our focus is primarily on Catholic men – why are so many so pathetically soft, and more importantly still, how is that situation ever going to be remedied?
On these two notes, in my estimation, both Cardinal Burke and the Diocese of Phoenix miss the mark.
Let’s begin with the video. It was inspired by a lengthy exhortation called “Into the Breach” written by Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix and it runs about 10 minutes long. Again, it offers any number of praiseworthy thoughts – mainly of the sort that everyone even remotely Catholic already knows.
I’ve linked it below so you can watch it in its entirety.
My focus here concerns the reason so many men today are so weak and what can be done about it.
Take a look at this one minute collection of excerpts and we’ll return to talk about it:
VIDEO
OK … While I’m sure this will invite the anger of some viewers, I have to say, there’s an aspect to much of the manly men movement in the Catholic Church that strikes me as more than a little tainted with the very feminism it’s intended to confront.
The truth is, men really don’t need a “band of brothers … really good friends …” as Bishop Olmsted says.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great thing to have solid Catholic friends, I do; both male and female. Faith is the primary focus of most of our conversations , and yes, we do encourage one another in the most difficult task that all of us face – growing in holiness.
Friendship like this is great, and I pity the Catholic that doesn’t have it, but it’s not the means of holiness given to us by Christ. We’ll come back to this point later.
Look, at the end of the day, as a man, a husband and a father, I don’t need a “band of brothers” to rescue me on a weekly basis from isolation and to reassure me, as the one commentator said, that “I’m not alone.”
The truth is, in many ways, as men, we are alone. That’s part of being a man.
We are singularly responsible for being the heads of our households; for making decisions that might not be popular, for leading, sacrificing, protecting, providing and so on…
Like it or not, when all is said and done, being a man really does mean carrying that responsibility, with Christ for sure if we want to carry it well, but with respect to other men and in our own lives and in our own households – we carry it alone.
There’s a great line in the film The Godfather that comes to mind here. Don Corleone is talking to Michael and he says, “Women and children can be careless, but not men.”
Now, before you get angry, let me be clear – women cannot be careless. Being a mother and wife is serious business.
That said, what both women and children do share in common is that together they are among the protected, and together they are led in particular way by the man of the family. While the man, for his part, carries out his role in a singular way.
The manly men movement such as I’m addressing it here seems to focus quite a lot on what Bishop Olmsted called “individualism and isolation, which leaves the heart empty…”
Thus, the supposed need of forming manly men support groups.
That’s terrific, but that’s not the problem. There are plenty of men who are neither isolated nor individualistic, and yet their hearts are empty and they’re well on their way to Hell.
If you need an example, take a good look at the Roman Curia: The Pontifical Commission for Interreligious Dialogue… The Commission for Religious Relation with the Jews… The Council for Promoting Christian Unity and so on…
Those bands of brothers have practically nothing in their hearts and they’re headed for Hell.
By contrast, the Church has many Saints – real ones – who were hermits. Pope St. Celestine V, as you may recall, got a lot of attention when Pope Benedict fled for fear of the wolves.
Celestine was essentially forced into the papacy, only to renounce it less than a year later to resume the life of a hermit.
According to the tenets of the manly men movement, he probably should have formed a support group of other manly men to confide in, to share his struggles as father of the entire Church, and if he had, maybe his band of brothers could have reassured him that he’s not alone, picked him up and helped him carry on.
The reality is that the role of Holy Father, like the role of any father, is such that he really was alone, and now he’s a model of heroic virtue – a real one.
Let me be clear: I don’t mean to disparage the men in the video – they’re probably great guys – nor do I mean to make fun of those men who are part of such a group and perhaps get something out of it.
I believe that those men’s groups are a good faith attempt to remedy a real problem, but I also believe that they’re not the solution.
Even before my eyes were opened to the errors of conservatism, the manly men movement in the Church has always made me uncomfortable. It seems contrived to me; with way too much rah rah, let’s go men pep talking that rings a little hollow. Something is off the mark.
The idea of men gathering together in a weekly support group to confide their hardships in each other looks to me more like a symptom of the feminist infiltration of the Church than it does a real remedy.
Call me what you will, but a support group strikes me as a far more fitting way for women to cope with their issues than men.
It also strikes me as rather Protestant.
Look, it makes sense for Protestant men to get together in support groups like Promise Keepers to encourage one another in being good “Christian” men.
Why?
Because spiritually speaking they have no fathers.
The heretical communities are made up of a bunch of laity – children with Bibles. Sure, some of them go to Bible College to get a meaningless degree, only to come back to the community to tell the others lies about the Eucharist and the priesthood and Blessed Virgin Mary.
They have no fathers, and so the best they can do is “fellowship” together in search of a replacement to fill the void, because we need fathers.
Getting back to the video: One of the truths contained in it is that we don’t learn manhood from books.
