text:
The Joys of Christmas
As long-time readers of this blog will know, I am distinctly partial to a Choco Pie or two with my afternoon cuppa, so you can imagine how excited I was when Mrs M spotted these in the supermarket.
Manufacturers Lotte are currently celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of their finest product, so what better present to recei...er, I mean give this Christmas than Limited Edition Winter Choco Pie.
Rather than the standard cream sponge sandwich in a chocolate coating, Limited Edition Winter Choco Pie contain 'chocolate cream with the rich aroma of cocoa beans, sandwiched between dark chocolate cake, in a mild chocolate coating'.
Which is just as scrummy as it sounds.
A six-pack Limited Edition Winter Choco Pie will set you back around 250 yen, while for those addicts who like to keep an emergency supply with them at all times, a so-called 'personal pack' of two can be purchased from reputable convenience stores.
The next step for this particular addict must surely be a guided tour of Lotte's chocolate factory, as advertised on their homepage. I wonder if the production line is 'all you can eat'...?
Wrong Way Round - Day 4
Niikappu Town to Erimo Town (新冠町 – えりも町) – 117km
The Airstream parked outside Mitsu-ishi roadside services was hard to ignore, not least because it was being towed by a Hummer.
'It's so big we couldn't get through the gate to the campsite,' explained the owners, who had driven all the way from Sendai in Miyagi Prefecture, 'so we had to stay in the car park instead.'
The couple were taking a two-month trip around Hokkaido for the second summer in a row, and as well as a couple of generators strapped to the front of the Hummer, they had brought their dogs along for the ride.
Although less well known than nori (海苔 / paper-thin sheets of crispy, dark-green nori are used as wrapping for the rice and fish of rolled sushi), konbu (昆布) is probably the most palatable variety of seaweed for the uninitiated westerner, and is often served with soy sauce and sesame seeds as a rather moreish side dish called konbu-no-tsukudani (昆布の佃煮).
Just over a century ago, as Tokyo University professor Kikunaé Ikeda was eating dinner one evening, he wondered why it was that his mother's homemade soup had always tasted so delicious. The next day he began a scientific analysis of the konbu it contained, and in the process discovered aji-no-moto (味の素 / the origin of flavour), better known in the West as monosodium glutamate, or flavour enhancer, or E621. A hugely successful business was built around Ikeda's discovery, and by the name umami, it has been added to the very short list of fundamental flavours recognisable to the human palate (the other four being sour, sweet, salt and bitter).
95% of Japanese konbu comes from Hokkaido, and along this stretch of coastline in particular, the harvest was in full swing.
Having picked the long, black strands of konbu from the sea – they either use small boats or wade into the shallows at low tide – the locals were laying it out to dry on specially constructed pebble beds.
Because I was making good time, rather than cut inland I carried on along the coast to Cape Erimo (襟裳岬 / literally 'collar-skirt cape'), which is the south-easternmost point in Hokkaido. Both my Mapple road atlas and several signs along the way had warned of high winds (on average, wind speeds at Cape Erimo exceed 10 metres per second - about 35kph - on 290 days each year) and fog, and and sure enough, when I arrived there the visibility was so poor that I might as well have been indoors.
Mr Assistant Wisteria didn't bother stopping to take photos, he just held up his camera phone and clicked the shutter in mid-stride, and had the air of someone who was there to tick Cape Erimo off his list. Skinny with quiffed hair and sunglasses, he looked like a typical travelling salesman - what my mother used to refer to as a 'spiv' - although having asked him to take my photo next to the sign for the Cape, he turned out to be polite, well-spoken and not a dodgy geezer in the slightest.
'I used to work for a printer company,' he said, 'but I packed it in to start my own business. I buy used cars and customise them for disabled people and OAPs, so I'm down here looking for bargains. There's nothing much around, though - the price of steel is so high that people are scrapping their cars instead of selling them secondhand.'
Mr Assistant Wisteria gave me his business card and offered to give the Transeo 4.0 GT 7005 City Cross Design a service if I made it to Sapporo, which was nice to know, as making friends in a big city can be a lot more difficult than it is, for example, on a foggy clifftop in the middle of nowhere.
It was almost dark by the time I reached Hyaku-nin-hama (百人浜 / hundred-man beach), so called because back in the days when there was no coast road, and quite possibly not a single living soul within a hundred-mile radius, a ship ran aground here and every single member of its hundred-man crew either drowned or died from starvation. Nowadays Hyaku-nin-hama has electricity, running water and even a sento (銭湯 / public baths), and just as I was leaving the latter, the woman behind the reception desk called over to me.
'Older brother!' she said. 'Older brother! Mr Village Middle wants to have a word with you.' (Not that I had quite worked it out at the time, but instead of saying, 'Hey you!' or 'Oi, mate!' the Japanese will often refer to strangers as if they are family members, so women become 'Older sister!' older men 'Dad!' and older women 'Mum!')
'Can you speak Japanese?' said Mr Village Middle.
'Yes, I can.'
'What are you doing now?'
'I'm going to the campsite.'
'You mean you're putting up your tent in dark?'
'Well, yes. I suppose so.'
'Not any more, you're not,' said Mr Village Middle. 'You're staying at my place.'
'He uses some appalling language,' said the woman from the sento. 'But don't worry, he's a nice bloke really.'
'I can only fit two in the front so you'll have to sit with your bike,' said Mr Village Middle, as a friend of his helped lift it onto the flatbed of their truck.
'Er, OK. You will drive lately, won't you?'
'You mean slowly?'
'Yes, I mean slowly.'
'Don't worry, you'll be fine!'
Mr Village Middle drove north for a few kilometres - not particularly slowly, or even lately, it has to be said - and I could hear their muffled chatter as I gripped the side of the truck and watched the red glow of the tail lights on the road behind us. By the time we arrived at Mr Village Middle's house I was ravenously hungry, although I didn't want to come straight out and beg for food, so patiently sipped on a watered-down glass of shochu as we watched a boxing match on TV.
'That's Daisuké Naitoh,' said Mr Village Middle. 'He's from Hokkaido, you know. He used to get bullied when he was at school, but now he's world champion.'
If Mr Village Middle was a boxer he would have been a heavyweight: he was tall and well-built with craggy features and a mop of jet-black hair, although I couldn't help noticing that part of the little finger on his left hand was missing.
Cutting one's little finger off is a common form of penance for members of the yakuza (more commonly referred to as boh-ryokudan / 暴力団 - literally 'violence group'), and during the course of the evening, Mr Village Middle mentioned that in his younger days he had travelled the world on a tuna fishing trawler. Because this a) involves being away from home for months at a time, and b) is extremely dangerous, it is often used in a 'get on the boat or else' kind of way, as punishment for members of the yakuza who disobey the rules, or for ordinary folk who fail to keep up with their loan repayments or pay their protection money. Not that I fancied asking him about it, but as far as I could tell Mr Village Middle's shady past was just that, as nowadays he farmed konbu with his family in the summer and worked as a truck driver during the winter.
Mr Village Middle's house was very much that of a single man: I spotted at least one cockroach on the floor, the living room was used as a kind of storage area for old furniture and work clothes, most of the pictures on the wall were old and faded, the TV had a permanent purple-y green blob in the corner of the screen, and everything was slightly sticky and tobacco-stained. When it finally arrived (as I suspected, we had been waiting for the rice cooker to finish its cycle), our evening meal wouldn't have looked out of place in a student halls of residence, and along with rice I was given instant ramen, fried meat (it was so tough that I couldn't tell exactly what kind of meat, and now didn't seem to be the time or the place to mention that I was a pescetarian), and pickled vegetables, which Mr Village Middle's friend had made himself.
It was pretty hard work trying to follow what the two of them were on about, as they used only the crudest form of Japanese possible, something that wasn't so much bad language as basic language. For example, if you happen to be talking to someone of a higher status than yourself, you might say something like:
Nanika o omeshi-agari-masen ka? ('May I humbly entreat you to partake of something to eat?')
Or if you wanted to be reasonably polite without going over the top, you could say:
Nanika o tabenai deska? ('Would you like something to eat?')
If you were with friends or family, you could be more familiar:
Nanika, taberu? ('Fancy a bite to eat?')
Mr Village Middle and his pal, however, talked more like this:
Meshi, kuu? ('You gonna scoff some grub?')
In fact, I didn't even catch on when Mr Village Middle's friend said that he was off home, which left me on my own, in an isolated house, in the middle of the night, with only a supposedly ex-gangster for company. And at least one cockroach.
On reflection, perhaps it would have been a better idea to put my tent up in the dark.
James Ravilious
Every now and then I come down with a bout of homesickness, and my most recent episode was brought on by the research I had been doing for a lecture about the photographer James Ravilious.
Ravilious was born in Eastbourne in 1939, and both of his parents were artists: his mother Tirzah Garwood was a wood engraver, and his father Eric was famous for his watercolours of the South Downs.
Having ditched his original plan of becoming an accountant, Ravilious studied at St Martin's before working as an art teacher at Hammersmith College. He married Robin Whilstler - daughter of the renowned glass engraver Laurence Whistler - in 1970, and the couple moved to the village of Dolton in North Devon.
Ravilious got a job teaching printmaking at nearby Beaford Arts Centre, and was commissioned by its curator John Lane to create an archive of life in this comparatively unchanged corner of the English countryside. By the time of Ravilious's death in 1999, the Beaford Archive contained around 80,000 of his photographs.
I first came across Ravilious's photographs in 2009, at a modest exhibition in the foyer of the National Theatre, and was struck not just by their beauty and their humanity, but by a wave of nostalgia for my own childhood: my parents moved to North Devon at around the same time as Ravilious, and I spent the first few years of my life in a small village not far from Dolton and Beaford - this particular photograph depicts the same maternity ward on which I was born.
Obviously Ravilious's work reminds me of the Devon countryside of my youth - of the narrow lanes with grass down the middle, the flocks of sheep in the road, the high hedgerows, the rolling hills, the blackberry picking and the muck spreading - but another thing that makes it so special is that Ravilious got to know his subjects over long periods of time, something that allowed him to capture for posterity the minutiae of their everyday lives.
One particular character - the farmer Archie Parkhouse - crops up again and again, most notably in what is perhaps Ravilious's best known photograph...
...but also in many others, in which we see Parkhouse both at work...
...and at home.
Ravilious's technique was deceptively simple: he shot in black and white, and more often than not from head height. His preferred camera was a Leica M3...
...which he used in conjunction with a 35mm (ie. comparatively wide-angle) Leitz Elmar lens.
Modern lenses have a coating that makes for sharper photographs and prevents lens flare (or 'Lionel Blair', as it is still referred to in Cockney rhyming slang by film and TV cameramen), whereas older lenses - including the Elmar - are uncoated.
The irony is that Ravilious had a fondness for shooting into the sun, so while his Leica equipment produced images that are soft, low in contrast and have a wonderful painterly quality, in order to reduce flare, he had to attach a handmade lens hood to the camera. This looked a bit like the inside of a toilet roll painted black, and is described by his wife Robin in the documentary James Ravilious: A World In Photographs (which as far as I know is occasionally repeated on Sky Arts, and can be purchased on DVD via the producers Banyak Films).
Ravilious experimented with various developing techniques to achieve the look he was after, and while I don't profess to understand these particularly well, as explained in this blog, he used 'film rated at 400asa, exposed at 200asa and under-developed in order to allow the shadow tones to become a little more lifted in the image'.
These days, such tinkering would be done in Photoshop rather than in the dark room, although it is probably fair to say that Ravilious's photographs - reproduced here, I have to confess, entirely without permission - are as good an argument as you will find for the superiority of film over digital photography, or at least for film as a fundamentally different medium.
I gave my lecture on Ravilious to a small audience of English-speaking locals last Saturday evening, and at the end, one of them made a very interesting point: if Ravilious's brief was to produce an archival - and therefore documentary - record of life in Devon, why did he work in black and white, and why did he put so much effort into making his photographs look beautiful?
All I can say in answer to this question is thank goodness he did, and thank goodness Lane gave him such a free rein, while at the same time paying Ravilious enough money to hone his craft over such a long period of time.
A footnote: Ravilious did in fact take some colour photographs, although I could only find one online.
And as Ravilious is quoted as saying by one of the contributors to A World In Photographs, the Devon landscape is so lush and verdant that conversely, photographing it in black and white somehow works better.
The official James Ravilious website can be found here, and you can see many more of his photographs at the Beaford Archive website, while an original will set you back between three and four hundred pounds.
The most notable book about Ravilious is called An English Eye, and much of the information for this blog post was culled from this excellent Guardian obituary.


