The god of surprises vs. the Tradition on Feet Washing

Just today, the Congregation of Divine Worship, at the command of Pope Francis, has decreed that women must be included in the Mandatum, that is the washing of the feet for Holy Thursday, effective this year. Thus, the god of surprises has come to visit us just in time for Septuagesima and the beginning of Lent.

There are lot’s of things to say, but the most important thing is to treat it dispassionately and in union with the Tradition. Pope Francis has said that those who resist change are closed to the working of the spirit, who cling to the way things have always been done are closed to the message of the Gospel. In spite of the twisting of the sense of Scripture in that particular discussion (my basis for which is the original Italian of Francis’ words, not some media report), let’s give him that for the moment. He posits a dichotomy of those who only want to do things the way things were, vs. those who want to apply new things. Thus we don’t receive a teaching and a praxis conditioned by the tradition of signs and symbols that lead us to Christ, to the teaching of the Gospel and the very person of Christ, but rather to the whims of this or that age. What is new and hip and inclusive in our age will be outmoded in the next age.

Moreover, the opposition is not comprised of those who say we must do everything as it has always been done, but that there is a reason why things have been done this way. Thus, the onus is on the Pope to explain why something in the traditional signs and symbols is somehow insufficient to express the reality of the Gospel. The problem is, he prescinds from this, and simply characterizes the opposition as a stick in the mud. It is one thing if he were to show how the traditional signs and symbols were insufficient for some reason, this is possible and the Church is in fact always in need of renewal. But can he show the use of men alone is somehow opposed to the expression of the Gospel?

The practice of washing the feet of men is supposed to express the relationship of Christ with his Apostles, not merely with the Christian community. Still, for all that, there is ample testimony of the Fathers that could be applied also to the community of the faithful, including examples where women’s feet were washed by the Bishop, just not during the Maundy Thursday liturgy. But then again, that might be too much the way things have always been done. The teaching of the Fathers on the question is well summarized by Cornelius á Lapide, in his commentary on the relevant passage of the Gospel (John XIII:6-10), which will suffice for our purposes here: [NB: My translation. There is a very good translation of this available from Loretto, but I do not have it at hand]

“St. Bernard understands in this place as if it were a  sacrament, a symbol, a type, a figure, a mystical meaning as he explains a little after, on which we will say more soon.
Symbolicly, Origen and St. Jerome [epist. ad Damasus, de prima visione Isaiae] reckon that Christ washed the feet of the Apostles in order that he might prepare them to preach the Gospel, according to what is said: ‘How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that brings good tidings, and that preaches peace: of him that shows forth good!’ [Isaiah LII:7; Rom. X:15].
Secondly, S. Ambrose, [de iis qui initiantur mysteriis, cap. vi] reckons that Christ in baptism washes away actual sins by washing the head, but here by washing the feet, he washed the remnant of original sin, that is, the motion of concupiscence, for in this washing of the feet, it is effected to have fortified them so that they would resist concupiscence.
Thirdly, St. Augustine and St. Bernard [de Cœna Domini] say: “By such feet we tread over the earth, the love of the earth is signified, filth and defects, which, while on earth, that is while we live among earthly affairs, just as the dust or mud on our feet it behooves us to wash by tears and penance, especially before holy communion.
Fourthly, St. Cyprian [de Cœna Domini] and St. Gregory [lib. ix epist. 39]: “Of the feet, which are the lowest and last part of man, the washing means not only that we must scrutinize our exterior works, but that we must descend even to the lowest and most intimate hidden corners of our conscience, and purge them from every secret stain and wicked intention through contrition, tears and groans.
From this washing of the feet by Christ, the custom of Milan, and several other churches, sprung up that the Bishop would wash those who were going to be baptized, and thereafter the priests and clerics in the font, who stood straight for this purpose outside the Church; thereafter the Bishop kissed the feet of those he washed, and they placed the outer part of the foot over the head of the bishop. St. Ambrose relates and defends this custom [lib. III de Sacram. cap. 1] and says that it was begun by St. Peter and Christ, wherefore he marvels that it is not kept in the Roman Church. Moreover, the Council of Toledo [XVII, cap. iii] ratifies that the Bishops and priests should wash the feet of the faithful at the Lord’s supper after the example of Christ, and commands the use which had ceased for a while to be recalled.
St. Ambrose relates the mystical nature of this washing [lib. De initiandis, cap. VI] saying: “Peter was clean, but ought to wash the sole [of the foot] : for he had the sin of the first man by succession, when the serpent supplanted it and persuaded error; therefore his sole is washed so that hereditary sins would be abolished.” He alludes to those words of God to the serpent concerning man: “Thou shall lie in wait for his heal,” [Genes. III:15]. The same Ambrose [lib. III de Sacram., cap. 1] says: “Because Adam was supplanted by the devil, and the poison flowing into him and over his feet, therefore you wash the feet so that in that part, in which the serpent lies in wait, shall come upon a greater sanctification, in which afterward he cannot supplant you. Therefore you wash the feet, so that you wash the poison of the serpent. Moreover, it will effect humility, so that you will not blush in the mystery, that we will not disdain obedience.”
Another reason was more literal, because formerly those to be baptized approached with naked feet, that they would conduct themselves with humility. For that reason, this nakedness of the feet is called humility by St. Augustine [lib. de Symbolo ad Catech., cap. 1]; because they will wash the filth that has been contracted on the feet. This custom began to spread from the Church of Milan to others, as is clear from St. Augustine.”

