P.J. O’Rourke on the Baby Boomers

It’s funny sometimes how things happen. Yesterday, I was chatting with some friends on a blog post about how the world went to hell in a handbasket between about 1963 and 1970. Specifically we were talking about how Vatican II unleashed the hordes of modernist (supposedly) Catholics in the clergy and academia, drawing on example we saw from Oxford to Notre Dame.

So last night I’m sitting here idly wondering what I’ll write about today when I run a cross this video. P. J. O’Rourke on his new book: The Baby Boom, they also talk about what may be the best book ever on politics, Parliament of Whores. It’s an outstanding video, worth more than your time in watching it. One of our generations best authors speaking about us.

Simply outstanding.

Rick Warren: Walls and Open Gates

The Stoning of StephenIn a tempest that is reminiscent of the bad old days, when my people believed that Roman Catholics built monasteries on hilltops to ensure good positions for their artillery, Rick Warren is being called on to publicly repent for saying that we have much in common the Catholic church.

Well, duh! Of course we do. All one has to do is to read the Creeds, whether you prefer the Apostle’s, the Nicene, or even the Athanasian Creed. As Pastor Warren says we are Christians, believers in our personal Savior, Jesus Christ, who not only died, but is Risen, for us, we are one. Do we in our various churches, have differences? Of course, we do, and I do not think it either meet or fit for me to presume to judge others, That well above the pay grade of anybody on earth. That doesn’t mean that I don’t attempt to persuade others that I am right, because I believe I (and my church) are right, and I want others to as well

Here is part of the article of (and the video) on this controversy from the Christian News Network:

In a new video, megachurch leader and author Rick Warren is calling for Christians to unite with Roman Catholics and “Pope Francis,” who Warren recently referred to as the “Holy Father”—a move that is raising concerns among Christians nationwide and is resulting in calls for Warren to repent.

Warren made the comments following his visit to the Vatican last month, where he spoke at an interfaith conference on the “Complementarity of Man and Woman.”

“We have far more in common than what divides us,” he said in the two-minute video released by the Catholic News Service on Wednesday, described as being an outline for “an ecumenical vision for Catholics and Protestants to work together to defend the sanctity of life, sex and marriage.”

“They would all say, ‘We believe in the Trinity; we believe in the Bible; we believe in the resurrection; we believe in salvation through Jesus Christ,” Warren asserted, speaking of the various denominations within Christianity, of which he included Roman Catholicism. “These are the big issues.”

[…]

“Rick Warren says both the Catholics and the Protestants believe in the Bible. But, there is a significant difference between the Bible of the Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church, which has added seven books,” Slick wrote. “[T]here are numerous problems in the apocryphal books, such as the teaching of salvation by works [and] the offering of money for the sins of the dead.”

Except they didn’t, the Protestant churches took them out.

“Warren implies that both Protestants and Catholics have the same view of salvation,” he continued. “Though it’s technically correct to say that Catholics believe in salvation through Jesus Christ, they reject justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Instead, it teaches that good works of various kinds are necessary for salvation.”

Which is quite simply untrue. Read this Declaration:

JOINT DECLARATION
ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION

by the Lutheran World Federation
and the Catholic Church

[…]

4.In their discussion of the doctrine of justification, all the dialogue reports as well as the responses show a high degree of agreement in their approaches and conclusions. The time has therefore come to take stock and to summarize the results of the dialogues on justification so that our churches may be informed about the overall results of this dialogue with the necessary accuracy and brevity, and thereby be enabled to make binding decisions.

5.The present Joint Declaration has this intention: namely, to show that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church[9] are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ. It does not cover all that either church teaches about justification; it does encompass a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification and shows that the remaining differences in its explication are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations.

Continuing from the article:

The Christian apologist then pointed to several Roman Catholic teachings on Mary, mainly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), such as that Mary “by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation” and that “[b]y asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the ‘Mother of Mercy,’ the All-Holy One.”