Islamophobes discover "DNC Muslim Prayer Jihad"?
A group called the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs (BIMA) http://muslimbureau.com/ is hosting an event prior to the DNC called Jumah at the DNC: A Message to the Grassroots on Friday August 31, with other events over the week-end. The Jumah prayer will be at Marshall Park near the convention center. Imam Siraj Wahhaj will lead the prayer, and later there will be an Islamic Leadership Banquet featuring Sh. Muhammad Adly and Captain James Yee as speakers. The organizers of the event are Imam Siraj Wahhaj and Jibril Hough. Hough told the Charlotte Observer that he expected 20,000 Muslims to attend the prayer service as well as other BIMA-sponsored events scheduled in the days before the convention, including an Islamic issues conference and banquet, and a cultural festival.
The Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs, (BIMA) as a non-profit organization is designed to serve and facilitate the efforts of Islamic organizations and Institutions in their endeavors as well as spread awareness about Indigenous Muslim issues. BIMA is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey and also operates a Da'wa and Resource Center in Brooklyn, New York at Masjid Kawthar. BIMA also provides numerous services to the Muslim community and support groups in areas of education, counseling and social services.
On August 31st, 2012, Labor Day weekend, BIMA will be hosting an open air Jumah Prayer at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. Jumah Prayer will be followed by a number of other programs and events relative to the American Muslim plight, which will include a Banquet with special invited guest, an Islamic Issues Conference, an Islamic Cultural Festival and Halal Entertainment for all ages.
BIMA's purpose in rallying large numbers of Muslims to participate in this event, Jumah at the DNC, is to make the general public aware that the Muslim community is a healthy and vibrant component to the American society. Being that these events will occur between August 31st and September 3rd; which happens to be the Labor Day weekend, we felt that it would be most convenient for Muslims to be able to travel without being inhibited by their work schedules and other obligatory duties. Also it is the best time for Muslims to capture national and international attention.
This platform is non-political and non-partisan; meaning that it is not an endorsement of any political candidate or elected official. It is intended to address the concerns and issues that are challenging to the American Muslim citizens in the 21st century. It is mandatory that concerned Muslims stand up for their Constitutional and Human Rights and repel the outright injustices that are being perpetuated against the American Muslim Community. This single complaint is characteristic of the many grievances that have transpired in this nation when bad government has infringed upon the rights of its citizens. But if we continue to remain silent on these issues or confront them on divided fronts we will continue to be ineffective in getting our rights as citizens of America acknowledged. This will be the agenda launched by BIMA at the DNC with hopes that the American Muslim community will allign themselves for future endeavors.
And according to another page on their site they explain that they feel that "there is a great need for the Muslim Community of America to participate in any historical event that will serve as a goodwill gesture to the American people." They hope for a large turnout and "will be inviting local and national Islamic organizations" and their members. They are fundraising and collecting donations to cover expenses.
This is not an organization that I had heard of before this, and their "about us" page provides no information about their leadership except that it was founded in 1992 by the late Hajj Heshaam Jaaber. This is perhaps the same individual who said the funeral prayers for Malcolm X. The title of this organization Bureau of "Indigenous" Muslim Affairs is unfortunate, and indigenous generally refers only to the Native Americans.
... From mass prayer gatherings by Christians and Muslims to speeches and programs, the City of Churches plans to live up to its name. ... Thousands of Muslims will flock to Marshall Park on Aug. 31 for their traditional Friday, or Jumah, prayer.
Two days later, "Charlotte714" could draw thousands of Christians to Verizon Wireless Amphitheater for what is billed as a nonpartisan, interdenominational Sunday afternoon of prayer for the city and the country. Some 60 congregations have signed up in support, says businessman David Benham, who is organizing the event with his brother Jason.
He also discusses the numerous religious denominations planning special programs prior to, and during the convention to discuss issues of social justice and the environment. All are hoping that their concerns may reach a national audience. He also notes that the Jumah will be followed by an Islamic issues conference that will address such topics as "Islamophobia, Anti-Shariah, Middle Eastern Crisis, the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act." This will be capped off with the Islamic Regal Banquet and an Islamic cultural festival.
So far the event is receiving publicity mostly from the Islamophobic echo chamber.
— Bob Taylor of the Washington Times is upset that the DNC lists the assembly as an "official function", and calls the event an example of "taqiyya". — Jack Minor at WND calls it a gathering of "radical Muslims". — The Gateway Pundit claims that "the Obama campaign will host Muslim Jumah but won't let Cardinal lead prayer". — Timothy Whiteman of the Examiner is upset that he believes Cardinal Timothy Dolan was not invited to deliver a prayer at the DNC and somehow connects this with the fact that the DNC is "embracing" Muslims. — Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network finds this gathering a "cause for concern" — Robert Spencer calls the event "Jihad at the DNC" and he is quoted as saying ""The Obama administration is listing this Jumah at the DNC business as part of the convention activity as an official function." which is a lie.— Pamela Geller [url=http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/08/jihad-at-the-democrat-national-convention.html] calls the event a "blatant stealth coup", and said that "Obama refused Cardinal's prayers" but made Muslim Jumah an "official function" and it "looks like Obama is engaging in his own holy war". — Truth Broadcasting claims that "the DNC to bus 20,000 Muslims to the Convention". — The Canada Free Press thinks that they should "rename Charlotte to something like 'Charlott-istan'".
These folks are attempting to give the impression that this event is "sponsored" by the DNC, that Muslims are getting special treatment, and even that the government is paying to bus Muslims in for this event. As usual, they are wrong on every count.
The DNC will be held September 4th to 6th, so it is impossible to come to the conclusion that an event being held on August 31st could be an "official function" of the DNC event which doesn't even begin until four days later.
The only "special treatment" Muslims are getting is that no Muslim will offer prayers at either the DNC or the RNC (although the RNC will have a Catholic Cardinal, Rabbis, a Sikh, a Greek Orthodox Archbishop, and two Mormon leaders on the official schedule).
The Jumah event is being sponsored by, arranged by, and paid by a Muslim organization. It is not sponsored by the DNC, and it is not an official function of the DNC.
No one refused the Cardinal, and he will be giving the closing prayer at the DNC.
Lots of other groups, primarily Christian, are having events prior to and during the convention. None of these is sponsored by the DNC.
Perhaps the Islamophobes should have checked out Snopes.com who said that the claim that the Jumah event was sponsored by the Obama campaign and that they had declined to have a prayer offered by a Catholic Cardinal was FALSE! They might also have checked out the DNC schedule of events or any newspaper for the dates of the convention. However, facts are not their stock in trade.
A Muslim Prayer event in D.C. in 2009 also stirred up this kind of controversy.
The Islamophobia Industry sees non-existent Muslim jihad plots everywhere, and uses them in an effort to marginalize the civic participation of Muslims.
The Islamophobes consistently promote the what everyone "knows" lies about Islam and Muslims. They generalize specific incidents to reflect on all Muslims or all of Islam. When they are caught in the act of making up or distorting claims they engage in devious methods to attempt to conceal the evidence. When they are called out for their bigotry, they claim that they are being accused of Islamophobia for no reason other than their legitimate concerns about real issues and that in fact there is not even such a thing as Islamophobia, or it is a term made up purposefully by Muslims in order to deflect attention from the fact that according to the Islamophobes there is no such thing as Islamophobia.
There is a reason that many, even outside of the Muslim community see such demonization of Muslims as Islamophobic. There is a reason that the ADL has stated that Brigitte Gabriel's Act for America, Pamela Geller & Robert Spencer's Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), David Yerushalmi's Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE) are "groups that promote an extreme anti-Muslim agenda". There is a reason that The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated SIOA as a hate group, and that they are featured in the SPLC reports Jihad Against Islam and The Anti-Muslim Inner Circle. There is a reason that Geller and Spencer are featured prominently in the Center for American Progress "Fear Inc." report on the Islamophobia network in America. There is a reason that Geller is featured in the People for the American Way Right Wing Playbook on Anti-Muslim Extremism. There is a reason that Geller is featured in the NYCLU report Religious Freedom Under Attack: The Rise of Anti-Mosque Activities in New York State. There is a reason that Geller is featured in the Political Research Associates report Manufacturing the Muslim menace: Private firms, public servants, and the threat to rights and security. There is a reason that the SIOA's trademark patent was denied by the U.S. government due to its anti-Muslim nature. There is a reason that they are featured (with extensive backgrounder articles) in our TAM Who's Who of the Anti-Muslim/Anti-Arab/Islamophobia Industry. There is a reason that these individuals are featured in just about every legitimate report on Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred.
The reason that this is so obvious to so many is that rational people can tell the difference between legitimate concerns and bigoted stereotypes. The Islamophobia of these folks is very real, and it is also strikingly similar to a previous generations' anti-Semitism.
Today the Jumah prayer event was held, and rather than the much thrown around number of 20,000 Muslims expected, only about 200 Muslims attended. I am not certain why BIMA planned such an event, and advertised such incredible projections on the same day as the 49th annual ISNA convention kicks off in Washington, D.C., but the poor showing does not reflect well on the organization.
... Christians also are expected to gather in big numbers throughout the city, including "Charlotte714," a Sunday afternoon program of music and prayer that's expected to attract thousands to Verizon Wireless Amphitheater. It's billed as a nonpartisan, interdenominational afternoon of prayer for the city and county. Some 70 area congregations of multiple faiths have signed up in support.
On Friday night, Catholics are to meet for a rosary and prayer at Time Warner Cable Arena. And they also plan a pro-life march and rally Wednesday at The Square in the center of the city.
The Washington Times reports "The only signs of a disturbance came about fifteen minutes before the Jumah commenced when a Christian protest group attempted to override the Muslim delegation with blaring speakers. That was quickly subdued by local law enforcement and there were otherwise no disruptions. In addition to the Democratic protest sign other messages said, "Jesus is the way", "Jesus is life", and "Islam is a lie." Protesters were allowed to display their signs without incident, and they were never challenged in any way.
These protesters are the same individuals and groups who harassed attendees at the 2009 Islam on Capitol Hill prayer.
Charlotte in 2012, which allowed community members to promote events on its website, has since removed BIMA's event listing.
Charlotte in 2012 is a nonpartisan organization set up to promote the city during the convention and to engage people in related "business and civic" opportunities. More than 1,000 non-convention-related events were scheduled. A senior host committee official told us the organization does not endorse any of the community groups that list events on its site.
The page on which BIMA advertised its prayer service allowed community members to promote events next to those officially sponsored by the Democratic Party or the city. The official told us the prayer event's page — which has since been taken down — lacked the official logo of the DNC, which is a blue and white circle enclosed around human silhouettes, and the logo for an official city-sponsored event, which has a silhouette of Charlotte's skyline. The DNC's official website lacks any mention of a "Jumah" or specific Muslim prayer service.
The official did not respond to a follow-up email asking why the organization considered BIMA's statements and positions to be inappropriate.