Now, we could go on at length with many more testimonies to the same thing. What we can see is that the objections of some, that the priest will kiss a woman’s foot at the mandatum, was not a problem for St. Ambrose and the fathers of other churches where this custom spread to. Then again, the culture was not as over-sexualized as it is today where you have foot fetishes and other things of immoderate men. I don’t know if such a thought would occur to most priests, but it may to some laity. So if Francis wanted to overturn the custom prevailing in all Churches of only washing men’s feet, he could appeal to this example in the Fathers, that such washings were done from the Lord’s example for the community (men and women) who were to be baptized, and then he might have some ground to stand on in terms of uniting this symbol at the liturgy with the example of antiquity. But then his notion of mercy, trumpeted so much at the last synod in regard to public adulterers, could be exposed to attack by the same example. Again from á Lapide, on John XIII:10:

“Mark, here Christ alludes to those who wash themselves in a bath, who go out from it with their whole body being cleansed, but because they tread upon the earth with their naked feet, therefore they might say the feet, for that reason alone are washed afterward. Mark secondly, Christ speaks anagogically [that is, in regard to man’s final state] that by his custom they rise from corporal washing to a spiritual one, in other words, one who is washed is done so spiritually through baptism, in which I have washed you, O Apostles, or one who is washed through contrition and penance, here is wholly clean in soul, but still needs that he wash only his feet, that is the affects of the soul, again by reason of earthly things, in which they live, are stained by contagion and contract light filth that they must often purge through contrition, castigation of the body and like virtues (of which this my washing is a symbol), and especially before the Sacred Liturgy and reception of the Eucharist. Thus St. Augustine, Bede, and especially St. Bernard [serm. In Cœna Domini] say: “He who is washed, needs nothing but that he should wash the feet. He is washed, who does not have grave sins, whose head, that is intention, and hand, that is the operation and good life, is clean; but the feet, which are the affections of the soul, while we step in this dust, from the whole cannot be of the world, which at some time tread in vanity, lust or curiosity, it rather more behooves the soul that it should fall even now. For we all offend in many things. But no man scorns or slights. For it is impossible to be saved by those, it is impossible that I have washed except through Christ Jesus, and by Christ.”

Whereas, directly contradicting what Christ said, that he who divorces his wife and marries another (Matt. XIX) commits adultery, can that be said to be a light matter? Not a grave sin?