That’s the truth; we primarily learn it from good father figures, and one of the places Catholic men learn how to be good Catholic men, is from their spiritual fathers – the sacred pastors with which Christ endowed His Church.
And this brings us to the real reason there are so many emotionally driven, weak and spineless men in the Church today.
Everywhere we look we see men who are followers more concerned with being popular than leaders committed to being faithful. Men who are more inclined to seek consensus than to make tough decisions. And men who are far more willing to tolerate offenses against their family and to seek compromise than to stand up and fight for what is right and good and true.
My friends, in case you haven’t noticed, this describes overwhelming majority of our sacred pastors, and especially our bishops, to a tee.
As the video states very well: A man – a real man – is willing to die to protect his family; to protect what is precious to him.
So, having watched the Diocese of Phoenix video, one may well ask, how willing is Bishop Olmsted – not to die, God forbid, but only just to invite a little bit of scorn in order to protect his family?
At this I want to show you another short video clip; this one from May of 2015 at an event in Phoenix hosted by the so-called “John 17 Movement.”
This is a group of ecumenically driven Protestants who think that it’s necessary for all of us to labor for the unity for which Jesus prayed – a unity that has always been, and always will be, a mark of the Catholic Church alone.
I want you to watch and see how Bishop Olmsted protects what is precious to him as he addresses this gathering of self-identified “Christians” who make no bones about rejecting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Many of whom mock the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and who accuse Catholics of being idolaters for dropping to our knees before the Blessed Sacrament, and who scoff at the Holy Priesthood…
Look at how he addresses a people who refuse to honor Our Blessed Mother with the veneration that she alone among creatures is due; boldly claiming that she’s an ordinary sinner and denying her perpetual Virginity. The list of offenses goes on and on.
Take a look, and tell me if you see a model of manliness:
VIDEO
I don’t mean to pick on Bishop Olmsted. He’s just one of thousands of spineless bishops, but he also happens to be the bishop behind this highly produced video calling men into battle.
Seriously? I wouldn’t follow someone like him into a card game, much less a battle.
When has Bishop Olmsted, or any other bishop like him, ever called Barack Obama or any other world leader who thumbs his nose at Divine Law to account for their obligations toward Christ the King?
When has he ever proclaimed the Catholic faith as the one true religion established by God and the solitary Ark of Salvation?
When has he ever denounced those who insist that Jesus Christ is no more than a man?
If Bishop Olmsted or any other bishop wants men to go “into the breach” like true soldiers for Christ, willing to lay down their lives for what is truly precious, they better be willing to do the same.
The sad truth is folks, there aren’t even a handful of bishops in the Catholic Church today who are willing to lead the family entrusted to them like real men. Not even a handful.
And guess what?
Cardinal Raymond Burke, for all of his good points, isn’t necessarily among that small handful.
His interview will be the topic of my next video.
———————————————-
Watch A Call to Battle in its entirety.
hehehe….. Funny bit in the beginning with the blowtorch and cigar.
It’s always strange hearing those who sound like sodomites, especially those wearing clerical garb as within this video, speak about manliness. I’m reminded of graduate school, where I attended the small, private, heavily NeoCath University of Dallas. I encountered many NeoCath men, intellectuals, who, though straight, spoke with the miserable sodomite inflection. Whether this phenomenon flows from NeoCatholicism or intellectualism is unknowable; after all, the sodomite inflection infects many straight, secularist intellectuals as well. At any rate, this tendency among many straight male NeoCath intellectuals annoyed me very much.
The fact is there are very few REAL men in our modern world, and even fewer in the Catholic Priesthood. This can simply be attributed to the evil vice of effeminacy which has taken over the world. Saint Thomas Aquinas defines effeminacy as: the unwillingness to separate oneself from pleasure in order to pursue that which is arduous or difficult. The following youtube presentation of Father Chad Ripperger FSSP titled “How to Raise a Man” explains it quite well: https://youtu.be/z7V1W967ofA
I’ve just finished the whole video. Great job yet again, Mr. V.
After Bp. O appeared again towards the end, I remembered one of the definitions of a certain aspect of Cultural Marxism; namely, political correctness:
“Political correctness is a war on noticing.”
Steve Sailer provides this definition here: http://takimag.com/article/world_war_t_steve_sailer/print#axzz3xRPnom8F
Regarding Bp. O, we’re not supposed to notice that he sounds like a raging sodomite.
Well said Alphonsus. I have always felt terribly uncomfortable, disappointed and much ill at ease with this type of effeminate inflected voice when it is found to have infected many straight clergy and intellectual professor types.
I think Louie’s comments are spot on. Although I like some of the aspects in this video “Into the Breach” that underline leadership, sacrifice and protection as being what a man is truly ordered to by God to embrace in their roles as men, there is something about this video that has an ‘opus dei’ feel to it. The part where various men are shown putting on different types of hats and the Bishop’s hat is just one other type of hat among others, bothers me. Also this “sanctification of oneself” through the work one does strikes me as some other new unspoken sacrament which has unfortunately the effect, in my mind, of indirectly watering down the necessity of the seven sacraments as a whole.