text:
package com.github.t3t5u.common.database;

import java.util.Date;

import javax.persistence.Column;
import javax.persistence.GeneratedValue;
import javax.persistence.GenerationType;
import javax.persistence.Id;

import org.apache.commons.lang3.builder.ToStringBuilder;

@SuppressWarnings("serial")
public abstract class AbstractEntity implements Entity {
	@Id
	@GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
	@Column(name = COLUMN_NAME_ID)
	private long id = UNDEFINED_ID;
	@Column(name = COLUMN_NAME_CREATED_AT, nullable = false)
	private Date createdAt;
	@Column(name = COLUMN_NAME_UPDATED_AT)
	private Date updatedAt;

	@Override
	public long getId() {
		return id;
	}

	@Override
	public void setId(final long id) {
		this.id = id;
	}

	@Override
	public Date getCreatedAt() {
		return createdAt;
	}

	@Override
	public void setCreatedAt(final Date createdAt) {
		this.createdAt = createdAt;
	}

	@Override
	public Date getUpdatedAt() {
		return updatedAt;
	}

	@Override
	public void setUpdatedAt(final Date updatedAt) {
		this.updatedAt = updatedAt;
	}

	@Override
	public String toString() {
		return ToStringBuilder.reflectionToString(this);
	}
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Posted on Sun, Aug 26th, 2018 Wed, Sep 26th, 2018 by Reuters
Former top Vatican official says pope should resign over abuse crisis
By Philip Pullella and Scott Malone
DUBLIN/BOSTON (Reuters) – A former top Vatican official has accused Pope Francis of having known of allegations of sex abuse by a prominent U.S. cardinal for years and called on him to resign, in an unprecedented broadside against the pope by a Church insider.
In a detailed 11-page bombshell statement given to conservative Roman Catholic media outlets during the Pope's visit to Ireland, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano accused a long list of current and past Vatican and U.S. Church officials of covering up the case of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who resigned last month in disgrace.
In remarkably blunt language, Vigano said alleged cover-ups in the Church were making it look like "a conspiracy of silence not so dissimilar from the one that prevails in the mafia".
"Pope Francis has repeatedly asked for total transparency in the Church," wrote Vigano, who has criticized the pope before.
"In this extremely dramatic moment for the universal Church, he must acknowledge his mistakes and, in keeping with the proclaimed principle of zero tolerance, Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick's abuses and resign along with all of them," he said.
Vatican officials declined immediate comment on Sunday on the statement, which was published by the National Catholic Register and several other conservative media outlets in the United States and Italy.
Vigano said he had told Francis in June 2013, just after he was elected pope by his fellow cardinals, about the accusations against McCarrick.
Vigano, the papal envoy in Washington from 2011 to 2016, also said he had informed top Vatican officials as early as 2006 that McCarrick was suspected of abusing adult seminarians while he was a bishop in two New Jersey dioceses between 1981 and 2001. He said he never received a response to his 2006 memo.
He also accused McCarrick's successor as archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, of having been aware of the abuse allegations. Wuerl has said he did not know of them.
The statement was the latest blow to the credibility of the U.S. Church. Nearly two weeks ago, a grand jury in Pennsylvania released the findings of the largest-ever investigation of sex abuse in the U.S. Catholic Church, finding that 301 priests in the state had sexually abused minors over the past 70 years.
McCarrick in July became the first Cardinal in living memory to resign his position in the Church leadership after a review concluded that claims he had sexually abused a 16-year-old boy were credible.
He was one of the highest-ranking church officials accused of sex abuse in a scandal that has rocked the 1.2 billion-member faith since reports of priests abusing children and bishops covering up for them were reported by the Boston Globe in 2002.
Since then patterns of widespread abuse of children have been reported across the United States and Europe, in Chile and Australia, undercutting the Church's moral authority and taking a toll on its membership and coffers
McCarrick, 88, has said he had no recollection of alleged abuse of the minor but has not commented on widespread media reports that he would force adult men studying for the priesthood to sleep with him at a beach house in New Jersey.
Vigano's statement railed against "homosexual networks present in the Church" — the word "homosexual" appears 18 times, while the word "child" appears only twice, in both cases in the titles of Church documents Vigano sites.
Francis asked for forgiveness on Sunday during his highly charged visit to Ireland for the "scandal and betrayal" felt by victims of sexual exploitation by Catholic clergy. On Saturday he said the corruption and cover-up of abuse amounted to human excrement, according to victims.
(Editing by Gareth Jones)
CategoriesFeatured News
Previous PostPrevious Here is the Nightmare Facing Trump If Democrats Take Back the House
Next PostNext Jealous Trump Tries To Hijack John McCain Coverage With Tweets About Clinton And The FBI