Nevertheless, picking up in the next paragraph with Lapide, we see the relationship of Christ with the Apostles:

“Therefore, Christ, in this washing of the feet of Peter and the Apostles cleanses sins, especially venial ones, because through that and only through His forgiveness does he goad their minds, and admonished them by making internal washing through contrition in their souls, through which venial sins are expiated.
For this reason, priests in the OT washed their feet and hands before the sacrifice, as I have already said. Likewise, many heathen did the same thing, as Brissonius recalls [lib. I De Formulis Roman., pag. 4]. Formerly the Jews did the same thing, as is clear from Mark VII:4, and they still do the same thing today.
Next, St. Augustine [epist. 108 ad Seleucianum] from “qui lotus est“, probably gathers that Peter and the Apostles were baptized before the Eucharist, then because no man has the capacity for the Eucharist unless he has been baptized, for after His death he baptized no man, it is certain that they were all either immediately or mediately baptized by Christ. Then, the “washing” would probably have been the washing done in baptism.”

Thus, the relationship expressed in the washing of the feet of the Apostles by Christ, is not just of a hierarchical relationship, though that is properly one aspect, but one of the intimate communion that his Apostles, as priests conformed to Christ’s very person, share with him in spite of their human nature. They are washed as preparation for becoming priests of the new and eternal covenant, of which baptism is necessary, that is being put to death to the world, and born anew in Christ Jesus. The mandatum, as preserved and passed down in the sacred liturgy of Maundy Thursday, is intended to preserve this identification of Bishops and Priests as other Christs, being cleansed from sin and made unto him, whereas the early Church (as seen in St. Ambrose, St. Augustine and the Bishops of other Churches, as Lapide mentions) also sought to incorporate the symbol of the Bishop conformed to Christ, the suffering servant who is nonetheless God, in the rite of baptism.

As a side note, Catholics should take note that the practice of blessing themselves with Holy Water when they come into Church derives from this ancient practice, which is why the modern practice in many modern churches of removing the holy water during Lent an replacing it with sand is all the more inexplicable.

Now, as I noted, Pope Francis could overturn this particular tradition in the mandatum under the desire to emulate the Baptism of the faithful, but if that were the case he should give very clear reasons as to why the old symbol were inefficient to this, or why the expression of the priesthood as perfectly conformed to Christ as servants no longer satisfies and should be expressive of who we are today. In fact, the very purpose of liturgical symbols is to remind men of changing fashions what the symbols represent and call them back to the gospel—both clergy and laity—not to correspond to changing fashions. What Pope Francis has done, is to destroy a symbol without any particular reasoning or purpose apart from what seems inclusive for today. And therein lies the very problem. A protestant friend of mine very aptly encapsulated the faulty reasoning of this initiative in the following satire:

“I hereby propose that a reasonably accurate modern equivalent of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet would be Jesus doing their dishes. Harder to fit into the Maundy Thursday service, though.”

Could it be that Pope Francis is the one doing things the way they have always been done—since 1965?

Cardinal Franzelin on the Virgin Birth

Peter_Paul_Rubens_AnnunciationThere is no end of people today who argue that in the text in Isaiah: “Behold, a Virgin will conceive and bear a son,” the term “Virgin” merely means a young woman. This is not a new or clever argument, but is answered in the Church’s tradition. The best analysis I have seen, however, is Cardinal Franzelin, a peritus at Vatican I, whose work I present on this subject:

De Verbo Incarnato
Romae, 1902
Thesis XV, II

1) We ask in what way is the revelation that is consigned to the Scriptures disposed in regard to this chapter of doctrine. The principle place pertaining to this is the prophecy of Isaiah (Is. VII:14): “Behold a Virgin will conceive and bear a son, and his name will be called Emmanuel … which means God is with us,” as is added in Matthew’s Gospel (I:23). In Hebrew this is literally: “Behold a Virgin, herself pregnant and giving birth to a son, and she will declare his name (matter, being) ‘God is with us.’”