“Rick Warren has not only failed to recognize the problems in these serious areas, but he has lent his credibility as a Protestant pastor in support of the Roman Catholic Church,” Slick wrote. “This should never be done by any Protestant pastor who takes the Bible seriously. I must conclude that Mr. Warren does not take the word of God seriously and/or he does not understand the damnable teachings of Roman Catholicism regarding salvation.”

“Rick Warren needs to repent,” he said.

 

Which is again utter tripe. there is nothing in my doctrine, that precludes Marian veneration. I know, because I studied it after Our Lady did intervene for me. It is now part of my daily prayers, as it was for the Rev. Dr. Luther.

Rick Warren’s Call for Christians to Unite With Catholics, ‘Holy Father’ Raising Concerns | Christian News Network.

Of course, being a Lutheran, and this is also true for Anglicans, and perhaps others, is that I am not only Protestant and Evangelical but Catholic (albeit not Roman) as well.

Rick Warren doesn’t need to repent, those who castigate him out of Jack Chick tracts do.

My co-blogger Chalcedon451 at All along the Watchtower had a few things to say about this nonsense as well.

[…]

Sometimes protestants think that Catholics worship Mary like she’s another god, but that’s not exactly Catholic doctrine,” Warren contended. “People say, ‘What are the saints all about? Why are you praying to the saints?’ And when you understand what they mean by what they’re saying, there’s a whole lot more commonality [that we have with Roman Catholics].”

And there’s the rub – ‘when you understand’. Warren states the profoundest truth when he says:

“There’s still real differences—no doubt about that,” Warren stated. “But the most important thing is, if you love Jesus, we’re on the same team.”

Indeed, and Amen to that. The same can be said of this comment:

“When it comes to the family, we are co-workers in the field in this for the protection of the sanctity of life, the sanctity of sex and the sanctity of marriage,” Warren said. “So, there’s a great commonality and there’s no division on any of those three.”

But instead of saying ‘alleluia’ and setting about the common enemy, many of his fellow Protestants prefer to set about him instead. Instead of trying to learn, some simply repeat the tired old stuff about Catholics adding seven books to the Bible (when it was the Protestants who took them away – just look at an Orthodox Bible), and teaching ‘works by salvation’. Never matter we don’t and never have, just repeat the old story, blow the old dog whistle and watch the mutts run toward it. The apologist for an apologist went on to repeat all the old untruths about Marian veneration before calling on Warren to ‘repent’.

Continue reading PC gone mad?

And that the real danger here, we live in a time when our faith is under attack, by secularists, relativism, by our governments (often the same thing, of course), by Islamic terrorists, and all and sundry.

It is time we end the Thirty Years War and its circular firing squad hangover.

Let’s end with a poem from the Alexandrian poet Cavafy, from a post of mine that is as relevant today as when I wrote it, The post is titled Walls, as is the poem..

Without consideration, without pity, without shame
they have built great and high walls around me.

And now I sit here and despair.
I think of nothing else: this fate gnaws at my mind;

for I had many things to do outside.
Ah why did I not pay attention when they were building the walls.

But I never heard any noise or sound of builders.
Imperceptibly they shut me from the outside world.

 

The Greatest Knight and the End of an Age

English: William Marshal, 2nd Earl of Pembroke

English: William Marshal, 2nd Earl of Pembroke (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One of the things that happens as we grow up (and even older) is that we discover our heroes have feet of clay. That’s because they, like us, are men, not gods, or even demigods. Still some seem to endure, and I suppose I was lucky, mine did better than most.