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
People identify me because of this film, says Akshay Vaskar - FILLUM
People identify me because of this film, says Akshay Vaskar
January 6, 2021 Sumana No Comments Interviews, Spotlight Akshay Vaskar, Deva Tula Shodhu Kuthe, Marathi Short Film
Akshay Vaskar began his career in films and television as an actor, but soon he realised that he was better off as a director. There was so much of creativity in him that was bursting to come out. Akshay took it slow and steady. He began with production work and then went on to become an AD. Now he is a full-fledged award winning director. The walk in the cinema lane has not been easy, yet he is loving every moment of it, he says.
Akshay talks about his film 'Deva Tula Shodhu Kuthe….?' and his style of film making…
How did you get this story?
Sanit Subhash Malusare is the writer of this film. A year ago he had given the script to some other director. I was looking for a good story and I spoke to him about it. He said that he has a story and that director has not worked on it. Now this story landed in my hands. This is how I happened to work on this story.
Tell us about your journey into short films?
For the past eight years I had been into acting. The competition here is huge. In a serial called Laksha I played the villain's role. I was not impressed. The pay was less and the recognition was slow. That is when I thought of moving into direction. I then started working in an acting academy doing a lot of odd jobs in production. Later on I started working as an assistant director. Some offers came in and I worked as associate director in three films and in two films as an assistant director. This is where my journey commenced. I did a short film called "It begins with me". This was my first short film as an independent director and this got 45 awards.
What were you looking to convey with this movie?
Some people depend heavily on god. When they want something they start bribing the gods. We should work hard for what we want. God is within us and the efforts we put in will get us success.
What were the roadblocks you faced when you made your film?
After getting the story I have worked for six months on this film. The lead actor in this film is a child. I was unable to get the right child artist for a long time and this hassled me. In a film festival I saw a film where this child was cast. The director of this film introduced me to this child. I found my lead actor here.
The producer of the film backed out at the last minute. My mother came to my rescue and loaned her jewels and gave me the money to make this film. The third thing was the house is which I shot the film belonged to an old woman. On the second day of the shoot she refused to give me her house as someone had told her that she could get huge amount of money by lending her house for shoot. Convincing her was a big task. Yet I did it and we settled the issue amicably.
We see that your short film is on par with a feature film. How did you envision the same?
Every scene of the film was visualized by me. I have envisioned this film for a long time. Also my cameraman and editor were also good and they got in the desired effect. We are a group of young people and I got good support from them.
Have you drawn inspiration from real people for the characterizations in the film?
No this is not inspired by anyone and is purely fictional.
Tell us about your lead cast and technical team?
I have already told you about my DOP and editor. DOP is Anmol Chavan and editor is Kunal Bane. The little boy has acted in some films and the lady who acted as his mother is a serial actor. She is Punam Chandorkar and is an established actor. Others are also reputed stage actors.
Your film's music makes a huge impact. Tell us more about it?
Mandhar Patil scored the music for this film. Initially we wanted a small boy to sing the song as the lead actor was a child, but somehow it did not go well. The music director sang this song casually and sent it to us, so that we could finalize on it. We were convinced by his singing. The impact of Mandar Patil's voice was perfect. Also this is the first time that he has sung for a film.
Any unforgettable or cherished memory associated with this film?
The recognition I got with this film is something that I cannot imagine. People identify me with 'Deva Tula Shodhu Kuthe….?'. The image I have today is just because of this film. My confidence level is at an all-time high.
Tell us about your future projects?
Loveship is a web series on which I am working on now. I am looking at making it to the national level with this one.
Which film-maker has been a strong influence on you and your style of film making?
Sanjay Jadhav has had a strong influence on me. Duniyadari is his popular film. I have seen all his films and love his style of film making.
If you got the opportunity to remake a classic, which one would that be?
I am not confident about remaking a classic. That is too huge a responsibility.
Tell us your opinion about Fillum and how it will help the upcoming filmmakers?
I have seen how Fillum team works and I am extremely pleased with your promotion activities. Your OTT platform is sure to reach the top. This is a big boon to upcoming filmmakers.
Deva Tula Shodhu Kuthe….? is now playing on FILLUM App
Download now on
Subscribe to our Newsletter to get the latest FILLUM updates to your mailbox
About us Blogs Term of Services Privacy Policy Contact Us
About us Terms of Service Privacy Policy Contact Us
© Copyright 2020 StarARama, LLC. All rights reserved.


text:
Anvil (engl. für Amboss) ist eine Codebezeichnung der Alliierten des Zweiten Weltkriegs. Anvil war ein Entwurf für eine Landung in Südfrankreich. Dieser Codename wurde während der Konferenz von Teheran im November 1943 festgelegt. Diese Operation sollte die Operation Overlord unterstützen. Anvil galt als Amboss für den Hammer Overlord und sollte nur von dem Hauptangriff in der Normandie ablenken. Alle Planungen für diese Operation wurden vom Stab der 7. US-Armee übernommen. Inhalt der Operation war bis Ende Mai 1944 eine amphibische Operation gegen das südfranzösische Festland durchzuführen. Es sollte ein großer Hafen eingenommen werden. Danach sollten die Invasionstruppen weiter nach Lyon und Vichy vorrücken. Als Landungsort wurde ein Küstenstreifen östlich von Hyères mit einem Kampfschwerpunkt bei Saint-Tropez gewählt. Dieser war strategisch, durch die Luftunterstützung von der Insel Korsika am geeignetsten. Die Landung musste wie die Landung in der Normandie mehrfach verschoben werden, weil es an Material fehlte. Des Weiteren war der Italienfeldzug noch nicht weit genug vorangeschritten. Das am 5. Juli 1944 in Dragoon umbenannte Unternehmen konnte erst am 15. August 1944 beginnen. Bis zum Abend des J-Day waren 6000 Soldaten und 5000 t Material an Land. Am Abend des Operationsbeginns waren schon 2000 Gefangene gemacht worden. Bereits am 17. August 1944 waren die alliierten Truppen mit etwa 12.250 Fahrzeugen und 87.000 Mann bis tief in das Hinterland vorgedrungen.

Literatur
 Christian Zentner: Der Zweite Weltkrieg. ISBN 3-85492-818-1.