a) The prophecy refers to Christ and his Virgin mother; for it is clear from the nature or rather more from the divine and human natures of the son. Emmanuel is certainly a name, which no man in the Scriptures is said to have born, it was not imposed from the will or external circumstances, but denoted by a name through the biblical use of speech and its intimate nature which is preached. (cf. Is. IX:6) Meanwhile this also was omitted, the son Emmanuel (Is. VIII:8) is hence said to be he whose land is Israel, I say the promised messiah. [1] For this reason, the conception and birth of this Emmanuel should be declared to be above the laws of nature, on which we will speak a little later. Therefore, St. Matthew I:22-23, that argument alone suffices which he eloquently teaches that the prophecy pertains to Christ and his miraculous conception and birth. For that reason, both the Holy Fathers and all Christian interpreters understand this prophecy.

b) The mother of the Emmanuel is certainly called a Virgin, and with an article  παρθένος, to which the quality designated by this noun fits in a singular and excellent mode. For in six places, where besides this name is found, and the meaning present is no other than a Virgin: Genesis XXIV:3; Exodus II:8; Ps. LXVII (Heb. 68):26; Cant. I:3; VI:7; Prov. XXX:19.[2] Nay more, lest a very serious matter be reduced to the trifles of grammarians, the determination of the true sense of Isaiah in no way depends from the exclusive meaning of the name considered in itself; for in this place the mode is of a solemn announcement demands a singular prodigy, so necessarily the meaning of a virgin, lest the prayer would be inept. For this reason, the Jews even to the controversies against Christians (as it is clear from the Septuagint and from the manner of citing of St. Matthew), all Christians even to the birth of rationalism, understood the prophecy to be about Christ and his supernatural, miraculous conception from a Virgin. Lastly, again the very interpretation of the Evangelist (Matth. I:22, 23) is sufficient to prove this by itself.

c) With these being fixed already, the words: “Behold, a Virgin will conceive” necessarily must be understood in the sense composed both with Isaiah and most evidently with St. Matthew, where either from the Evangelist or from the appearance of the Angel to St. Joseph the prophecy is declared. But now, if this is conceded, no also the other word “and will give birth” necessarily must be understood in the same sense. Therefore both with Isaiah and Matthew, A virgin remaining a Virgin is said not only to conceive but also to give birth. Therefore, the most holy mother was revealed just as was  παρθένος. A Virgin through excellence before the conception and in the conception of the Emmanuel, so remained in the same integrity even in birth. What we say in the major and minor proposition, is clear in the first place from the words themselves, especially as and what is read in St. Matthew: “behold a Virgin herself (which the prophet looks to in the present) pregnant and giving birth.” Besides these words were advanced by Isaiah after he offered the choice to the king of a sign completed above the order of nature. When the king refused to ask for it, the prophet intended to prophecy a characteristic prodigy: “for that reason (because you refuse to ask) the Lord himself will give you a sign (worthy by his omnipotence and infinite wisdom); behold a Virgin, etc.” After dividing the sense, not only would he announce no miracle, but something common and obvious with solemnity of words, which would be unsuitable for a prudent man, much more a prophet; but in the composed sense, which words alone are advanced, he announces something contradictory according to the laws of nature, “a Virgin, pregnant and giving birth,” which, therefore, could be effected by the almighty alone, and duly is a miracle corresponding to the solemnity of the prophetic oration. Therefore, with Matthew it is thus proved that he was not only conceived, but also born virginally. The Evangelist enunciates two distinct facts, the conception without the work of man through the power of the Holy Spirit, and the birth of a son; both however are said to have come to pass, that the prophecy would be fulfilled about a Virgin pregnant and giving birth. Therefore with the witness of the Evangelist, just as the prophecy foretold a pregnant Virgin by a supernatural mode of conception without the loss of inviolate virginity, so the prophecy foretells the supernatural mode of birth in regard to the Virgin giving birth without wound to the same virginity.