I’ve been thinking about this topic for a long time. Thank you, Louie, for bringing it into the light.
“an ‘opus dei’ feel to it”
YES.
Be firm. Be virile. Be a man. And then… be a saint.
St Josemaria Escriva
The fact that there is a “Manly Men Movement” within the Catholic Church is totally pathetic. The N.O. church is effeminate not in spite of our manly clergy, but because of the lack of them. Louie makes excellent points. Manly men do not need a “band of brothers”. Manly men stand on their own. If you want to read about manly men within the Catholic Church read about the EARLY Jesuits and their dedicated courageous missionary spirit for the love of God and His Church. These same attributes can be applied to all men in all walks of life. Where are they today? Let them walk in the footsteps of the North American martyrs–real MEN to be sure!!
I can’t believe someone on this site would quote escriva. What is wrong with you “ever mindful?” You don’t belong here.
“The idea of men gathering together in a weekly support group to confide their hardships in each other looks to me more like a symptom of the feminist infiltration of the Church than it does a real remedy.
Call me what you will, but a support group strikes me as a far more fitting way for women to cope with their issues than men.
It also strikes me as rather Protestant.”
Exactly. I love it. You’ve articulated this perfectly, as usual.
I was thinking similar thoughts ~12 years ago when I was a revert involved in local “conservative” Catholic groups.
(Fundamentalist Protestants in their social circles, including the men, are almost constantly, overtly emotional. They are also seemingly always trying to out-do one another with wearing their spirituality on their sleeve. There is no doubt that this phenomena exists and by calling it that I mean to say that it is an act. It is. And like so many other things that are really Fundie Protestant, this one has found its way into “conservative” Catholics’ minds.)
Luckily, this sort of mindset is not to be found in Traditionalist communities. But, then, luck has nothing to do with that.
Lastly, Louie, please give me a call – we have GOT to talk about the latest episode of Girls!
Excellent video Louie. Thanks.
Louie – thank you. I sense you will get lots of comments on this subject. I’ll offer my first –
Feminism has infiltrated the Church at all levels, and men need to understand this enemy. A good start is to educate yourself on the foundations of modern feminism.
MARX, ENGELS, AND THE ABOLITION OF THE FAMILY by Richard Weikart
THE LEFT’S WAR ON THE FAMILY by Thomas S. Garlinghouse
MARXIST FEMINISM’S RUINED LIVES -The horror I witnessed inside the women’s “liberation” movement. by Mallory Millett
I’ll provide a quote from the latter author’s article so you can get the idea:
“It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:
“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”
Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded. … ”
One of the goals of Cultural Marxist is to replace revealed religion with the “social gospel.”
Just out of curiosity–I ask this in true ignorance–but does anybody think the idea of “accountability partners” is in the same line of thinking as what Mr. Verrecchio is talking about? The concept of having someone to whom you’re accountable might have some merit; I am not trying to deny anything that might be practically useful.
The name itself, “accountability partner,” already has an effeminate, group-discussion, therapeutic ring to it. Secondly, an accountability partner is often used as a substitute for men who do not have enough access to spiritual direction from priests, which was a main point that Mr. Verrecchio made in the video. It seems to be a laity-driven, democraticly oriented approach in many respects.
Louie – You articulate what I cannot – When I used to watch “Crossing the Goal” over at EWTN it always left an uncomfortable feeling that they were trying to wrap the faith in football garb, much as you would wrap a pill in bacon to get the dog to swallow it; some of the “men stuff” does come across as a bit contrived.
When I was in the Knights of Columbus we used to say the Pledge of Allegiance before the meetings. At the end of the pledge “…with liberty and justice for all.” our council used to customarily add the words “born and unborn.” Later I heard the District Deputy told the council not to say this as it might offend people. Also, they refused to kick out Catholics who by their actions opposed the Faith in order to keep their numbers up. They also refused to criticize any action of the Church hierarchy no matter how horrible the public offenses were.
So I get it, there’s almost no where for men to go in the Church to escape the poison gas of estrogen.
Man hugs
Michael F Poulin
Such a toxic cult of sentimentality everywhere today. Speaking of which:
http://www.skepticaldoctor.com/2010/07/18/sentimentality-is-poisoning-our-society/
Behold these lions ruthlessly enforcing natural hierarchy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atWf5GK_vSM
For a good read on the liturgy see : The Devirilization of the Liturgy in the Novus Ordo Mass an exclusive article from Rorate caeli by Fr. Richard G. Cipolla, Ph.D
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/…/the-devirilization-of-liturgy-in-novus.html
I have read many articles on-line lately on why men have left the Church – many reasons are given, but many rarely if ever touch on the defects in the Novus Ordo mass itself. The effeminate liturgy of the new mass has led many men to leave the Church; some don’t even know why they left but some commenters said they had the sense they were un-needed there, and there was nothing there for them.