Anvil
Anvil

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Apostolic Church Not Where She Appears To Be?
Author Topic: Apostolic Church Not Where She Appears To Be? (Read 3369 times)
I don't think the Catholic Church is in the N.O. or in the woods but right where it appears to be and I don't think we need to deny a doctrine to accept that fact. We just need to destroy the false interpratation of that doctrine. Let the readers decide for themselves.
Here is the article from The Four Marks on the Hierarchy:
The Mystery of the Hierarchy
Where is the Church? That is the question, which I believe lies at the root of much of the confusion faced by real Catholics today. It really comes down to our understanding of the Catholic doctrines of Ecclesiology. Traditional Catholics understand that we "traditionalists" are in fact the remnant Roman Catholic Church. But what of the hierarchy?
For all too many, the phrase "the hierarchy" is taken to refer to an organization which is currently headed from Vatican City and comprised of "priests" and "bishops" and "pope," most of whom aren't even Catholics. They do not worship as Catholics. They do not believe and teach what Catholics must all believe and teach. They do not stand up to be counted as Catholics when the fallen world opposes God's own Truth and Justice. And yet so many of us real Catholics just unquestioningly think of them as being "the hierarchy." Why? Are there no alternatives? In fact, there are several.
I have identified four categories of belief regarding the whereabouts/identity/existence of the Roman Catholic hierarchy today:
1. Vatican organization retains hierarchical claim,
2. Hierarchy has utterly vanished,
3. Phantom (or totally concealed) hierarchy, and
4. Traditional clergy retain hierarchical claim.
Let us briefly explore what each of these is about.
1 Vatican organization retains hierarchical claim: This alternative forces Catholics to try to reconcile the things done and taught by them with the teachings of the Church. One twists their mind into a pretzel by trying to make the new teachings fit into the old (or the old fit into the new). Or else one twists their mind into a pretzel by trying to figure out how the present Fallibility doesn't refute the past doctrine of Infallibility.
One common approach taken is to fault the individuals concerned. The Church does not err, but individual fallen men do, even churchmen. But that is a dead end. It merely leads one into making accusations. Individuals DO err, and must be held accountable for their errors. But is their error merely their own or is it a result of following official policy? Herein lies the fundamental difference between the Pre-Vatican II and Post-Vatican II hierarchies. The divine spirit of the first is the Holy Ghost, and the demonic spirit of the second is the "spirit of Vatican II." The first builds Faith; the second destroys it.
Before Vatican II, the prevailing customs and policies inclined all towards the Faith. The success or failure of any individual cleric in imparting Faith correlated quite closely to the degree to which he abided by those prevailing customs and policies himself. But during and since Vatican II, the customs and polices of the Vatican organization became the reasons for altars to be smashed, rosaries to be ripped, liturgies to be debased, errors to be exalted, and Faith to be lost. Even where some individual Vatican-approved cleric might actually stand up for a worthy Catholic teaching (e. g. Fr. Frank Pavone in the Right-to-Life cause), he does this on his own, with no particular support or blessing from his superiors.
Clearly, the organization itself is the problem, not merely those in it. That is doctrinally impossible for the Church, yet undeniable with regards to the Vatican organization today. For these grave doctrinal reasons this alternative simply cannot be true. Today's Vatican organization simply cannot be the real Roman Catholic Church. Yet large numbers of traditional Catholics just seem to assume this alternative to be the case. This category includes not only the "Indult/Motu" crowd, but also the SSPX and other resistance groups, and even many sedevacantists!
2) Hierarchy has utterly vanished: There are some who speak as if there really were no bishops with authority. This cannot be reconciled with the Catholic doctrine of Indefectibility of the Church. There are dogmatic reasons to believe that the hierarchal Church shall exist clear up to the time of the actual return of Christ. The only remotely possible exception to that would be in connection with the claim that the return of Christ is immediately imminent. But have those who actually advocate this alternative reflected on just how imminent that End of all Time would have to be? Mere days or weeks at the most. How could one account for this supposedly hierarchy-less period of time having lasted for decades, thus far?
Yet the scenario one might tolerate for a very brief period has become for some a de facto long-term belief. That amounts to a belief in the total failure of the Church, a doctrinal impossibility. I suspect this is why many have feared to become sedevacantists. They imagine that the sede vacante finding would imply a failure of God to keep His promises regarding the Rock of St. Peter. We really should learn to focus not only on where the Church isn't, but where the Church is, lest we unintentionally convey the idea that the Church isn't.
3) Phantom (or totally concealed) hierarchy: This category includes both those who claim there to be some secretive papal succession, and those who think some bishop from the era of Pope Pius XII might still be alive and keeping the living Magisterium going in his own utterly forgotten corner of the world. This category avoids the doctrinal problems of the first two categories, but then presents the new problem of finding this hidden hierarchy. More seriously, how does one account for their complete undiscoverability, even by its most loyal possible friends?
Can the Church be regarded as a visible society unless at least one living episcopal officer of it can be identified by name? I don't see how. It is one thing to say that you or I do not know the answer to that question as we sit here talking about it. Many things like this might simply not be common knowledge. And some bishops have had to function "underground." But it is quite a different thing for not one to be discoverable by anyone, all around the world. Back in the 1970's most Catholics vaguely knew that there was some such faithful bishop truly keeping his diocese Catholic, perhaps somewhere in South America. It couldn't have taken too much asking around to find out that the bishop in question was Bp. Antonio de Castro-Meyer of the diocese of Campos, Brazil. But no amount of asking around or digging can point any of us to such a bishop today.
The City on the Hill may be camouflaged, but never truly hidden. At least some of its light must always shine through even the thickest fog. Even if some dire threat could seemingly force them to conceal their existence as a hidden papal succession somewhere, how is it that not even the name taken by any current secretly reigning pontiff has ever been let slip out? Could any "Pope Gregory XVII" still be alive after all these years? Yet no successor is named. Surely if such a pope existed, he would have wanted to enable all faithful clergy to be able to express their union with Peter by naming him in the Canon of the Mass, etc. And after all, that really wouldn't reveal anything useful for anyone trying to threaten him. And what threat could be so dire as to warrant abandoning the remainder of the whole Church all around the world to careless and heretical pastors all alike without authority or authoritativeness in the Gospel [as they could be in this scenario]? Not even the detonation of a nuclear bomb under the Holy City could do as much damage as has been done by the enactment of Vatican II.
The apostolic mission of the Church continues to be the conversion of the world. Therefore, they cannot all be content to remain hidden in whatever corner of the earth they presently occupy, showing no concern for all the rest of us. How would one account for their universal refusal or inability to continue the Church's mission to preach the Gospel to all creation and baptize the nations in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost? For if only any one or more of them did, we the Faithful could find them. Indeed, it is they who should be seeking us out, not the other way around, for the Lord is ever anxious to gather His sheep. While one could posit that some few might be stranded on desert islands or trapped in gulags or solitary confinement, how is it that not one has been released over all these many years, as the angel freed Peter and company from prison (Acts 5:17-25)? Does God no longer watch over His own Church?
4) Traditional clergy retain hierarchical claim: This category, my own position, is that the obviously traditional Catholic priests and bishops simply are the Roman Catholic hierarchy as it exists today, despite their not having been personally appointed by a pope. I realize that this position raises a couple questions as to the exact canonical mechanism of their authority in the Church and how they are meant to function together today. But, unlike the other three alternatives, the problems raised by this alternative are only disciplinary, not doctrinal. Let's look at what this alternative solves:
We who recognize our traditional clergy as the hierarchy alone have an institutional and historic and unchanging Church that we can point to. That Church, our Church, has continuously existed, from ancient times until now, unchanging in any of Her doctrines or liturgies. Our Church has, and has always had, identifiable ministers who can be contacted for membership and for all the sacraments, teaching, and guidance the Church has ever offered. The clergy so identified have never taught heresy but have always and consistently opposed the radical errors of the Novus Ordo religion. In this alternative, the Church fully evidences Her retention of Her Divinely appointed prerogatives and apostolic mission.
It is much easier to explain how, in the midst of a lengthy papal vacancy, the episcopal succession can proceed officially without direct papal appointments, than it is to explain how the Church could contradict Herself, teach error, or disappear. This alternative is a big reprieve for those who have long agonized over the evident fall of the Vatican organization, thinking it to be the Church. It is the perfect antidote to those who charge that sedevacantism is merely some inexplicable negative finding that seems to deny the practical existence of the Church.
With our traditional clerics duly recognized as the Teaching Church and the Vatican heretics as mere sectarians visibly outside the Church, one need not reconcile the Modernist ecumenism with the teaching that there is only one true God and one true Church. One need not reconcile the indefectibility of the Church with the evident defection of the Vatican organization during and since Vatican II. One need not go sifting through the teachings of any putative "pope" whom we cannot rely upon to be a valid point of reference for our Faith. And one need not judge the man who leads the Modernist sect.
In the context of this view, it clear that we traditional Catholics, together with our clerical leaders, are not on the sidelines but straight front and center responsible for the state and future of the Church. It means that we — together with, and under the guidance of, our traditional Catholic priests and bishops — can and must continue the apostolic mission that our Lord Jesus Christ imparted to our forebears to preach the Gospel to every creature, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, confident in God's Divine help, and in our ability and authority to do so.
SJB
Reputation: +1931/-4
Number 2 is heretical. Number 4 is contrary to all known authorities.
It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil
Quote from: SJB
According to some of our 21st century interpraters of doctrine.
Do you insist that ordinary jurisdiction is obtained through the expressed will of a Pope? Please explain.
Hobbledehoy
The author of the article in question seems to be of good will and recognizes the problematic nature of the stance espoused in therein, writing: "I realize that this position raises a couple questions as to the exact canonical mechanism of their authority in the Church and how they are meant to function together today."
The author goes on to write, "But, unlike the other three alternatives, the problems raised by this alternative are only disciplinary, not doctrinal."
I am afraid it is not as simple as it seems. There theological subtleties and nuances inherent in such a stance have profound ramifications that the following generations of Catholics who endeavor to resist the Johannine-Pauline anti-Church will have to countenance. Not anyone amongst us can claim the requisite training―much less the competence and authority―to form a theological opinion, stricte dicitur regarding these complex matters.
The exigencies of the spiritual welfare of the faithful demand of the clergy of the anti-modernist resistance to apply themselves with utmost piety and industry to the study of the sacred sciences the knowledge of which their hallowed vocation demands: but their problematic Canonical predicament―lacking missio, officio and jurisdiction―demands that they humbly acknowledge not only the insufficiency of human frailty (the difficulties of which even the most devout clergy of happier ages faced) but also the juridical insufficiency whereby they can claim no authority to preach, teach, administer the holy Sacraments, offer the Holy Sacrifice upon the sacred Altars, &c., without that jurisdiction which Holy Mother Church supplies for those precises instances and only for the duration thereof, no matter how many times such instances are multiplied.
In the article cited, the author claims:
Indeed, the sensus Catholicus recoils at having to reconcile the "Œconomia nova" of the modernists who occupy the Johannine-Pauline structures and the depositum fidei of the Church of Christ. However, identifying the acephalous and vagrant clergy of the anti-modernist resistance with the duly appointed hierarchy of the Church of Christ only complicates things. In order for the sedevacantists to logically posit their self-appointed clergy as constituting the Ecclesia docens, they must first demonstrate and prove:
(1) precisely how, when and why the occupants of the Johannine-Pauline structures cannot claim to constitute the Ecclesia docens;
(2) precisely how, when and why the occupants of the Johannine-Pauline structures lapsed away from the Catholic and divine faith into formal heresy, properly so-called;
(3) what precisely in the documents of the Johannine-Pauline council can be said to constitute the "Œconomia nova" of the modernists, by identifying the heresies and errors thereof and demonstrating what theological label is to designate these propositions (according to the methodology of the eminent theologians whom Holy Mother Church has proposed to us as our teachers and guides in these matters);
(4) they must demonstrate the theological, moral and Canonical ramifications of the deliberate and contumacious adherence of these propositions of the Johannine-Pauline council, both as regards to the Bishops of the time and to the laity and clergy who remain materially adhered to the structures that were brought forth by the Johannine-Pauline council and its modernist proponents;
(5) how exactly are we to contextualize these occurrences to the doctrines of Holy Mother Church as set forth in the Encyclical letters of the Roman Pontiffs, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the approved theologians of the illustrious schools; and
(6) why does it necessitate positing the conglomerate and acephalous clerics of the anti-modernist resistance as constituting the Ecclesia docens, and what are the criteria whereby the faithful may readily identify who exactly amongst these same clerics to be ascribed the "hierarchical claim" and how these clerics are to "exercise" such a claim (for example, what prevents one from ascribing such "hierarchical claim" to Bp. Pivarunas, but denying it to Bp. Slupski, or how can the faithful determine who are the charlatans and frauds, such as Ryan "St. Anne" Scott?).