One of the first men in history that I decided was a hero and a good man to model  my life on was William Marshal, earl of Pembroke. Gallant knight, respected by all of Henry II fractious children, as well as nearly all of the barons of England, signatory of Magna Charta doing his duty as Marshal of England. And reissuing the Charter as Regent of England for John’s son Henry III,

Here’s a bit more about his sojourn as a crusading knight, following the dying request of the young Henry, Henry the II’s son. by Thomas Asbridge in History Today

William Marshal, warrior and tutor-in-arms to the son of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, promised his dying charge that he would complete the sacred task of crusading to the Levant. Did he succeed in his mission and fight the forces of Saladin?

One of England’s finest warriors was laid to rest in London’s Temple Church on May 20th, 1219. In his funeral oration that day, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, reportedly described this celebrated veteran of countless wars – William Marshal – as ‘the greatest knight in the world’. The youngest son of a minor Anglo-Norman noble, Marshal had risen through the ranks to serve at the right hand of five English monarchs. He became a revered tournament champion, esteemed by his peers as the paragon of chivalry and a powerful landed baron of the realm.

Having been on intimate terms with figures such as Eleanor of Aquitaine, Richard the Lionheart and ‘Bad’ King John, Marshal was ultimately appointed as regent for the boy-king Henry III. Fighting in one final campaign, the 70-year-old Marshal successfully stemmed the tide of a major French invasion and baronial revolt in 1217, at the Battle of Lincoln, saving the Angevin (or Plantagenet) dynasty from utter annihilation. Though Marshal is far from a household name today, this remarkable career marks the knight out as one of the most compelling, extraordinary and intriguing figures of the Middle Ages.

Manuscript of the History of William Marshal. Thomas Asbridge.Manuscript of the History of William Marshal.

Marshal was also the subject of the first known contemporary biography of a medieval knight, the so-called History of  William Marshal, written some six years after his death on the orders of his eldest son and now surviving in a single manuscript held in New York’s Morgan Library. This work serves as the key source for Marshal’s life, though inevitably it offers a highly partisan account of his achievements. However, the biography has sparked an enduring mystery about one particular phase of its hero’s career: the time he spent on crusade in the Holy Land.

While still in his early twenties, Marshal was appointed as tutor-in-arms to Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine’s son and heir, Young Henry. In the course of the next 13 years the pair became close associates,  achieving renown on the tournament fields of northern France; but they were also embroiled in two abortive rebellions against Henry II’s overbearing authority. In the midst of the second of these civil wars, in June 1183, Young Henry contracted dysentery and suffered a squalid and agonising death in Aquitaine. As he lay dying, Young Henry charged his friend and confidante with a sacred task. Some months earlier, the Angevin heir had made a commitment to lead a crusade to the Levant (modern Lebanon, Syria and Palestine) and he now begged his ‘dearest friend’, Marshal, to fulfil that vow in his stead, carrying the cloak upon which Henry had affixed his cloth crusader’s cross all the way to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.

Honouring Young Henry’s request was no simple matter; it involved a challenging journey of more than 2,000 miles, almost to the edge of what was then the known world, but Marshal undertook this last act of service, nonetheless. The best estimates suggest that Marshal set out from western Europe in the autumn of 1183 and probably returned either in late 1185 or early 1186. This places him in the Near East at the precise moment when a titanic struggle was brewing between the Latin Christian crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem and the emerging might of the great Muslim sultan, Saladin. Not surprisingly, the notion of one of the foremost warriors of the Middle Ages arriving in such a contested battleground has sparked both scholarly and popular imaginations.

Over the last century, the leading historians of Marshal’s career – from Sidney Painter to Georges Duby and David Crouch – have all struggled to interpret or to explain his short-lived crusading career. This was largely because the History of William Marshal offered only a brief and frustratingly evasive comment upon the period that its chief protagonist spent in the Holy Land. The History recorded that William performed ‘many feats of bravery and valour’ during his stay, achieving as much as ‘if he had lived there for seven years’, adding that these ‘fine deeds’ were ‘still known about today’ and widely discussed. But Marshal’s biographer then declared that he could not describe these marvellous exploits because: ‘I was not there and did not witness them, nor can I find anyone who can tell me half of them.’