Also, the way bishops are selected ensures you get a bunch of compliant consensus- seekers who don’t make waves and don’t offend anyone – these are the men who climb the ladder. Men who are militant about the faith are quickly weeded out, and so our churches are built on foundations of sand.
Michael F Poulin
Catholic Thinker: I don’t know what you mean by “fundamentalist protestants” but if it’s based on one of Karl Keatings many stupid books called “Fundamentalism” it’s nothing but a Big fat Lie in just another one of his many deceptive attempts to bad mouth traditional catholics while promoting his own NeoKat idiocy which is obviously his ultimate goal.
I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Fundamentalist Protestants do exist; you may call them what you wish.
Keating’s book “Fundamentalism & Catholicism” is very well done, and I know several leaders in the Traditionalist movement who agree. It’s quite a shame that Karl has his head in the sand regarding the crisis in the Church and Traditionalism. Yes, he’s a blathering idiot when it comes to those topics.
In any case, his aforementioned book has absolutely nothing to do with Traditionalism.
St. John the Baptist is a wonderful example of a manly man. He was solitary yet cared deeply for souls, was outspoken when need be, was humble before God and was an insectivore.
I didn’t read book but only a summary Keating has somewhere based on what the book is about and I found that one of Keating’s main attacks on so-called “fundamentalists” is the fact that they wouldn’t accept what probably is the most idiotic and stupidest “theory” of all time: evolution. He also strongly implies that fundamentalists were the ones that were breaking away from protestantism when the exact opposite was true. Evolution was the “new” protestantism not the so-called protestant fundamentalist creationists which, by the way, was what the Catholic Church always taught also. Since the protestant fundamentalists were way closer to what traditionalists believe (basically what the Fathers and Doctors of the Church taught about creation) and even in other things than evolution, it was an obvious backhanded attack on traditional Catholics which makes perfect sense because Keating loves NeoKatholicism and hates Traditionism just like all the other kooks he has hired at catholic answers.
Insightful, Mr. V. You articulated what I could not when I watched this video a few days ago. Thank you.
My husband and sons also liked your video —– Clarity. Truth. Aka Catholicism.
Yes.
“Political correctness is a war on noticing.”
How true! What a statement!
Heres what I’m talking about and http://www.catholic.com/tracts/fundamentalism I read:
What you said makes sense.
Not really.
–
First, Keating didn’t by any stretch of the imagination invent the moniker “fundamentalist Protestant”; the fact that you made that connection is really quite arbitrary. But since I am actually familiar with the book (which I’ve read and you have not) I’ll continue to comment.
–
While fundamentalists, aka “Bible Christians” as they typically refer to themselves (as if they and not the Church that created it lay claim to Scripture) do indeed tend to accept a few of the most basic Christian precepts, their theological system also has great contempt for our holy Faith. They reject (this list may not be comprehensive): The Eucharist, true doctrine on justification and salvation, Purgatory, all forms of devotion to the saints (with particular hostility towards the Blessed Virgin – a trait that St. Louis de Monfert described as being a particularly strong sign of reprobation) and much more.
–
They also reject many aspects of Catholic sexual morality – the ones that involve any serious limitation on behavior, anyway, such as contreption. Condemning abortion is not even nearly universal in their churches. It is rarely discussed.
–
Theirs tends to be a thin, emotion-based Faith (they believe in salvation by “faith alone”) and the road they pave tends to be easy – perhaps we should say “wide”.
–
I have experience with “Bible Christians”. Some of them are, of course, well-meaning. Others (who tend to be the leaders or the ones longest in the group) tend to have a serious distaste for the true Faith. The heresy they embrace is like any other in that it’s evil. And it’s quite a big one.
–
I’ve never before heard it suggested that Keating was actually attacking Traditional Catholics in this book (which you haven’t read) that dates from, I think, the mid-80s. That’s because that just isn’t the case. Avoid the temptation to allow emotion to result in blanket condemnations of individuals, etc., due to some unrelated erroneous position. Again, Keating’s now a neo-Catholic shill, but anit-Protestant apologetics is a separate realm, and he did a decent job with this work.
A couple other comments. I read the link you provided.
–
While you have a point that the so-called “fundamentalists” were actually the ones upholding what mainline Protestant churches used to believe, it’s a fact that Karl is technically correct when he refers to their movement as relatively new. As a movement, they are, and in fact a number of their aspects ARE novel in Protestantism (rejection of all hierarchy, extremely script Biblical literalism (something the true Church never embraced in the same sense), etc.
–
Keating’s historical synopsis of the movement is accurate.
–
Whatever similarities you may see between fundamentalists (again, Keating describes them pretty accurately in all respects) and traditional Catholics, the differences are really much greater. That is pretty evident just from what’s presented in the link.