Numbers one through five have been done by individual apologists (whether clerical or lay), or groups thereof, but not in a systematic manner, much less according to the strict scholastic methods of inquiry as seen in how theologians such as Franzelin, Van Noort, Scheeben, Garrigou-Lagrange, Tanquerey, Fenton, &c., present sacred doctrine in their manuals and commentaries. As one sedevacantist has written:
There is no "complete" published sedevacantist theory except the Guerardian one (and even that has not been published in any language than French, and even in French it was not put into a systematic form and published in a volume, but rather it appeared scattered throughout issues of a journal). Yet non-sedevacantists are attacked for failing to adopt "sedevacantism". This only needs to be stated for its absurdity to be immediately apparent. Can any reasonable and just man condemn another for refusing to accept a theory which, as far as he can see, involves the denial that the Church has a hierarchy? Can anybody really be condemned for not adopting a theory which nobody has even bothered to present in a professional and complete form?
Number six essentially constitutes the controversy in question, and it has become a public controversy now because of the contumacy of certain polemicists who have made novel theories in prejudice to sound theology.
In order for either the aforementioned polemicists or for such sedevacantists as the author of the cited article to evade the censure of theological error or of being "rash," they have to methodically and systematically present the predicament of the Church in the present day according to the teachings and methods of Thomistic philosophy and theology. They cannot just pretend the Johannine-Pauline structures do not exist or have relevance, because millions of Catholics adhere to them in good faith, and immune from danger of formal heresy according to the promise of Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima in the third portion of the great "Secret."
For to posit that the conglomerate of acephalous and vagrant clergy in the anti-modernist resistance is to be identified as the Ecclesia docens is equivalent to stating categorically and unequivocally that the "traditionalist movement" is the Church (not just a portion thereof), and that the Johannine-Pauline structures necessarily impute the guilt of formal heresy unto those who adhere to them, without due consideration of the great obfuscation of the present age whereby millions of Catholics yet remain deluded and led astray without guilt of their own.
The author of the article continues, writing:
This statement, without any qualifying remarks, has disastrous implications, of which many Catholic may be unaware.
Positing that the the conglomerate of acephalous and vagrant clergy in the anti-modernist resistance is to be identified as the Ecclesia docens would indeed invest them with "executive responsibility" for what has been happening with the Church for the past decades: including everything from the Johannine-Pauline council, to the sex abuse scandals and the conspiracy to conceal these crimes, to the immorality rampant and encouraged at such events as the "Youth Days" or whatever they are called, &c.
For, if these clerics have been "sent" by some sort of missio extraordinaria, and have been endowed with the necessary power and jurisdiction: why would Christ make this hierarchy (sic) of His Church so powerless, divided, and enfeebled so as to allow the damnation of millions upon millions of Catholics who have defected into modernism or lapsed away from the faith in the Johannine-Pauline structures?
Or is the responsibility of these clerics limited to the faithful who attend their chapels and give them stipends? If so, how can their missio be universal and pertain to the entirety of the Church of Christ (both the Latin Occident and the Churches of the Orient)?
This is how problematic the so-called "hierarchical claim" of the traditionalist clerics truly is. It is not helping the anti-modernist resistance, nor does it vindicate sedevacantism in any way, as the author of the above-cited article writes: "It is the perfect antidote to those who charge that sedevacantism is merely some inexplicable negative finding that seems to deny the practical existence of the Church." On the contrary, it is inherently subversive not only to sedevacantism, but to the entire resistance against the Johannine-Pauline structures.
For in positing these ecclesiological errors, sedevacantists such as Mr. Ruby incur the censure of Cajetan as cited by Msgr. Journet
Quote from: Msgr. Charles Journet, in fact, in his work [i
The Church of the Word Incarnate: An Essay of Speculative Theology[/i] (trans. A.H.C. Downes; London: Sheed and Ward, 1954), pg. 411n]
During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, says Cajetan, the universal Church is in an imperfect state; she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. "The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power. Whoever contests that falls into the error of John Hus―who denied the need of a visible ruler for the Church―condemned in advance by St. Thomas, then by Martin V at the Council of Constance. And to say that the Church in this state holds her power immediately from Christ and that the General Council represents her, is to err intolerably" (De Comparatione etc., cap. vi., 74). Here are the seventh and the twenty-seventh propositions of John Hus condemned at the Council of Constance: "Peter neither is nor ever was the head of the Holy Catholic Church"; "There is nothing whatsoever to show that the spiritual order demands a head who shall continue to live and endure with the Church Militant" (Denz. 633 and 653).
The anti-sedevacantists could make the argument that such polemicists as those in question expose "sedevacantism" as theologically untenable by subscribing to the condemned twenty-seventh proposition of John Hus.
Moreover, the twenty-eighth proposition seems to be blueprint of the so-called "Apostolic Church" that these sedevacantists have devised: "Christ through His true disciples scattered through the world would rule His Church better without such monstrous heads," Christus sine talibus monstruosis capitibus per suos veraces discipulos sparsos per orbem terrarum melius suam Ecclesiam regularet" (Denz., no. 654). And there have been sedevacantists who have lamented the dogmatic definition of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff by the Vatican Council (Session IV, 18 July 1870) in the Constitution Pastor aeternus as the "preparation" for the present day ecclesiastical crisis; ironically echoing the Jansenists and Gallicanists that preceded them.
Ultimately, this renders such sedevacantists' opinion the very "sedevacantism" (to speak anachronistically) that John Hus himself professed, as his twentieth proposition seems to show: "If the Pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown, then as Judas, the Apostle, he is of the devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it," "Si Papa est malus et praesetim, si est praescitus, tunc ut Iudas apostolus est diaboli, fur, et filius perditionis, et non est caput sanctae militantis Ecclesiae, cum nec sit membrum eius" (Denz., no. 646). For if these so-called apologists of the sedevacantist camp adopt an ecclesiology that hearkens to the errors of John Hus, there may be a legitimate objection that posits the possibility that "sedevacantism" as interpreted by these polemicists is ultimately a revival of the Hussite heresies.
In making the acephalous and vagrant clergy the Ecclesia docens, such theorists are devising an "Œconomia nova" of their own, wherein this sort of "sedevacantism" brings forth a new abominatio in desolationem (cf. Dan. cap. xi., 31, cap. xii., 11), or, rather, a new abominatio desolationis (cf. Dan. cap. ix., 27, S. Matt. cap. xxiv., 15, S. Marc. cap. xiii., 14): not only a Church without a Pope, but a Church that has no need of a Pope to have a hierarchy that can claim Apostolic succession formaliter and ordinary jurisdiction. A new and vile form of fideicide that brings about scandal and error in a manner analogous to the Hegelian historicist "dogmatics" of the modernists and their Johannine-Pauline structures.
I hope the author of the above-cited article reconsiders his positions carefully in light of these principles.
"Qui legit, intelligat" (S. Matt. cap. xxiv., 15).
Please ignore all that I have written regarding sedevacantism.
From Msgr. Charles Journet's The Church of the Word Incarnate: An Essay of Speculative Theology (trans. A.H.C. Downes; London: Sheed and Ward, 1954):
It is too bad that some people think Kathleen allows, obviously, erroneous articles to be printed in her paper and that the clergy that vet those articles are equally erroneous.
These people are loud and proud when they tell us where the Church isn't but are deafenly silent when we ask them where the visible [formally] Apostolic Church is. Some of these are the same "experts" that would brazenly contradict Father Stepanich's highly educated and qualified opinion on the Pius XII liturgy.
Don't get your theology or interpretation of obscure (to the average layperson in the pew) doctrine from laymen on this forum. Better to trust a highly scrutinized paper like The Four Marks than to come here to get de fide interpretations that makes the Church disappear.
I say this with all due respect to Hobbles, who seems to have written a charitable response above and to SJB who I believe is of good will. I wrote the above before glancing at Hobbles response and did not notice any venom, this time, dripping off the seams.
Good Catholics of good will really can politely disagree.
I asked SJB if he insists that a Pope must expressly approve of episcapol consecrations in order for a bishop to have ordinary jurisdiction or not. I'm waiting for an answer or a repost if I missed it.
Pyrrhos
Reputation: +341/-0
It is not a question of trust in priests without any teaching authority or in a paper published without canonical approval. Under the premise of an acephalous state of the Church, layman, writer and priest have the same authority, namely none.
All that remains is, to follow the teachings and prescriptions of the Holy See, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and the approved manuals as well as theologians of the illustrious schools, may they be Dominican, Jesuit or Franciscan.
Should the necessity arise to clarify certain teachings, their practical meanings or even to publish theological novelties, scientific standards must be kept. Neither the title of magister or the name of a newspaper, which does not claim to be a theological journal, carry any value, but only their content. I do know that the Four Marks publish upper-standard articles, but still, it is not a platform of theological discussion. The Rev. Fr. Stepanich OFM also did not publish any writings meeting academical standards in recent times, according to my knowledge.
In regards to the question of episcopal consecrations, the necessity of the Papal approval have been confirmed over and over again, especially against the schismatics, by several Popes and theologians. One wishes to ask with the Roman liturgy: Habetis mandatum Apostolicum?"
What question can there be, when the Code of Canon Law speaks so plainly:
Canon 329: "Bishops are the successors of the Apostles and by divine institution are placed over particular churches which they govern with ordinary jurisdiction under the authority of the Roman Pontiff. They are freely appointed by the Roman Pontiff."
It is tantamount to understand the meaning of Papal approval as explained by SRE Cardinal Charles Journet's ecclesiological treatise, where the scholarly author quotes Leo' XIII. encyclical Satis Cognitum of the 29th June 1896 as well as St. Thomas in his commentary on the Sentences in support:
"When a Pope is created the electors merely designate the person, and it is Christ who then confers on him immediately his dignity and power. But, when the Sovereign Pontiff, either of himself or through others, invests bishops, the proper jurisdiction they receive does not come to them directly from God, it comes directly from the Sovereign Pontiff to whom Christ gives it in a plenary manner, and from whom it comes down to the bishops: somewhat after the manner of the life-pulse that begins in the heart and is transmitted thence to the other organs. And that is why the Sovereign Pontiff must not be conceived as merely designating bishops who then receive directly from Christ their proper and ordinary authority; but as himself conferring the episcopal authority, having first received it from Christ in an eminent form." (loc. cit. given supra by Hobbledehoy, p. 404)
The Pope is himself conferring the the authority! How can authority now be granted, without the See of Peter being occupied?
Great thanks must be given to Pope Pius XII., who settled any controversy that there might have been once and for all.
"For it has been clearly and expressly laid down in the canons that it pertains to the one Apostolic See to judge whether a person is fit for the dignity and burden of the episcopacy, and that complete freedom in the nomination of bishops is the right of the Roman Pontiff. But if, as happens at times, some other persons or groups are permitted to participate in the selection of an episcopal candidate, this is lawful only if the Apostolic See has allowed it in express terms and in each particular case for clearly defined persons or groups, the conditions and circumstances being very plainly determined. Granted this exception, it follows that bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis…"
"And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: "The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity." (Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum principis, 29 June 1958)
"…the power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine rights, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successor of St. Peter..." Pius XII, Ad Sinarum gentem, 7 October 1954)
That this is not a new doctrine can be seen from the Fathers of the Church till modern times, once again pronounced by another Pontiff:
" …this power of giving jurisdiction as a consequence of a new practice established now for several centuries and confirmed by general councils and even by concordats, has returned to its point of origin and does not belong in any way to metropolitans, but resides solely in the Apostolic See. So today the Pope as a duty of his office appoints bishops for each of the churches, and no lawful consecration may take place in the entire Catholic Church without the order of the Apostolic See." (Pope Pius VI, apostolic letter "Caritas", 13th April 1791, quoting Trent, session 24, chap. 1, de Reformat.)
Numerous passages could be quoted, numerous theologians, Msgr. Fenton, for example, in recent times:
"There is another important item on which the Mystici Corporis Christi issues a doctrinal decision. Prior to the issuance of this encyclical Catholic theologians had debated as to whether the residential bishops of the Catholic Church derived their power of jurisdiction immediately from Our Lord or from Him through the Roman Pontiff. In this document, Pope Pius XII took occasion to speak of the Bishops' power of jurisdiction and he described it as something "which they receive directly (immediate) from the same Supreme Pontiff." In the edition of his Institutiones Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici which came out after the issuance of the Mystici Corporis Christi, Cardinal Ottaviani took occasion to state that this teaching, which had hitherto been considered up until this time as more probable, and even as common doctrine, must now be accepted as entirely certain by reason of the words of the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII." (Pope Pius XII and the Theological Treatise on the Church, taken from "The American Ecclesiastical Review" December, 1958)
To sum up the principle, striping all canonical and circumstantial flesh from the bones of the Churches particular teachings: The formal element of Apostolicity, the episcopal mission, comes from the Supreme Pontiff, directly or by delegation.