It is certain, therefore, from revelation of a most intact virginity preserved even in birth is from the Scriptures themselves. That the very thing by reason could not be arranged in a dissimilar way from the narration of St. Luke; both because the words of the angel to the Virgin (Luke I:31) “Behold, you will conceive in the womb and bear a son,” are themselves an application of the prophecy of Isaiah, and therefore the name and quality of a virgin ought to be understood, and because solicitude for the blessed Virgin for preserving her virginity (v. 24: “how shall this be?”) is related to the whole thing which preceded “You will conceive and bear a son;” and also therefore, even the power of the Holy Spirit and the overshadowing of the most High (v. 35) in the response of the angel is extended to the preservation of her virginity in both, that is not only in the conception but even in birth.

[1] If we were to give, the son of king Achaz could absolutely be called in these very words: “thy land o Emmanuel,” certainly could not be meant of another among the sons of the king, unless he was going to succeed in rule. But this was certainly Ezechias, and he was not going to be born of time but was still a new adolescent at least in those years, as St. Jerome adverts, or duly more increased with the passing of years.

[2] In the last place some reckon it comes about that the name in Hebrew, in itself does not provide the meaning of virgin, but of any young girl. But even if by chance the noun there will mean abstractly a young girl for the Hebrew as well as for the Septuagint, Syriac and Latin interpreters, certainly it retains the meaning of virgin; for it means an unmarried girl, diligently guarded, to which it is clear no man has gone into her, unless someone procures for himself a very secret way by arts of deception. Thus: “There are three difficult things and the fourth I am altogether ignorant of (The Hebrew has there are three more wonderful things to take, and the fourth I know not): the way of the eagle in heaven, the way of the snake over the rock, the way of a boat in the midst of the sea, the way of a man in adolescence.” (In Hebrew the words can be read: the way of a man to a virgin.).

Interview 025 — Pope Boniface VIII and the decline of the medieval Papacy


Download [Right Click]       Play in New Window

Today Boniface of Unam Sanctam Catholicam rejoins us to talk about his blogger namesake, Pope Boniface VIII, his life and how politically he ushered in the end of the Medieval Papacy and the prestige it enjoyed from great Popes like Innocent III an Gregory VII, and more to the point, the beginning of the dissolution of Christendom. We also discuss the authority and implications of his famous Bull Unam Sanctam, and the positive aspects of Boniface VIII’s papacy in the establishment of Jubilee years.
NB: This was originally recorded on the feast of Christ the King on the Traditional Catholic Liturgical Calendar, but is actually published closer to the Feast of Christ the King on the 1970 Calendar.

If you like this or any of our podcasts, interviews, etc., which are provided for free, please consider donating as little as a $1. God bless you. paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

Books

The Rending of Christendom: Primary Source textbook
Philip the Fair and Boniface VIII

References

Unam Sanctam
1911 Catholic Encyclopedia Article on Boniface VIII
Sicilian Vespers
Agevin = Supporter of Charles of Anjou (i.e. French)
Guelphs and Gibbelines
Papal Interdict
Excommunication
Papal Legates
Edward I
Philip IV, “the Fair” of France
Analysis of The Bull Unam Sanctam
Inauguration of the Jubilee year

We also mentioned St. John Fisher a little bit. Here is a book treating the history and times of St. John Fisher in great detail, where you can see the discussion of Praemunire and many of the things that begin in Boniface VIII’s time in great detail:

John_fisher_Reynolds_frontSt. John Fisher: Reformer, Humanist, Martyr by E.E. Reynolds

Interview 024 – Constantine Molitor on the Persecution of the Church in Germany under the Third Reich


Download [Right Click]          Play in New Window

Priests lined up in Dachau, with the triangle denoting they are clergy.

Priests lined up in Dachau, with the triangle denoting they are clergy.

Today we are joined from Germany by Constantine Mollitor who gives the real story of the persecution of the Catholic Church by the Third Reich. In great detail, Constantine dispels the myth of “Hitler’s Pope” and other assorted nonsense with the real details of the Church’s resistance to, as well as persecution by the Nazi regime. Apart from the political and historical details of how the Nazi state broke up Catholic life in Germany, Constantine also shares the many stories of German priests sent to Dachau or other labor camps for upholding the Catholic Faith.