–
This entire article has only one oblique reference to evolution. If Karl’s refutation of fundamentalist Protestantism is “really” an attack on traditional Catholics, he’s doing really poor job.
Yes. All that talky talky touchy touchy stuff is definately for the girls. Poor guys – looking for ways to be a man. At least they realize that something IS wrong and they’re trying to bring back their manhood. In looking at the picture above I guess a good start would be not letting all those guys touch you at once. Any guy that’s not naturally uncomfortable in that position is a sad case. How gay. Also so many men have been literally stripped of their manhood through the use of contraception and castration (aka: vasectomy).
How about after a long day’s work going home to into your wife’s arms instead of these touchy feely guys?That’s the only softness men should allow themselves.
One more thought- I am not much of a bible expert – but could there possibly be a connection between Delilah cutting off Samson’s hair and destroying his manliness to the women (if we could still call them that) of today and their dictating and cutting off of a man’s virility?
There is definitely a connection. I mean…How many guys -after everything God has naturally given them – voluntarily wake up one morning and say to themselves- “I think I shall get castrated today!” There’s definitely an evil Delilah behind that one. Every time I hear that story I always root for Samson. I still am. Hopefully the (was it a temple?) doesn’t fall in on him this time. Although I think, sadly the eyes have been gouged out already for many. Come on man, get your strength back!!!
I would warn that there is a subgroup of trads who think that to be manly they must support neo-fascism. Neo-fascists do a lot of tough talking, and sometimes they end up disregarding Christian virtues that require true inner strength like meekness or doing good to those who hate you. True neo-fascists think that Christianity is an effeminate religion and only use it for political gain.
We are rapidly reaching the same social and economic conditions that brought us the Nazis and Hitler. It didn’t matter that this neopagan implemented policies that fundamentally contradicted Christianity, only that he chanted slogans favorable to Christianity and promised a restoration to traditional values after years of moral bankruptcy in Germany. Most Christians supported him regardless.
By the way Louie, you the man.
Great work as usual.
Effeminate men are a huge problem. Huge.
Butchy, bitchy, bossy, domineering women are a huge problem. Huge.
It’s destroying our world. Rare is the man that knows what a man is and lives accordingly, and rarer is the woman who appreciates and supports him.
I saw a post on some blog about men, cigars, beards, and getting together with other men to “celebrate” that stuff. It all seemed too contrived, so fake and ignorant of what a man really is. Cigars, beards, and play-acting…especially that gay play-acting…do not make a male a man. Those poor dears just do not know what a man is and how to live as one.
Have you noticed the surge, I should say deluge, of men crying in public now? They are all over the place. They cry when they win, and they cry when they lose. Our grandfathers would relish teaching them to turn off the water works and man up out back, half of our fathers might join in on the ass-kicking while the rest of them walk away questioning what the correct response is, and our contemporaries would gather around the crybaby for a group hug and tears session. It’s all so gay.
What we have become is *disgusting*, and it only seems to bother us few remaining men and women who appreciate true masculinity and true femininity.
I think the Manly Men Movement may be very helpful in New Order seminaries.
True humility and True manhood is the willingness to sacrifice everything for the sake of the Truth. Saint John the Baptist lived this perfectly from the time of his youth. We now live in a world steeped in effeminacy because modern living is too easy, too comfortable, and too pleasurable. Everyone now sits in their comfortable padded chair in their comfortable climate controlled homes spewing out their expertise which in the eyes of God is pure foolishness.
Saint John the Baptist could never maintain an internet blog simply because he wouldn’t hesitate to speak the Truth to a proud arrogant world that would hate him for it. Bloggers ultimately tell their followers exactly what satisfies their pride and inordinate self love in order to gain their financial support. These blogs serve only the purpose of allowing soft, selfish, effeminate so called men to support each other in their cowardice. This is exactly what Louie is rightfully condemning in his video.
The only hope our soft, selfish, effeminate world has in gaining any REAL manhood back is pain, sorrow, and suffering. Not the pain of an in grown toe nail, or a splinter in the finger, but REAL pain, and suffering that God Almighty is about to pour out in His chastisement of this poor lost selfish, effeminate, cowardly world.
Again, if any of the countless “boys” here want to learn what REAL manhood is then watch the video presentaion, “How to Rasie and Man” by Father Chad Ripperger. If you dare watch it you’ll clearly see how, and why you fall way short of being a REAL man: https://youtu.be/z7V1W967ofA
Jesus wept.
John 11:35
I, for one, would like to see a resurrection of the Catholic Military Orders like the Hospitallers, Templars, and Teutonic Knights. Armed monks and friars and brothers who would defend the Catholic family. We need Catholic Kings like Jan Sobieski to fight militarily against Islam.
During Bishop Olmstead’s short stay as our bishop in the midwest, he made a deep impression as a man of holiness and charity. It is well known that on his arrival in Phoenix, he encountered a chancery full of dissidents which he has dealt with. Further, he got right into the middle of a “catholic” hospital which condoned an abortion and removed the “catholic” part of the name of the hospital – to the great outcry of the populace. I cannot say that any bishop is infallible in what he says and does, but this bishop has been a fighter for orthodoxy and morality. I saw a video of a press conference regarding the hospital scandal, and he was firm and resolute. It gives me pain to see him maligned in this article, because he engendered great love and respect when he was our bishop in our more orthodox corner of the Catholic world.
Be a henchman of heresiarchs, be brutal in your extraction of finances and blind submission, and then be a Novus Ordo ain’t…
Christ, the model of manhood was and is Truth and never ceded ground to falsehood. This found Him with more enemies than friends. The seeming ignominy of His Crucifixion was a worldy fact. But three days later…
–
By its beliacal nature, the Novus Ordo will continue to steal what vocations it can and create preening or pompus presiders who will be helpmates of ‘assertive’ parish council feminists who, like their presider pawns, haven’t a clue what Faith or Church is, and seem not to care.
–
The Dream of the Rood/Cross – Ancient Anglo-Saxon compunctive Poem about the great Victory of the ultimate Warrior, the King of Kings……”Listen! The choicest of visions I wish to tell,
which came as a dream in middle-night,
after voice-bearers lay at rest.
It seemed that I saw a most wondrous tree
born aloft, wound round by light,
brightest of beams. All was that beacon
sprinkled with gold. Gems stood
fair at earth’s corners; there likewise five
shone on the shoulder-span. All there beheld the Angel of God,
fair through predestiny. Indeed, that was no wicked one’s gallows
but holy souls beheld it there,
men over earth, and all this great creation.
Wondrous that victory-beam – and I stained with sins,
with wounds of disgrace. I saw glory’s tree
honored with trappings, shining with joys
decked with gold; gems had
wrapped that forest tree worthily round.
Yet through that gold I clearly perceived
old strife of wretches, when first it began
to bleed on its right side. With sorrows most troubled,
I feared that fair sight. I saw that doom-beacon
turn trappings and hews: sometimes with water wet,
drenched with blood’s going; sometimes with jewels decked.
But lying there long while, I,
troubled, beheld the Healer’s tree,
until I heard its fair voice.
Then best wood spoke these words:
“It was long since – I yet remember it –
that I was hewn at holt’s end,
moved from my stem. Strong fiends seized me there,
worked me for spectacle; cursèd ones lifted me.
On shoulders men bore me there, then fixed me on hill;
fiends enough fastened me. Then saw I mankind’s Lord
come with great courage when He would mount on me.
Then dared I not against the Lord’s word
bend or break, when I saw earth’s
fields shake. All fiends
I could have felled, but I stood fast.
The young hero stripped Himself – He, God Almighty –
strong and stout-minded. He mounted high gallows,
bold before many, when He would loose mankind.
I shook when that Man clasped me. I dared, still, not bow to earth,
fall to earth’s fields, but had to stand fast.
Rood was I reared. I lifted a mighty King,
Lord of the heavens, dared not to bend.
With dark nails they drove me through: on me those sores are seen,
open malice-wounds. I dared not scathe anyone.
They mocked us both, we two together. All wet with blood I was,
poured out from that Man’s side, after ghost He gave up.
Much have I born on that hill
of fierce fate. I saw the God of hosts
harshly stretched out. Darknesses had
wound round with clouds the corpse of the Wielder,
bright radiance; a shadow went forth,
dark under heaven. All creation wept,
King’s fall lamented. Christ was on rood.
But there eager ones came from afar
to that noble one. I beheld all that.
Sore was I with sorrows distressed, yet I bent to men’s hands,
with great zeal willing. They took there Almighty God,
lifted Him from that grim torment. Those warriors abandoned me
standing all blood-drenched, all wounded with arrows.
They laid there the limb-weary one, stood at His body’s head;
beheld they there heaven’s Lord, and He Himself rested there,
worn from that great strife. Then they worked Him an earth-house,
men in the slayer’s sight carved it from bright stone,
set in it the Wielder of Victories. Then they sang Him a sorrow-song,
sad in the eventide, when they would go again
with grief from that great Lord. He rested there, with small company.
But we there lamenting a good while
stood in our places after the Warrior’s cry
went up. Corpse grew cold,
fair life-dwelling. Then someone felled us
all to the earth. That was a dreadful fate!
Deep in a pit one delved us. Yet there Lord’s thanes,
friends, learned of me,. . . . . . . . . . .
adorned me with silver and gold.
Now you may know, loved man of mine,
what I, work of baleful ones, have endured
of sore sorrows. Now has the time come
when they will honor me far and wide,
men over earth, and all this great creation,
will pray for themselves to this beacon. On me God’s Son
suffered awhile. Therefore I, glorious now,
rise under heaven, and I may heal
any of those who will reverence me.
Once I became hardest of torments,
most loathly to men, before I for them,
voice-bearers, life’s right way opened.
Indeed, Glory’s Prince, Heaven’s Protector,
honored me, then, over holm-wood.
Thus He His mother, Mary herself,
Almighty God, for all men,
also has honored over all woman-kind.
Now I command you, loved man of mine,
that you this seeing tell unto men;
discover with words that it is glory’s beam
which Almighty God suffered upon
for all mankind’s manifold sins
and for the ancient ill-deeds of Adam.
Death He tasted there, yet God rose again
by His great might, a help unto men.
He then rose to heaven. Again sets out hither
into this Middle-Earth, seeking mankind
on Doomsday, the Lord Himself,
Almighty God, and with Him His angels,
when He will deem – He holds power of doom –
everyone here as he will have earned
for himself earlier in this brief life.
Nor may there be any unafraid
for the words that the Wielder speaks.
He asks before multitudes where that one is
who for God’s name would gladly taste
bitter death, as before He on beam did.
And they then are afraid, and few think
what they can to Christ’s question answer
Nor need there then any be most afraid
who ere in his breast bears finest of beacons;
but through that rood shall each soul
from the earth-way enter the kingdom,
who with the Wielder thinks yet to dwell.”
I prayed then to that beam with blithe mind,
great zeal, where I alone was
with small company . My heart was
impelled on the forth-way, waited for in each
longing-while. For me now life’s hope:
that I may seek that victory-beam
alone more often than all men,
honor it well. My desire for that
is much in mind, and my hope of protection130
reverts to the rood. I have not now many
strong friends on this earth; they forth hence
have departed from world’s joys, have sought themselves glory’s King;
they live now in heaven with the High-Father,
dwell still in glory, and I for myself expect
each of my days the time when the Lord’s rood,
which I here on earth formerly saw,
from this loaned life will fetch me away
and bring me then where is much bliss,
joy in the heavens, where the Lord’s folk
is seated at feast, where is bliss everlasting;
and set me then where I after may
dwell in glory, well with those saints
delights to enjoy. May He be friend to me
who here on earth earlier died
on that gallows-tree for mankind’s sins.
He loosed us and life gave,
a heavenly home. Hope was renewed
with glory and gladness to those who there burning endured.
That Son was victory-fast in that great venture,
with might and good-speed, when He with many,
vast host of souls, came to God’s kingdom,
One-Wielder Almighty: bliss to the angels
and all the saints – those who in heaven
dwelt long in glory – when their Wielder came,
Almighty God, where His homeland was.
What a powerful, beautiful poem…thank you
Too true. Too true! That arch-cuckservative Glenn Beck, for example, really knows how to turn on the water works. See, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvnRKV39cA4
All this is part of the diabolical inversion of all things.
Em, your contribution is, yet again, perverse. Jesus never engaged in the effeminate, exhibitionist emotionalism described by georgianne.
How can a fighter for orthodoxy defend Vatican II and its Novus Ordo service?
I first came across the original in Old English class – the earliest known example of such poetry in Old English. It shows how a true Catholic is steeped in the Faith so that it informs, orders and enlivens every aspect of life, imagination, understanding and affection.
Essential listening:
Spiritual Fatherhood: The Solution to the Modern Crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt1ZRvelnZM&feature=youtu.be
If you really mean that, I would ask you to refrain from presenting Escriva as a Catholic Saint.
–
Bishop Alvaro del Portillo: “[Escriva] went to Greece in 1967 to see if he could bring Opus Dei into the Greek Orthodox Church. Escriva thought the church was a shambles and that the Orthodox might be the salvation of himself and of Opus Dei.”
–
Father Vladimir Feltzman : “Escriva believed everything he wrote came from God…and he had a filthy temper…and thought Hilter had been unjustly accused of killing 6 million Jews.”
–
In Escriva’s ‘the Way’, a book written for those inside and outside the ‘Church’, he applauds the dialogue ‘mass’ and disapproves of private prayers and devotions during mass.
I do mean that, and I shall confine myself to sharing reflections from Saints from happier days…I am working through Lawrence Scupoli, The Spiritual Combat, which St France’s de Sales carried with him for 18 years, describing it as his ” golden book “
EM, don’t leave us hanging there. Put it in context.
Our Lord wept when he was being led by Mary to the tomb of her and Martha’s brother Lazarus, who had died some time already. It occurred just before he would raise Lazarus from the dead when he saw Mary weeping and the Jews accompanying Mary all weeping. It seems Our Lord could have arrived earlier, before his beloved Lazarus had died, but he intentionally didn’t in order that they could see “the Glory of God.”
Is it possible that in all of our suffering God is just toying with us for His own Glory? Not likely. Jesus really wept with Mary and with the Jews accompanying her.