To the present day, contrary examples in history or authoritative teachings could not be shown.
If you are a theologian, you truly pray, and if you truly pray, you are a theologian. - Evagrius Ponticus
All these quotes above have been brought to you before.
You might wish to consult John Daly, who did write for the Four Marks and has a lot of expertise in this area.
Oh, and to answer for SJB (I hope you don't mind!): Yes, the express or delegated will of the Supreme Pontiff is necessary for conferring episcopal jurisdiction.
have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis…"
Thak you for your dispassionate response.
Have our current bishops been consecrated in defiance of its expressed orders?
Are they unecessary, schismatic, heretical?
Can you answer the below question "yes" or "no". If "yes" can you provide a specific quote that states this clearly.
Do they need the expressed consent of a Pope to be formally Apostolic?
Quote from: Lover of Truth
The answer "yes" is summoned up best in Canon 329: "Bishops are the successors of the Apostles[...] They are freely appointed by the Roman Pontiff."
In light of the recent teachings, canonical decisions and theological opinions, no additional past participle is necessary to explain the consent of the Pope. The Popes will is sufficiently expressed, when a e.g. a subordinate is given leave to participate in the teaching capacities of the Holy See, as a Prefect of the Holy Office, or more fitting in this context, when a Patriarch is given the permission to chose and consecrate a successor for a suffragan See.
To cast away any doubt, one might ask the opposite question: Was there ever any bishop considered to be part of the Apostolic Hierarchy, when he was consecrated without the consent of a Pope? I don't think so.
By the way, dear Hobbledehoy, would you mind to look up what Card. Gasparri has to say about this specific Canon?
Quote from: Pyrrhos
I'm don't mind at all and am glad you responded.
Here are quotes from Van Noort that seem to contradict your response:
To be able to do this, we state, they must be adopted by the authority of the supreme pontiff. Adoption (assumption) is a short form standing for "adoption or assumption into the corporate body of the pastors of the Church." It designates the factor by which the formal admittance of a selected or elected candidate is brought to its final conclusion. We use the phrase, "by the authority of the pope," to indicate that a direct, personal intervention by the pope is not necessarily required.
So long as the adoption be done by someone to whom the pope has entrusted the task (regardless of the precise way in which the pope commissions him to do so), or in accord with regulations already established or approved by the pope.
The objection is raised: in ancient times the popes did not intervene in any way at all in the selection of bishops. That they did not always intervene directly and by explicit consent is granted;
That they did not intervene at all, not even mediately and by legal consent we deny.
Still, keeping in mind Catholic principles, it is fair enough to reconstruct the process somewhat as follows. The apostles and their principal aides, in accord with Peter's consent and will, both selected the first bishops, and decreed that thereafter when sees became vacant the vacancy should be taken care of in some satisfactory way, and in a way which at the very least would not be without the intervention of the neighboring bishops.
As often, therefore, in accord with this process, established with Peter's approval, a new bishop was constituted in the early Church, Peter's authority ratified that selection implicitly.
Later on, when ecclesiastical affairs were arranged more precisely by positive law, [this speaks to the positive law and not the doctrine, correct? j.g.] the patriarchs in the Eastern churches and the metropolitans in the Western churches used to establish the bishops; but they did so only in virtue of the authority of the Apostolic See by which they themselves had been established, even though in a variety of ways.
Did the original bishops consecrate our bishops "in virtue of the authority of the Apostolic See"? Did they not have that authority? Could they pass that authority on. When there is no Pope, it is the only authority left, the authority given by a valid Pope to the consecrators of our Bishops. Did not Thuc and Lefebvre have that authority?
Finally, in later centuries the matter of establishing bishops was set up in different fashion; indeed in such a way that in the Latin church especially, the direct intervention of the Roman pontiff was required. For details in this matter, consult the canonists.
So eventually it was "set up" in a "different" way. So this does not pertain to the doctrine either. To understand this properly we have to consult the canonists. Do we have an authentic canonist to clarify?
as far as each one's own diocese is concerned, they [the bishops] each and all as true Shepherds [are the traditional bishops not true shephereds?] feed the flocks entrusted to them and rule them in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are duly subordinate to the authority of the Roman Pontiff; and although their jurisdiction is inherent in their office, yet they receive it directly from the same Supreme Pontiff. – MCC 52; italic ours.
Are our current bishops not subordinate to the "authority" of the Papacy or the "Roman Pontiff" when there is one?
I believe our bishops, because they are Catholic, and doing what the Catholic Church does, by preserving the Church through her Bishops, and since they are not schismatic in any way but subordinate to the Papacy have the "Peter's approval" at least "implicitly". They are not setting up a Church against the Catholic Church, which is what the doctrine protects against but continuing the Church. And in the needed way as can be shown by what follows:
The large letters are simply to make sure that you do not miss it and that you address it. :smile:
I like that quote. I believe "in ancient times" this was frequently done.
I don't think the doctrine forbids Catholic Bishops from continuing the Apostolic Church. It forbids none-Catholics from doing this, or Catholics doing it against the expressed will of the Pope.
I believe the Apostolic Church is something we should be able to point to.
Can you point it out for us? This is not meant to be sarcastic. Or to pin you down in a nasty way. You could respond that it is not necessary to be able to point it out, but you would have to explain why that is so.
Thanks again for your patience.
Here are quotes from Van Noort that seem to contradict your response...
I don't believe van Noort contradicts me, but of course I would yield gladly to a theologian of such great renown.
As I alluded to elsewhere, the expressed consent of the Pope is not equal to his personal intervention in any matter. There are many decisions from the Holy See where the Pope had no personal part in, nevertheless, it is done with his consent.
On the Bellarmine Forums, John Daly, whom I mentioned before, quoted a historian (Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:08 pm):
Is There a Historical Precedent for Episcopal Consecrations without the Mandate of the Holy See ?
1. First of all, a very important precision :
It is quite certain that for some centuries the Holy See did not take part in the election and consecration of many bishops...
However, this by no means casts doubt on the crucial need for the apostolic mandate. This is because:
"Even when, as occurs in some cases, persons or groups of persons other than the Pope are permitted to intervene in some way in the choice of a candidate for the episcopate, this is legitimate only in virtue of some grant—express and particular—made by the Holy See in favour of some clearly determined persons or groups, in conditions and circumstances clearly specified." (Pius XII, encyclical Ad Sinarum Gentem, 7th October 1954.)
2. The Case of Saint Eusebius of Samosata
The following is the only historical source which some persons have considered as sufficient foundation for stating that Saint Eusebius of Samosata undertook unauthorised episcopal consecrations:
"He [the emperor Valens] began by relegating Pelagius to Arabia, then he relegated the saintly Meletius to Armenia, and finally he relegated Eusebius, sweat-drenched by his apostolic labours, to Thrace. Upon learning that many churches were bereft of pastors, the latter [i.e. Eusebius], clad in the costume of a soldier and wearing a turban on his head, travelled throughout Syria, Phœnicia and Palestine, laying hands on priests and deacons; if there were bishops who shared his opinion, he also designated chiefs in favour of those churches which needed them."
(Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, Vth century)
"...he also designated chiefs in favour of those churches which needed them."
1. Does this expression necessarily refer to episcopal consecration ?
2. Even on the hypothesis that it does indeed refer to episcopal consecrations…
…what source of information informs us that they were carried out in conflict with the canonical norms then in force in Syria, Phœnicia and Palestine, three sub-provinces belonging to the same eparchy (ecclesiastical province)?
It is know that the canonical norms then in force in that region required that the bishop be consecrated and receive jurisdiction with the assent of the bishops of the heptarchy.
But Theodoret specifically mentions that Eusebius had recourse to other bishops : "if there were bishops who shared his opinion, he also designated chiefs in favour of those churches which needed them."
Thus the evidence provided by Theodoret of Cyrrhus does not prove that Eusebius carried out uncanonical or unauthorised episcopal consecrations. As it is the only known evidence bearing on the subject, it remains perfectly reasonable to hold that he did no such thing.
Cf. Frère A.-M. Lenoir, "Saint Eusèbe de Samosate et les consécrations épiscopales en Syrie au IVème siècle", in Sedes Sapientiae, nn° 22 et 23 (automne 1987 et hiver 1988).
I personally do no longer hold the sedevacantist thesis, so for me the Apostolic Church is the Roman Church under Benedict XVI., to "point it out for you".
I also don't know how any implicit consent would help you out, as there is no successor of St. Peter, according to the SV thesis, to begin with. In any case, the question of implicit or explicit will is more of a minute matter, even quibbleism, where the main flaw in your argumentation lies within the understand about Apostolicity, Apostolic Succession and the manner it is transferred.
If the traditionalist bishops today were Successors of the Apostles, they would also have a specific jurisdiction of a place. Surely St. Peter willed a successor for, let's say, Aquileia, as he himself established the See and gave the rights to the clergy of people of the place to chose an successor. This is still expressed consent.
But when a Bishop without or outside of his jurisdiction, as Archbishop Lefebvre, consecrates without consent of a Pope wandering bishops who also did not nor will receive jurisdiction, then there is a problem.
Some even go as far as to say it might invalidate the consecration, as jurisdiction is something essential to the nature of an ἐπίσκοπος.
Jurisdiction, Missio needs to come from somewhere. That it flows from the Roman Pontiff is established as theologically certain. But without the Roman Pontiff, nobody can receive a Mission, this is quite easy and clear.
If if were true otherwise, we would have no need of Peter, falling into the error of the mentioned Hussites, Episcopalians et alia.
Unfortunately I do not have the time and unfortunate events robbed me of my library (literally!) to answer more for today. That's why I did not even want to start in the beginning, but I just could not resist, uh!
Well you are to be commended for taken the time out to try to respond. Looking at your answer it is not so cut and dry as people would wish. For instance, because of this issue you are not allowed to accept the divine law that a public heretic cannot be Pope or you have to deny that Ratzinger is a public heretic and you have to accept V2 and all the rest. That is where intepreting the doctrine incorrectly does.
It does forbid precisely that, because they cannot continue the Apostolic Church without receiving their Missio as formal constituent of their Apostolicity.
At which point to you believe Apostolic Succession is conferred? It is not a matter of Order, but of Jurisdiction and Order.
The matter of whether Jurisdiction comes from Our Lord directly or through mediation of Peter is not even relevant, as the Rev. Fr. Billot pointed out in his celebrated work "De Ecclesia":
Nam et illi theologi qui episcopalem iurisdictionem immediate a Deo derivari volunt, adhuc
eam sine dubio dicunt a Deo conferri cum vera et plena dependentia a Summo Pontifice. (Tom. 1, Rome 1909, Questio XV. De Episcopis, p. 691)
The necessity of Papal approval, which you admit to concede but exclude from the transmission of ordinary jurisdiction, is expounded by Canon Law and virtually all commentators of Canon Law. For a perhaps more detailed answer, Hobbledehoy will consult the Fontes of the Code by Card. Gasparri. One example would be Fr. Augustine OSB Commentary, published by Herder in London, 1918:
From this we must conclude that whereas the potestas ordinis is equal in the bishops and the Pope, the latter is superior to the bishops as to the potestas iurisdictionis; (2) that bishops are superior to ordinary priests both in power, order, and jurisdiction. These conclusions are de fide [...] by virtue of their episcopal consecration, bishops are radically (aptitudinaliter)
qualified to rule a diocese assigned to them by the Pope. Jurisdiction, of course, no matter how we conceive it to be conferred, whether immediately by God through consecration,
or mediately through the Pope, can neither validly nor licitly be exercised without a canonical mission, which, on account of the monarchical principle of the Church, must be imparted by the supreme head. (p. 342)
Before the approval of the Holy See, any nominated, even already consecrated candidate to a Cathedra does not possess any jurisdiction (cf. Const. "Apostolicae Sedis", 12 October, 1869, V, i; "Collectanea", no. 1002), but then immediately and even without inthronization or consecration.
Further, "it is certain", expounds Rev. Fr. Billot SJ:
"[A]d hierarchiam iurisdictionis divinitus institutam illi soli pertinent, qui ex praescripto divinae constitutionis Ecclesiae, in ipsa Ecclesia praesunt cum iurisdictione propria atque ordinaria." (op. cit., p. 696)
Not even in ordinary times, Bishops without jurisdiction, prelates nullius, heads of congregations or parochial priests are part of the Churches hierarchy. Much less our present day traditionalist clergy!
Nobody but the heretics and schismatics, foremost the Gallicanists and Febronians, have ever taught that jurisdiction is passed down by other bishops. This opinion is censured in the most grave manner by Pope Pius VI. in his brief, "Super soliditate," Nov. 28, 1786 (D 1500):
All the more must be deplored that blind and rash temerity of the man who was eager to renew in his unfortunate book errors which have been condemned by so many decrees, who has said and insinuated indiscriminately by many ambiguities, that every bishop, no less than the pope, was called by God to govern the Church, and was endowed with no less power; that Christ gave the same power Himself to all the apostles; and that whatever some people believe is obtained and granted only by the pope, that very thing, whether it depends on consecration or ecclesiastical jurisdiction, can be obtained just as well from any bishop.
These men, Febronians and Gallicanists, were Catholics, even enthroned in the most noble and ancient Sees on the other side of the Alps. It is not a matter of "non-Catholics", who are forbidden to ordain and consecrate as they please, but it precisely what makes us Catholic, only to adhere to those Bishops which have been set before us by the rightful authority of the Pope.
The Pope cannot be taken out of the equation, may it be in times of a vacancy or not.
PS: Also, I do not concede that Ratzinger is a public heretic and I accept the Second Vatican Council. But for the sake of argument, I accept the sedevacantist premise, to which I adheared to for several years.