If you like this or any of our podcasts, interviews, etc., which are provided for free, please consider donating as little as a $1. God bless you. paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

Books

The Kings Depart: The Tragedy of Germany, Versailles and the German Revolution
Hitler’s War by David Irving (NB: Constantine did not recommend this book, but I did because of its erudition. You can ignore that Irving is a famous holocaust denier [though he was walked some of that back], because none of that is taken up in the book which was written before he went down that path and is only based on primary sources).
The Myth of Hitler’s Pope by Rabbi David Dahlan
Priestblock 25487: A Memoir of Dachau

German Books:

Kreuz und Hakenkreuz by Fr. Neuhaeusler
Erich Klausner (by Walter Adolph)
Geheime Aufzeichnungen (by Walter Adolph)

References

NB: Some links are to wikipedia, which is provided as a basis for research and acquiring more info, not as an end all and be all source of information, usually because it was one of the only pages available in English.
Jewish Groups oppose the Beatification and Canonization of Pius XII
860,000 Jews saved by Pius XII
Rosa Luxemburg
Karl Liebknecht
Freikorps
Bolshevik takeover
Dietrich Eckart – Thule Society
Munich Putsch, 9 November 1923/ Beer Hall Putsch
Reichskonkordat
Quote from Mit Brennender Sorge:
“When, in 1933, We consented, Venerable Brethren, to open negotiations for a concordat, which the Reich Government proposed on the basis of a scheme of several years’ standing; and when, to your unanimous satisfaction, We concluded the negotiations by a solemn treaty, We were prompted by the desire, as it behooved Us, to secure for Germany the freedom of the Church’s beneficent mission and the salvation of the souls in her care, as well as by the sincere wish to render the German people a service essential for its peaceful development and prosperity. Hence, despite many and grave misgivings, We then decided not to withhold Our consent for We wished to spare the Faithful of Germany, as far as it was humanly possible, the trials and difficulties they would have had to face, given the circumstances, had the negotiations fallen through. It was by acts that We wished to make it plain, Christ’s interests being Our sole object, that the pacific and maternal hand of the Church would be extended to anyone who did not actually refuse it.
If, then, the tree of peace, which we planted on German soil with the purest intention, has not brought forth the fruit, which in the interest of your people, We had fondly hoped, no one in the world who has eyes to see and ears to hear will be able to lay the blame on the Church and on her Head. The experiences of these last years have fixed responsibilities and laid bare intrigues, which from the outset only aimed at a war of extermination. In the furrows, where We tried to sow the seed of a sincere peace, other men — the “enemy” of Holy Scripture — oversowed the cockle of distrust, unrest, hatred, defamation, of a determined hostility overt or veiled, fed from many sources and wielding many tools, against Christ and His Church. They, and they alone with their accomplices, silent or vociferous, are today responsible, should the storm of religious war, instead of the rainbow of peace, blacken the German skies.” nos. 3-4

Cardinal Schulte, Bishop Klein, Archbishop Bertram condemned Nazi brutality in 1933
Cardinal Bertram (German, but readable with Google Translate)
Cardinal Faulhalber Archbishop of Munich-Freising, asked Hitler to release political prisoners in Dachau.
Catholic priests in Dachau.
SS members required to defend their honor in a duel
Nazi harassment of the Church: forbidding sermons, restricting processions, restriction of Masses
Anti-Catholic propaganda in SS Weekly newspaper Das Schwarze Korps
Der Stürmer, published by Julius Streicher.

Alleged alliance of Jews, Jesuits and Freemasons
Nazicartoons copy

Anti-Pacelli (Pius XII) political cartoons
nazicartoon1

Push for pan-denominational secular schools by the Nazis
Nazis eliminated Catholic schools by decree
Expropriations of Religious Houses
Nazi destruction of the Catholic press in Germany
Mitt Brennender Sorge
Nazi reaction to the encyclical
Maronite Catholic filmmaker jailed for making movie critical of Islam (in the US)
Nazis always hostile to Cardinal Pacelli
Praise for Pius XII by Jewish groups immediately following his election
Dutch Bishops condemned persecution of the Jews in Holland, and Nazis responded by deporting more Jews as well as Catholics of Jewish decent.
SS paratroopers planned to kidnap Pius XII in 1945.
Erich Klausner, killed for being a political Catholic
Blessed Jakob Gapp, Priest tricked by Nazis pretending to be Jews in need sent to concentration camp
Fr. Neururer martyr for marriage; warned a woman from marrying a local Nazi boss in Tyrol because he was divorced with no annulment. Died at Buchenwald: German; English
Fr. Häfner priest in Bavaria, made a Nazi party member publicly condemn his own divorce
Ordination of Blessed Karl Leisner in Dachau.
Carmelite convent removed from Auschwitz after protest from Israel
St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross
Bl. Titus Brandsma (pg. 3 of the document)
Other Jewish-Catholic Martyrs of the concentration camps
Beatified martyrs of the Communist persecution in Spain (in Spanish)
Lubeck Martyrs (Lutheran pastor was not beatified).
St. Maximillian Kolbe
St. Maximillian Kolbe accused of Anti-semitism for preaching Catholic teaching on Jewish conversion
The Play the “Deputy” shaped the negative perception of Pius XII, supported by the Soviets.

Interview 023 – Charles Coulombe on the English Civil War

Edgehill_english-civil-war

The Battle of Edgehill

Part 1

Download [Right Click]             Play in New Window

Part 2

Download [Right Click]           Play in New Window

Noted author and historian Charles Coulombe joins us again (You may recall him from Interview 20) to move a little further back in time to the layout of the modern world. 150 years before the French Revolution the English killed their king and made a revolution that changed our world, seemingly irrevocably. Charles traces the history of the conflict of the Three Kingdoms (England, Ireland and Scotland) from Henry VIII to the open war between King and Parliament that resulted in the supremacy of the state and the end of Tradition. Join us for a fascinating journey through figures as fascinating as King James I, George Villiers, Charles I, Henriette Marie, and most fatefully, Oliver Cromwell.
NB: This was originally recorded in late October, but I have been too busy to get this up as soon as I would have liked. My apologies to Charles who graciously gave his time for this interview.

If you like this or any of our podcasts, interviews, etc., which are provided for free, please consider donating as little as a $1. God bless you. paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

Resources

The English Civil War: Papists, Gentlewomen, Soldiers and Witchhunters by Diane Purkiss
The English Civil War
Cromwell
Edgehill
Marston More
Naseby
Prince Rupert: The Last Cavalier (fantastic book, if you only read one read this one).

Video
The English Civil War
Battlefield Britain: Naseby
Cromwell in Ireland (which we could not cover)
Cathedral: Rebellion at St. Giles

Ghost armies at Edgehill

Interview 022 – Calvin was Wrong on the Mike Church Show


Download [Right Click]          Play in New Window

Today I was interviewed for the Mike Church Show in his series “The Modern Wrong World made Right”, where we discuss the Reformation and my translation of St. Robert Bellarmine. We begin with a discussion of the Reformation and the stage before Bellarmine gets on the scene, and the arguments in Books 1-3 of On the Roman Pontiff.

Mike Church Website

Mediatrix Press

De Romano Pontifice in English

 

Interview 021 – Colin Corcoran on Death, Marriage and Family


Download  [Right Click]            Play in New Window

Today we are joined by Colin Corcoran, of “The Catholic Husband“, to share his conversion experience, as well as his thoughts on the struggle of Catholics in the trenches to fully live the sacrament of Matrimony in the difficult times. This is especially timely as the Synod continues to roll forward in Rome.

Interview Notes:

Chapters of Colin’s book “Beyond