As with God’s relationship to us, so too our relationships to each other:
“Rejoice with them that rejoice; weep with them that weep.” Romans 12:15.
Yes.
Wasn’t able to edit my previous post so starting again.
Yes. All protesting and much emotional build-up, but hollow-sounding all the same.
‘Happier Days’…show me a Catholic Saint who referes to a happy ‘day’ outside Heaven and I will only be able to prove you a liar…beyond that, those who look to VII as if it can confirm sainthood, are fueled by the VII-NEW-Order that blinds minds and souls, while trading off that which it destroys.
Thanks for the link to the video “How to Raise a Man”. Thought provoking indeed. I found the quotes,research and observations interesting.
Don’t be dejected and sad, for the joy of the Lord is your strength!
Nehemiah 8:10
Well, maybe. Lest we forget, Jesus was FULLY HUMAN. Is it not possible that He was weeping because he was sad that Lazarus died? Jesus also underwent a very human repugnance for pain in the Garden and asked (as we would) that His Father take that suffering away…He was human, and divine, not just divine.
Barbara, allowing me to run with this, could it not also be Christ thinking about another Mary (His mother) leading others, also weeping, to his own tomb through the cross.
Too many people read Jesus through ideological lenses. If I defer to the more severe passages, liberals accuse me of being a hateful bigot. If I defer to the more loving and merciful passages I am an effeminate crypto liberal. Fact is, Jesus was no liberal or conservative. What he said would make either of these two camps hate Him. Whether anyone likes it or not He is the Lord, not you or I. Neither faith alone nor charity alone can save. It’s not enough to call Him Lord or to do a few charitable works without reference to God. Both must be done. He is the Lord who must be loved, and He commanded as to love our fellow men. Conservatives forget the universality of His love, and liberals forget that He is King over everything.
Great scene here on manhood at 22:28:
https://youtu.be/JI8Q8nUqmBs?t=22m28s
Abstain from the abomination of the Novus Ordo. For the
Lord will give you the strength to do so.
–
https://youtu.be/e9pJvmW5dmg
–
Don’t think that the soul is unharmed by communing with manifest heretics. 2 John 1:10 ‘If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.’
PS. The charity to the poor on the Lord’s Day was their reason for not being downcast, in Nehemiah 8/2 Esdras. The rich shared their feast with those who were without. Sharing the Gospel should be a cause for joy, but Bergoglio has launched yet another attack upon those faithful:
–
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-trashes-trads.htm
–
At any rate, bergoglio Inc work with with glee against Our
Lord upon the Cross.
Thank you for your comments and links…how would you respond to these Australian reflections from 30 years ago?
“We are not baptized into the hierarchy; do not receive the Cardinals sacramentally; will not spend an eternity in the beatific vision of the pope. … Christ is the point.
(Then with regards to the pope)……..even if his successor proved to be as bad as some of those who have gone before, even if I find the church, as I have to live with it, a pain in the neck, I should still say that nothing a pope (or a priest) could do or say would make me wish to leave the church, although I might well wish that they would leave. “
— Frank J. Sheed
Contraception is what has castrated men. It is precisely contraception that is the ultimate cause of the distruction of God’s plan for the male and the female. You separate procreation from sex , i.e.NFP and chemical and surgical procedures and sex from procreation, i.e.IV and so on and you have destroyed the family and society and the order of masculinity and feminity and degraded every human being in its wake.
C.T. After reading the summary link of Keatings defintion of “fundamentalism” that makes absolutely no sense to me, why would I have any interest in wasting my time reading a whole book on it. Obviously, Keating or you haven’t convinced me away from anything I said one iota: 1)Why does Keating start defining the rejection of: the “Eucharist”, doctrines on justification , salvation and Blessed Virgin Mary, hierarchy of Church, purgatory, the saints as a so-called new movement of “fundamentalism” that he claims started only around a hundred years ago when it’s no different than what every Protestant has believed since basically all way back to the Reformation? Really, he’s only defining what virtually every Protestant believes but for some goofy reason, guess because he ran out of things to define as “fundametalism”, he now decides to define these most basic tenets of Protestantism, along with the non-protestant novelties of darwinism and the “social gospel”, as “fundamentalism.” That’s a flat-out lie on Keatings part. Bottom line is Keatings attack shouldn’t be on what the Protestants always believed or what he disingenuously defines as “fundamentalism” ( its definitely the wrong word to use to begin with and just because some other nitwits used it’s not excusable for Keating to start using it) but about how “liberal” protestants, which Keating unsurprisingly takes sides with in this article, tried to hijack protestantism with their wacky ideas (Keatings and Pope Francis’s too) of evolution (darwinism) and the “social gospel.’ As Catholic’s that’s what the crux of the problem is about that should be exposed especially since the errors of darwinism and the “social gospel” are pretty much now accepted as Catholic “dogmas” throughout the whole Catholic Church including all the people that read Keating’s garbage.