Though perfectly at home indoors, our Diamond Indoor/Outdoor Rug can survive the great outdoors since made of heroic 100% Polypropolene. The Diamond pattern is equally at home in traditional or modern interiors and we have even used these great looking rugs to upholster ottomans or kitchen bar-stool seats. Options for stair runners as well.


Save up to 80% on pre-owned Alaris/Cardinal Imed Gemini PC-4 infusion pumps.
With new, fully charged batteries, approximately 4 hours with All four channels infusing as primary infusion at 125 ml/hr before a "BATTERY DISCHARGED" message.
Note: Recommended maximum rate in the Controller Mode is 500 ml/hr.
10±2 psi (517 ± 103 mmHg) for rates above 30 ml/hr. For rates of 30 ml/hr and below, the occlusion pressure will be less than 10 psi, an is rate-dependent.
25 - 517 mmHg in 25 mmHg increments to 500 mmHg.


The rise of protectionism among G20 countries is pushing up tariffs on exports, thus slowing down global trade, said Michael Debabrata Patra, Executive Director, RBI.
"The biggest engine of globalisation is global trade, which is now under threat due to protectionism. It drastically slows down the global economy and prevents further growth," said Patra at Kristu Jayanti College here.
Talking about the lingering effects of the global financial crisis of 2008, he said: "The period 2000-07 was considered the golden era for the global economy. But the financial crisis of 2008 was the worst since the economic depression of 1930.
However, India recovered comparatively sooner from the collapse due to strategically encouraging foreign investment, he said. India has a vast reserve and could potentially hold its own in the case of another crisis, he added.
"India contributes to about one-seventh of the world growth, thus it is estimated that by 2030, India will overtake China as the world's largest economy," he said.


Hazmat Training with Sheridan Fire-Rescue.
Sheridan Fire-Rescue Department participated in hazmat training on Thursday, Oct. 18, 2018.
Fireman Chad Brutlog suits up for hazmat training Thursday, Oct. 18, 2018.
Fireman Jerry Johnston fixes a towel underneath the strap of his oxygen mask so he can wipe off steam and condinsation from the inside of his hazmat suit making it easier to see during training simulations Thursday, Oct. 18, 2018.
During a hazmat training drill on Thursday, Oct. 18, 2018, firefighters Jon Srying and Mark Galloway install a B-kit on a one ton chlorine tank similar to those found at water treatment plants which seals off any gas leaks.
Jerry Johnston and Chad Brutlog of the Sheridan Fire Department install an A-kit which seals off a chlorine leak on a 150 pound tank during hazmat training Thursday, Oct. 18, 2018.
Chad Brutlog, left and Jerry Johnston, right during a hazmat training simulation Thursday, Oct. 18, 2018. The green light visible in Johnston's suit is an oxygen moniter. If the firefighter stands still for to long an alarm sounds that gets continuously louder, alerting other firefighters that someone may be injured or out of oxygen.
Andy Fried and Andy Linberg of the Sheridan Fire Deparment work on a plugging and patching exercise during hazmat training Thursday, Oct. 18, 2018.


text:
Site: Kilcolman
Name: Kilcolman (Cill na gColm�n) CISP No: MAUIG
Place: Maumanorig (M�m an Oraigh) Grid Ref: Q 386 18 (IR)
Parish: Corkaguiney Stones: 1
County: Kerry (Ciarra�) , Ireland Saint(s): none
Site Type: ecclesiastical
Cuppage et al/1986, 332--333: `An Early Christian church site lying on the S slopes of an E--W spur of Lateevemore, overlooking Ventry Harbour. It consists of a circular enclosure within which are the reputed site of a church (1), the foundations of a least two huts (2) and a number of graves and gravemarkers (3) which probably relate to the use of the site, until the 19th century, as a calluragh burial ground (OSNB Marhin, 14). Also within the site are a cross-inscribed ogham stone (4), a small cross inscribed stone (5), a holed stone (6) and 3 bullaun stones (7). Another cross-inscribed stone (8) has been incorporated into the lane boundary wall on the N side of the field in which the enclosure is situated, and S of the enclosure is a holy well (9) dedicated to St. Brendan.
The enclosure, 44m N--S x 47m E--W internally, is defined by an earthen bank, faced in parts with drystone walling, and overlain or replaced in sections by modern stone walls. The SW sector is defined by a straight field wall but a slight platform outside probably indicates the original outline. Where best preserved the bank averages about 1m in height. A narrow terrace outside the S part of the enclosure is revetted on its downward edge with drystone masonry. There is a 2m wide entrance gap at NW. The interior slopes downhill to SW but is divided E--W into an upper and lower terrace by a low meandering scarp'.
Cuppage/etal/1986 332--334 map substantial discussion
MAUIG/1 "ANM COLMAN AILITHIR O.L.Th." (reading by Macalister, R.A.S.)


I've just bought MainConcept DV Codec 2.4.4 and cannot get it to work in T. The sound captures perfectly, but I only get black video. When I create an MC DV file in After Effects it plays back in T fine. I know I'm not doing anything silly like recording the wrong bus, because it works OK for RTV capture and the standard DV capture.


hi there, I found a link to your blog from Decor8. Great find - I've been thinking about adding color to the kitchen but I've been too lazy to paint (even though it's your typical nyc size!). Thanks for sharing.
Thanks marichelle! keep checking in for more stuff!


text:
Illiniwka (; ) ist ein Dorf in der ukrainischen Oblast Donezk mit etwa 1000 Einwohnern.

Das Dorf liegt am Fluss Dowha (Довга), 27 km südlich vom Rajonszentrum Kramatorsk und 55 Kilometer nördlich vom Oblastzentrum Donezk entfernt.

Es trug früher den Namen Krasnyj Horodok und lag ab 1802 im russischen Gouvernement Jekaterinoslaw, war ab 1923 ein Teil der Ukrainischen SSR, seit 1991 dann Teil der heutigen Ukraine.

Bis zum 4. Februar 2016 trug er den ukrainischen Namen Illitscha (Ілліча) bzw. russisch Iljitscha (Ильича).

Verwaltungsgliederung
Am 2. August 2016 wurde das Dorf zum Zentrum der neugegründeten Landgemeinde Illiniwka (/Illiniwska silska silska hromada), zu dieser zählten auch die 19 in der untenstehenden Tabelle aufgelisteten Dörfer sowie die 5 Ansiedlungen Berestok, Dowha Balka, Kleban-Byk, Roskischne und Sorja, bis dahin bildete es zusammen mit der Ansiedlung Berestok die gleichnamige Landratsgemeinde Illiniwka (Іллінівська сільська рада/Illiniwska silska rada) im Zentrum des Rajons Kostjantyniwka.

Seit dem 17. Juli 2020 ist sie ein Teil des Rajons Kramatorsk.

Folgende Orte sind neben dem Hauptort Illiniwka Teil der Gemeinde:

Weblinks
 Webseite der Landratsgemeinde (ukrainisch)

Einzelnachweise

Ort in der Oblast Donezk
Rajon Kramatorsk