As a result, most historians have been content simply to pass over William’s time in the East in a few sentences. Painter, for example, argued that, as ‘a crusade was the supreme adventure’, William ‘undoubtedly performed [great deeds] against the forces of the redoubtable Saladin’. More recently, Crouch suggested that, while ‘a cynic might conclude’ from the History’s relative silence that Marshal ‘had done very little’ in Palestine, ‘this would be unjust’. Crouch also stated that ‘by no stretch of the imagination could [William’s crusading pilgrimage] be interpreted as a career move’.

- See more at: http://historytoday.com/thomas-asbridge/greatest-knight-or-failed-crusader#sthash.ytlL2Bal.dpuf

Continue reading The Greatest Knight or a Failed Crusader? | History Today.

Yesterday, 2 February was the 114 th Anniversary of Queen Victoria’s state funeral.and so the end of the Victorian age.

Number One with a Bullet

Well, we haven’t done Bill Whittle for a while, so let’s have a look at his latest shall we.

He here brings us the numbers to back up what any rational man knows, Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. It’s like I always say, the safest place in America is a honky-tonk bar out here in the west, where everyone (and I do mean everyone) is carrying at least one gun, plus assorted cutlery. Here’s Bill.

It’s so simple even a Librul should be able to figure it out, although since they consistently add apples and oranges and get lemonade, that might be wishful thinking.

 

Robert A. Heinlein said it long ago

An armed society is a polite society

Churchill: the Last Whig?

I think I may have run this before but, it’s worth seeing again. It shows why many of us, while revering Churchill in many ways, have reservations about him, and certainly daren’t call him a conservative.

Nice start to the week, I think, four British historians on Sir Winston

The title comes from Dr. Charmley in the video. Enjoy!

Duty, Honor, and Sacrifice

kipling2_1568898cIt’s been an interesting week, hasn’t it? The 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, more news about (not charged) deserter Bowie Bergdahl, and the uproar about the movie American Sniper  bookended by the anniversary of Sir Winston Churchill’s death and funeral.

It has caused me to think a good bit this week on some old (and hard) words, like duty, and honor,  and betrayal, and cowardice, and courage. Wordsworth had this to say about duty

Stern Daughter of the Voice of God!
O Duty! if that name thou love
Who art a light to guide, a rod
To check the erring, and reprove;
Thou, who art victory and law
When empty terrors overawe;
From vain temptations dost set free;
And calm’st the weary strife of frail humanity!

Nothing wrong with any of that, I think. But it doesn’t do much to speak to the sheer terror of doing our duty, in battle, yes but also, for those of us who stay behind and love them. But duty takes many guises doesn’t it? It’s not always our life on the line, sometimes it’s our reputation, and sometimes our livelihood, and sometimes it gets turned on its head and we are threatened if we do our duty. Doing one’s duty is what built the British Empire and the United States as well. One could call it the chief Victorian virtue.

But then as now there were many who failed in their duty. In our relatively soft and relativistic world, many make excuses for them. But our forefathers had a word,and ugly word, for them, which admitted not wiggle room.

That word was coward. And they would apply it even to one who did his duty in a lackadaisical manner, doing just enough to get by, or finding a safe posting. that type of cowardice wouldn’t get you jailed or executed, usually but it would ruin your career, military and/or civilian, and ruin your chances to advance in society.

And the other thing we see in that society is a willingness to pay the price of the policies one believed in, even in blood. And that brings us to todays movie. This is not a happy movie. It is a movie of duty performed, even unto death, set against the Great War, It is also, true.

 

If you can keep your head when all about you
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
    But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
    Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
    And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
    If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
    And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
    And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
    And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
    And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
    To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
    Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
    Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
    If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
    With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
    And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

That is the kind of discipline and duty that built our modern world, It is also what is required to keep it strong and vibrant.

We’ve some improvements to make, I think.

%d bloggers like this: