Priest writes open letter to Catholics apologizing for his work in creating the Novus Ordo mass

An Open Letter to the Church
Renouncing my Service on I.C.E.L.

Related image

By Father Stephen Somerville, STL.

Dear Fellow Catholics in the Roman Rite,

1 – I am a priest who for over ten years collaborated in a work that became a notable harm to the Catholic Faith. I wish now to apologize before God and the Church and to renounce decisively my personal sharing in that damaging project. I am speaking of the official work of translating the new post-Vatican II Latin liturgy into the English language, when I was a member of the Advisory Board of the International Commission on English Liturgy (I.C.E.L.).

2 – I am a priest of the Archdiocese of Toronto, Canada, ordained in 1956. Fascinated by the Liturgy from early youth, I was singled out in 1964 to represent Canada on the newly constituted I.C.E.L. as a member of the Advisory Board. At 33 its youngest member, and awkwardly aware of my shortcomings in liturgiology and related disciplines, I soon felt perplexity before the bold mistranslations confidently proposed and pressed by the everstrengthening radical/progressive element in our group. I felt but could not articulate the wrongness of so many of our committee’s renderings.

3 – Let me illustrate briefly with a few examples. To the frequent greeting by the priest, The Lord be with you, the people traditionally answered, and with your (Thy) spirit: in Latin, Et cum spiritu tuo. But I.C.E.L. rewrote the answer: And also with you. This, besides having an overall trite sound, has added a redundant word, also. Worse, it has suppressed the word spirit which reminds us that we human beings have a spiritual soul. Furthermore, it has stopped the echo of four (inspired) uses of with your spirit in St. Paul’s letters.

4 – In the I confess of the penitential rite, I.C.E.L. eliminated the threefold through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault, and substituted one feeble through my own fault. This is another nail in the coffin of the sense of sin.

5 – Before Communion, we pray Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst (you should) enter under my roof. I.C.E.L. changed this to … not worthy to receive you. We loose the roof metaphor, clear echo of the Gospel (Matth. 8:8), and a vivid, concrete image for a child.

6 – I.C.E.L.’s changes amounted to true devastation especially in the oration prayers of the Mass. The Collect or Opening Prayer for Ordinary Sunday 21 will exemplify the damage. The Latin prayer, strictly translated, runs thus: O God, who make the minds of the faithful to be of one will, grant to your peoples (grace) to love that which you command and to desire that which you promise, so that, amidst worldly variety, our hearts may there be fixed where true joys are found.

7 – Here is the I.C.E.L. version, in use since 1973: Father, help us to seek the values that will bring us lasting joy in this changing world. In our desire for what you promise, make us one in mind and heart.

8 – Now a few comments: To call God Father is not customary in the Liturgy, except Our Father in the Lord’s prayer. Help us to seek implies that we could do this alone (Pelagian heresy) but would like some aid from God. Jesus teaches, without Me you can do nothing. The Latin prays grant (to us), not just help us. I.C.E.L.’s values suggests that secular buzzword, “values” that are currently popular, or politically correct, or changing from person to person, place to place. Lasting joy in this changing world, is impossible. In our desire presumes we already have the desire, but the Latin humbly prays for this. What you promise omits “what you (God) command”, thus weakening our sense of duty. Make us one in mind (and heart) is a new sentence, and appears as the main petition, yet not in coherence with what went before. The Latin rather teaches that uniting our minds is a constant work of God, to be achieved by our pondering his commandments and promises. Clearly, I.C.E.L. has written a new prayer. Does all this criticism matter? Profoundly! The Liturgy is our law of praying (lex orandi), and it forms our law of believing (lex credendi). If I.C.E.L. has changed our liturgy, it will change our faith. We see signs of this change and loss of faith all around us.

9 – The foregoing instances of weakening the Latin Catholic Liturgy prayers must suffice. There are certainly THOUSANDS OF MISTRANSLATIONS in the accumulated work of I.C.E.L. As the work progressed I became a more and more articulate critic. My term of office on the Advisory Board ended voluntarily about 1973, and I was named Member Emeritus and Consultant. As of this writing I renounce any lingering reality of this status.

10 – The I.C.E.L. labours were far from being all negative. I remember with appreciation the rich brotherly sharing, the growing fund of church knowledge, the Catholic presence in Rome and London and elswhere, the assisting at a day-session of Vatican II Council, the encounters with distinguished Christian personalities, and more besides. I gratefully acknowledge two fellow members of I.C.E.L. who saw then, so much more clearly than I, the right translating way to follow: the late Professor Herbert Finberg, and Fr. James Quinn S.J. of Edinburgh. Not for these positive features and persons do I renounce my I.C.E.L. past, but for the corrosion of Catholic Faith and of reverence to which I.C.E.L.’s work has contributed. And for this corrosion, however slight my personal part in it, I humbly and sincerely apologize to God and to Holy Church.

11 – Having just mentioned in passing the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), I now come to identify my other reason for renouncing my translating work on I.C.E.L. It is an even more serious and delicate matter. In the past year (from mid 2001), I have come to know with respect and admiration many traditional Catholics. These, being persons who have decided to return to pre-Vatican II Catholic Mass and Liturgy, and being distinct from “conservative” Catholics (those trying to retouch and improve the Novus Ordo Mass and Sacraments of post-Vatican II), these Traditionals, I say, have taught me a grave lesson. They brought to me a large number of published books and essays. These demonstrated cumulatively, in both scholarly and popular fashion, that the Second Vatican Council was early commandeered and manipulated and infected by modernist, liberalist, and protestantizing persons and ideas. These writings show further that the new liturgy produced by the Vatican “Concilium” group, under the late Archbishop A. Bugnini, was similarly infected. Especially the New Mass is problematic. It waters down the doctrine that the Eucharist is a true Sacrifice, not just a memorial. It weakens the truth of the Real Presence of Christ’s victim Body and Blood by demoting the Tabernacle to a corner, by reduced signs of reverence around the Consecration, by giving Communion in the hand, often of women, by cheapering the sacred vessels, by having used six Protestant experts (who disbelieve the Real Presence) in the preparation of the new rite, by encouraging the use of sacro-pop music with guitars, instead of Gregorian chant, and by still further novelties.

12 – Such a litany of defects suggests that many modern Masses are sacrilegious, and some could well be invalid. They certainly are less Catholic, and less apt to sustain Catholic Faith.

13 – Who are the authors of these published critiques of the Conciliar Church? Of the many names, let a few be noted as articulate, sober evaluators of the Council: Atila Sinka Guimaeres (In the Murky Waters of Vatican II), Romano Amerio (Iota Unum: A Study of the Changes in the Catholic Church in the 20th Century), Michael Davies (various books and booklets, TAN Books), and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, one the Council Fathers, who worked on the preparatory schemas for discussions, and has written many readable essays on Council and Mass (cf Angelus Press).

14 – Among traditional Catholics, the late Archbishop Lefebvre stands out because he founded the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), a strong society of priests (including six seminaries to date) for the celebration of the traditional Catholic liturgy. Many Catholics who are aware of this may share the opinion that he was excommunicated and that his followers are in schism. There are however solid authorities (including Cardinal Ratzinger, the top theologian in the Vatican) who hold that this is not so. SSPX declares itself fully Roman Catholic, recognizing Pope John Paul II while respectfully maintaining certain serious reservations.

15 – I thank the kindly reader for persevering with me thus far. Let it be clear that it is FOR THE FAITH that I am renouncing my association with I.C.E.L. and the changes in the Liturgy. It is FOR THE FAITH that one must recover Catholic liturgical tradition. It is not a matter of mere nostalgia or recoiling before bad taste.

16 – Dear non-traditional Catholic Reader, do not lightly put aside this letter. It is addressed to you, who must know that only the true Faith can save you, that eternal salvation depends on holy and grace- filled sacraments as preserved under Christ by His faithful Church. Pursue these grave questions with prayer and by serious reading, especially in the publications of the Society of St Pius X.

17 – Peace be with you. May Jesus and Mary grant to us all a Blessed Return and a Faithful Perseverance in our true Catholic home.

Rev Father Stephen F. Somerville, STL.

Father Sommerville returned to the traditional mass and church for the last 13 years of his life.

Funeral for Fr Stephen Somerville

January 14, 2016

Please pray for the repose of the soul of Fr. Stephen Somerville.

Fr. Somerville was a good priest who returned to the celebration of the Latin Mass for the last 13 years of his life.  He died on Saturday Dec. 12 – the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe.  May she welcome him into Heaven!

Fr. Somerville offered the traditional Mass many times at the Church of the Transfiguration in Toronto.  He was a talented pianist and he loved to sing.

Fr. Somerville served as chaplain to the traditional Dominican Sisters who run a girls’ boarding school in Massena, New York.  Four of the sisters attended his funeral.

Declining Slowly – I; Eleison Comments

Declining Slowly – I

If I will not live up to what I think,
My thoughts to the level of my life will sink.

Here follows an abbreviated testimonial from the United States, which hits many a nail on the head:—

The Society of St Pius X has been “rebranded,” and it is not the same as it was. As the original SSPX belonged to the Catholic Church, so the Newsociety belongs to the Newchurch. To those old enough to remember, it seems like Vatican II all over again, only worse, because this time there is no direct doctrinal attack, nor a major Council, instead the revolution is being spread by slow, almost imperceptible social transformation.

For while the appearances of Tradition are being maintained, the Traditionalist Movement is being slowly changed from within. Outwardly and materially things appear to be more successful than ever, with increasing amounts of money and buildings, but inwardly and spiritually there is decay, because the disease of modernism is imperceptibly infecting the ranks. A variety of symptoms indicate that the modernism is the same, for instance the new, young happy-faced Society priests who are just like the “peace priests” of the 60s and 70s, as the great Cardinal Mindszenty called them. But unlike the previous generation of priests they lack masculinity, and so do some of the Newsociety’s leading lay teachers.

Thus the Mass may still be Traditional, but the whole culture around it is Novus Ordo. Traditionalists want to preserve the Old Mass and the Sacraments, and some of the morals from the Catechism, but at the same time they want to have everything else the modern world has to offer. This makes many so-called Traditional Catholics, outside of the Mass and the Sacraments, largely indistinguishable from their counterparts in the rest of the modern world. The statistics are the same when it comes to divorce, annulment, “single mothers,” etc. If Traditionalists want to go with the modern world, they cannot stay with the true religion. It i s one or the other.

As it is, the Traditionalist Movement is now opening up to the world, to become socially acceptable and normal. and the process of modernization is underway, slowly but surely. There is a new, young generation in charge and they are changing things. The old, quirky, embarrassing hardliners have been replaced, and Tradition has a new image, a young, happy, friendly face. The mainstream Church had its aggiornamento fifty years ago, the Society is being updated today. The old generation which fought so many battles to preserve things is now being replaced by a new generation which never knew the Novus Ordo, or how it came to be, and has never had to fight for anything. Today’s youngsters are liable to have grown up in a Traditional bubble, and have too little knowledge of yesterday’s war, background of today’s. Before the Council Bella Dodd testified to the Communist infiltration of the Church. Are we so sure that the same thing is not being done no w to the Traditionalist Movement?

It was all too predictable. Being neither infallible nor indefectible, the Society is now going through what the Church went through fifty years ago – infiltration, compromise, disintegration and the same process of autodemolition. Archbishop Lefebvre would have noticed the radical change immediately, but a large number of the frogs in the Society pot have not even noticed how the water temperature is rising. The Archbishop”handed down what he received,” but how can the new generation hand down what it is no longer receiving? Therefore we now hear that the “inevitable reconciliation” is at hand. The SSPX will be accepted as part of the Newchurch, and conversely, it will have to accept the Newchurch. It will now be just one of many side-chapels in the Pantheon of the New World Order. And as for “reconciliation,” which side has given in to the other? Has the Conciliar Church become Catholic? Far from it!

See next wee k further examples from the same witness.

Kyrie eleison.

Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Embraces Heller and Originalism During Senate Hearings

Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Embraces Heller and Originalism During Senate Hearings

Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Embraces Heller and Originalism During Senate Hearings


Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, President Trump’s pick to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme court, asserted during his confirmation hearings this week that Scalia’s landmark Second Amendment opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller “guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.”

Gorsuch made the comment during an exchange with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who was trying to goad him into agreeing with the anti-gun opinion recently issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (see story at this link).

He refused to take the bait, however, telling her, “Well, it’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, Senator, respectfully it’s a matter of it being the law. And — and my job is to apply and enforce the law.”

Throughout his hearings, Gorsuch deftly answered questions about his judicial philosophy and parried on inquiries that would have required him to prejudge legal issues that he could face as a Supreme Court justice.

His answers made clear, however, that he would staunchly defend Americans’ constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment.

They also reinforced his belief in Justice Scalia’s signature technique of constitutional interpretation known as originalism. This methodology focuses on the actual words of constitutional provisions as they would have been publicly understood at the time of their enactment.

This approaches ensures that the inalienable rights recognized at the founding cannot later be declared null and void by judges who might consider them outdated or counterproductive in the modern world.

As Justice Scalia put it in Heller:

A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.

Gorsuch paid homage to Justice Scalia in his opening statement at the hearings. Calling Scalia a “mentor,” Gorsuch stated, “He reminded us that words matter. That the judge’s job is to follow the words that are in the law, not replace them with those that aren’t.”

He also invoked the words of Alexander Hamilton: “”Liberty can have … nothing to fear from judges who apply the law. But liberty has everything to fear if judges try to legislate, too.”

President Trump promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would respect constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment, and who would faithfully apply the law.

Judge Gorsuch embodies those ideals, and his performance this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee gives every indication he will soon get to exercise them as a U.S. Supreme Court justice.

And when he does, all Americans – including gun owners – will be better off as a result.

Illinois: Gun Seizure Bill Could be Heard by House at Any Time

Every time I hear of proposed legislation like this combined with ever rising property taxes makes me more determined than ever to finally move out of Illinois……tcc

Illinois: Gun Seizure Bill Could be Heard by House at Any Time

The Illinois House of Representatives could consider House Bill 2354 at any time.  It is imperative that you contact your state Representative immediately and strongly urge them to OPPOSE House Bill 2354.

House Bill 2354 would allow an individual’s family members or law enforcement to petition the court for an ex parte restraining order if they consider the individual to be a danger to themselves or others simply because the individual owns, possesses or purchases a firearm.  According to the summary of the bill, an ex parte order would be issued by a judge based solely on a brief, unsubstantiated affidavit made by a petitioner and absent any input made by the individual on which the order is targeted.  If enacted, this legislation would require the surrender of FOID cards and concealed carry licenses as well as the seizure of all firearms to law enforcement.  This legislation is ripe for abuse by individuals that disagree with the Second Amendment, and the mere insinuation that gun ownership makes you a danger to yourself or others is offensive and insulting.

Again, please click the “Take Action” button above to contact your state Representative and urge them to OPPOSE House Bill 2354 when it comes up for a vote.

NRA-ILA: Institute for Legislative Action
Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram
© 2017 National Rifle Association of America, Institute For Legislative Action. To contact NRA-ILA call 800-392-8683. Address: 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030.
Please do not reply to this email.
Unsubscribe from this email list | Manage your email preferences
Thank you!

God has left Illinois; He has been replaced by Democrats

New Legislation Threatens the Lifesaving Work of Sidewalk Counseling

The Pro-Life Action League’s Ann Scheidler sidewalk counsels
at Albany Medical Surgical Center on Elston in Chicago

New Legislation Threatens the Lifesaving Work of Sidewalk Counseling
Written By Andrew Willis
Thousands of children are alive today because pro-life sidewalk counselors stand outside abortion clinics offering encouragement and information about the abortion alternatives to pregnant mothers. It is one of the most effective ways to save the unborn. New legislation, however, threatens this vital work. Chicago state lawmakers have introduced HB 3735 which would essentially create a censorship zone around abortion clinics.

Using subjective and broad language, the bill says counselors who are accused of “intimidation” against pregnant mothers and staff members entering the abortion clinic, will be subject to longer prison stays and/or fines. Sponsored by State Representatives Deb Conroy (D-Villa Park), Silvana Tabares (D-Chicago), Greg Harris (D-Chicago), and John D’Amico (D-Chicago), HB 3735 adds acts of intimidation and violence in the vicinity of abortion clinics to the list of aggravating factors in the criminal code. An aggravating factor is a fact or circumstance that increases the severity or culpability of the criminal act. If this bill were to pass, people accused of intimidation will receive harsher sentences simply because they were near an abortion clinic.

This bill is problematic in several ways.

First, the crimes of harassment and violent actions which the bill claims to prevent are already covered under the criminal code. Creating a special zone for harsher penalties around abortion clinics is clearly meant to intimidate pro-life sidewalk counselors.

Second, this bill seeks to solve a problem that does not exist. There is no evidence that people are being harassed while walking into abortion clinics by sidewalk counselors or anyone else.

Third, the bill raises multiple free speech issues. The U.S. Supreme Court has already held in McCullen v. Coakley that buffer zones preventing sidewalk counselors from coming near an abortion clinic entrance unconstitutionally restrict free speech. It is unclear whether HB 3537 is broad enough to protect the free speech rights of those sidewalk counselors. This bill may also be unconstitutionally aimed to restrict pro-life speech over other forms of speech.

Finally, the bill specifically mentions abortion clinic staff members as receiving this special protection. One can easily foresee abortion clinic staff using such a law to intimidate and silence pro-life counselors and to justify reporting them to the police when no harassment or violent actions have been perpetrated.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact your state representative to tell him or her that HB 3735 is unnecessary and jeopardizes both free speech and the lifesaving work of sidewalk counseling. Then politely urge your representative to vote NO on HB 3735.

Catholic Life? – Eleison Comments

Catholic Life?

When God commands, the heaviest storms grow calm.
Whom God protects, the worst men cannot harm.

Another young man writes to me about the problem of living as a Catholic in today’s world around us. But what Catholic can not have a problem in today’s world? His questions as to world and Church are in italics. Some advice from the author of these “Comments” follows:—

It is more and more difficult for me to live a life consistent with the Catholic Faith. As for the world, should I be thinking, as soon as I earn my own living, of moving to another country, e.g. France, in order to seek there the means of founding a Christian family (e.g. wife, Catholic priests consistent with the defence of Tradition, &c)? As for Mass, the Traditional Mass nearest to my city is in B., where there is a chapel of the Newsociety and another chapel which depends on the Newchurch. What would your Excellency recommend me to do? I know of no priests of the Resistance in my country, nor even of many true Catholics, as it seems to me.

As for the world I would not recommend your moving to any other country. There is every likelihood that you would meet there with the same problems, and you would have severed your native roots in your own country. You may think those roots in a modern city are not worth much but they are better than none. “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” You would risk jumping “from the frying pan into the fire,” instead of jumping from the frying pan onto the kitchen table. Providence has put you in the city where you have now your family and your friends. The solutions today are rather internal than external, above all when World War may start before long (the whole USA System is against Trump, and it wants war!).

Similarly with attending Mass. The “other chapel” that you mention was once better than it is now. Likewise the SSPX, as you know. The apostasy today is all around. I would beware of geographical solutions. You could attach one day to the best-seeming priest, and a little while later he goes crazy too. That has happened all too often in today’s Church. The solution has to be internal rather than external.

As for the internal solution, since you read the ‘Eleison Comments,’ then you know how often and repeatedly I recommend praying the full 15 Mysteries of the Rosary every day. Good books (and good music) can also help considerably to nourish and protect the mind and the heart. Read what genuinely interests you, and do not read merely dutiful books because you will not get out of them nearly as much. Almighty God has seen from eternity what a mess the modern world would get itself into. He has also seen from eternity that there would be souls today still wanting to go to Heaven. Is it imaginable that even in today’s infernal big cities He would have left such souls with no recourse if only they wanted to stay on track for Heaven?

Yet He foresaw that everything external would fall under the c ontrol of His enemies: telephone calls, emails, drones, universities, politics, law, medicine, etc., etc. That is why I think that what He means by allowing such power to His enemies is to drive us back to Him and to a true inner practice of His holy religion despite the worst that Popes and priests can do. Therefore, in my opinion, be content to attend the least contaminated Tridentine Mass that there is anywhere near you, get regularly to Confession with any priest still willing to hear Confessions and who does not tell you that a sin is not a sin, and find the way to work into your day all 15 Mysteries of the Rosary. And then “possess your soul in patience” and quietly beg God to show you the way to Heaven, and to intervene here below before everything is lost. Despite all appearances, He is still in perfect control.

Kyrie eleison.

C. Steven Tucker comments on Obamacare replacement; basically we need this new GOP bill

Why health care policy experts support the GOP Obamacare replacement plan.

It’s been a while since I’ve put fingers to keyboard to write about health care policy. That’s primarily due to the fact that I’ve been a bit busy for the last four months helping consumers navigate what is left of the individual health insurance marketplace during the annual PPACA (Obamacare) open enrollment period. I say “what is left” because we have lost 19 health insurance carriers since the passage of Obamacare and the taxpayer funded Obamacare co-op ‘health insurers’ that were supposed to replace them are also now bankrupt. This rapid demolition of the individual (non employer sponsored) health insurance market place has robbed my clients not only of access to their doctors but also to their preferred hospitals. Worse yet, they have lost their health plans every year now for 4 years in a row and their health insurance premiums have increased up to 150% since the passage of Obamacare. In other words, they have been forced to endure the exact opposite of what they were promised by Barack Obama and the Democrat party.

To say the individual health insurance marketplace in this country is in a dire situation is an understatement. In fact, if something is not done now to preserve what is left of that marketplace, we will have no health insurance carriers left to choose from in 2018. United Healthcare has already exited after losing more than a billion dollars. Aetna exited after losing more than half a billion dollars and Humana now has wisely exited the marketplace as well in most states. This leaves consumers with a monopoly dominated mostly by Blue Cross entities all of which have lost hundreds of millions of dollars since the inception of Obamacare. These few remaining carriers will not continue to contribute to their own demise forever. Something has to be done now, not later and that is the impetus behind the current GOP proposal to repeal and replace Obamacare. This is also why myself and other health care policy experts like Betsy McCaughey support the proposal. It is also important to note that because President Trump is an intelligent, informed and proven leader, he too supports this plan. Why? Because he understands how dire the situation currently is and how many people will be “hurt and hurt badly” if we do not act NOW. Watch his weekly address by clicking below:


To be frank, if you’re just reading this and you’ve never been on the other end of the phone with a woman with Ovarian cancer who’s calling you for help whilst she’s lying in her bed at Northwestern Memorial hospital weeping because she can no longer receive care there, you cannot possibly understand how dire the situation is. The worst part is that for the first time in my 20 year career as a licensed health insurance broker, there was nothing I could do to help this woman. There were literally no other options for her. There were only two other carriers I could offer her and those carriers offer only restrictive HMOs, none of which provide access to her preferred hospital or any of our other teaching hospitals. There are 19 million Americans just like her who are self employed sole proprietors and as such have to purchase their own health insurance in the individual marketplace. Their choices will soon be zero if something is not done now to incentivize health insurance carriers to once again reenter the individual health insurance marketplace. Already nearly 1/3rd of all counties in this nation have only ONE health insurance carrier to choose from. Soon it will be NONE.

The American Health Care Act

So, how do we accomplish that? The Republican party has chosen to do so in three phases. Paul Ryan did a power point presentation and I must say as a guy who has given hundreds of power point presentations, Ryan did a very good job explaining the process and I encourage you to watch it by clicking on the image below. I’m going to go a few steps further by breaking it down even more in bullet points listed below the video.


As aforementioned, three phases comprise the process of developing what will eventually be known as “The American Health Care Act“. They are as follows:

1.) The first phase of the GOP’s current proposal to repeal and replace Obamacare is the Budget Reconciliation Bill released on Monday March 6, 2017 which goes a long way towards doing so. Because it deals with only budgetary issues, it only requires 51 votes in the U.S. Senate to pass which means it should pass quickly. This budget reconciliation bill accomplishes the following:

a.) Repeals $600 billion in Obamacare taxes AND the individual & employer mandates. This means we will no longer be a ‘part time nation’ and individuals will no longer be unconstitutionally TAXED by a rogue I.R.S. for simply existing and refusing to purchase overpriced, government designed and mandated health insurance plans. It also repeals the  2.35% Obamacare payroll tax hike and the 3.8% tax on unearned income (capital gains).

b.) Puts caps on Medicaid enrollment to discourage over spending and allows states to structure their own Medicaid programs in order to better serve their Medicaid recipients.

c.) Creates innovation grants for states to redevelop health insurance risk abatement programs such as high risk pools which were abolished under Obamacare. These high risk pools help isolate and better control costs for those with the highest health care costs which makes health insurance for the healthy less expensive.

d.)  DOUBLES the amount one can deposit into an HSA.

e.)  STOPS all abortion funding under Obamacare.

f.) Creates a tax favored status for individual health plans by providing a refundable tax credit to purchase those plans. Currently there is no tax favored status for individual health insurance plans. Tax favored status has traditionally only been awarded to employer sponsored group health insurance plans. Ever try to deduct your health insurance premiums as a sole proprietor? Or for that matter deduct any of your medical costs above 10% of your A.G.I.? It isn’t possible now. If the American Health Care Act passes, sole proprietors will finally enjoy tax favored status for purchasing their own individual health insurance. It’s about damned time! In addition those who are not offered coverage via an employer will have a portable refundable tax credit to help pay for health insurance and a refundable tax credit is NOT a ‘subsidy’ that you did not EARN. It is simply a way of you keeping more of YOUR money by not paying as much in taxes so that you can use it to pay for health insurance. It is NOT‘new entitlement’ Rand Paul… but I digress.

g.) Covers preexisting conditions but rightfully penalizes those who attempt to game the system by waiting until they are sick to purchase health insurance. Such conduct increases health insurance costs for everyone and that is why that conduct was originally prohibited under 1996 HIPAA law. That law outlined specific waiting periods before one could qualify for coverage for preexisting conditions if they did not keep consistent health insurance coverage in place. There were also financial penalties for those who attempted to game the system that way. Obamacare allowed anyone who claimed a ‘loss of income’ to game the system throughout the year by jumping on and off health plans which resulted in massive losses to health insurers and their subsequent exit from the marketplace. That conduct MUST stop and the only way to do so is to penalize such bad behavior and no Rand Paul the 30% penalty (which is far too low) is not “another individual mandate”!  It is instead proper management of risk. The Obamacare individual mandate was an unconstitutional IRS enforced penalty for simply existing and refusing to purchase overpriced, government designed and mandated health insurance! Without such proper management of risk which includes the aforementioned penalties for bad behavior we will have more of the same and by that I mean fewer choices, higher prices and a rapid collapse of the entire individual health insurance marketplace. “NeverTrumper” Rand Paul was WRONG about President Trump during the election and he is WRONG about the American Health Care Act. Period.

2.) The second phase will be performed by our new H.H.S. Secretary Dr. Tom Price who will roll back the massive pile of regulations that were put in place by the fourth branch of government known unaffectionately as the ‘administrative state’. There are 1,400 references in the Obamacare legislation that state “the secretary may” or “the secretary shall” so Dr. Price can fix or roll back a lot of things on his own as our new H.H.S. Secretary.

3.) The third phase is the final repeal legislation which will take an act of congress requiring 60 votes. It will take longer because of this to pass and be signed by President Trump but no longer in my estimation than summertime. This is so because health insurers have to begin providing their 2018 plans and prices for review by state and federal regulators in the early fall of this year. So, there isn’t a lot of time for this final bill to pass. Vice President Mike Pence stated that we could see this legislation by April and I concur. This legislation will include all other things that we Conservatives want in a repeal and replace legislation. Those things include:

a.) “Selling across state lines” a.k.a. repeal of the McCarron Ferguson Act which requires and act of congress and 6o votes and cannot be done via the budget reconciliation process.

b.) Repeal of the Obamacare mandates on health insurers so they can offer new plans that are less expensive and do not include all of the onerous Obamacare mandates, many of which required coverage for non medically necessary expenses like sexual reassignment surgery, maternity for 64 year old women and so much more. This of course also requires an act of congress and 60 votes and cannot be done via the budget reconciliation process.

c.) Association health plans so that groups of people who work in the same field can pool together and purchase lower priced, group health insurance plans.

d.) Medical Malpractice Reform a.k.a. “Tort” reform.

e.) Other parts of Dr. Tom Price’s reform legislation originally released in 2009 entitled “Empowering Patient’s First” which is the best piece of health care reform legislation I have ever read and I have read many. This is the template for the final repeal bill along with Paul Ryan’s “A Better Way” which he also worked with Dr. Price in devising.

But Steve! Why can’t we just suspend the filibuster and repeal and replace the whole thing all at once?! Because there is not enough political will to do so in the U.S. Senate and Senate Majority Leader McConnell has stated that he is not willing to do so. Why? Because there are political ramifications for doing so which could easily come back to haunt us in the future if we lose our narrow Senate majority.  Just ask Harry Reid. Why expose ourselves to that risk if there is another way forward?

In conclusion as Dennis Prager said so eloquently “the BEST is the ENEMY of the BETTER“. In other words when you spend all your time screaming for the best you inhibit the progress currently being made on the better and the American Health Care Act is far, FAR better than Obamacare. As Dan Proft also said so eloquently, “instead of WAIVING the flag, help ADVANCE the flag.” This is the BEST shot we have had in 7 LONG years to repeal and replace Obamacare. Please everyone, let us work TOGETHER to get this done!

P.S. To Daniel Horowitz. SHAME on you sir for writing this hyperbolic TRIPE at Conservative Review. The Budget Reconciliation bill which you shamefully refer to as “Obamacare 2.0” is NOT a ‘gift to illegals‘. You would know that if you had linked the ENTIRE Budget Reconciliation bill to your ridiculous piece. Instead, you linked only a small part of the actual bill leaving out 66 pages, including pages 17 & 18 which specifically requires PROOF of CITIZENSHIP or LEGAL residency status before receiving benefits. No one eats their own like Republicans aye Daniel? Pathetic.

President Trump Leads a Listening Session on Healthcare

Click here to read the bill

Sarah Palin on Paul Ryan’s ‘RINO-Care’: ‘Socialized Medicine’; President Trump Will ‘Step In and Fix It’

I knew President Trump would not sell us out!  Its Ryan’s Rino’s that is the enemy here……………TCC

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee and the first major GOP figure to endorse President Donald Trump, is calling out House Speaker Paul Ryan for what she says is “RINO-Care.”

Ryan introduced what he calls the “American Health Care Act,” a bill that does not repeal Obamacare but only amends it. For the last several days, senior Republicans ranging from members of the House Freedom Caucus to other House Republicans to Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR), Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and more have raised serious concerns with the bill. Some call it Obamacare 2.0, others call it Obamacare Lite or Ryan-care, and now Palin—in her first interview on the topic, coming on Breitbart News Saturday on SiriusXM 125 the Patriot Channel this weekend—calls it “RINO-Care.”

“I do want to speak about this, but I am tempted to say not another word from our fearless leaders about this new form of Obamacare that I’m going to call RINO-care—not another word from them until we are definitively told that there is no provision whatsoever allowing Congress to exempt itself whatsoever with this law,” Palin said. “As with anything else mandated by Congress, every single dotted I and crossed T better apply to them, too, and not just the people who they are lording this thing over because remember this is government-controlled health care, the system that requires enrollment in an unaffordable, unsustainable, unwanted, unconstitutional continuation of government-run medicine, and even in this new quasi-reformed proposal, there is still an aspect of socialism. That’s the whole premise here.”

Palin expressed serious concern with the fact that Ryan’s healthcare bill does not eliminate Obamacare’s individual mandate. It just shifts the mandate—which requires all Americans to purchase a health insurance plan even if they do not want one. Under Obamacare, those who do not comply, pay a tax to the federal government. Under Ryan’s plan, those who not comply, pay a fee to the insurance companies.

“This 30 percent additional fee will be collected by some in the private sector, which will mean politicians are allowed again to pick the winners and losers, and it makes you wonder who’s lobbying hardest for aspects of this new bill because obviously there are special interests involved. Otherwise, certain private sector segments of our economy wouldn’t be rewarded as they will be with this fee, instead of going to the IRS going to private companies,” Palin said. “It would be really helpful if every single one of these politicians would do like the NASCAR drivers do—and it’s been said before—but let them wear their sponsors plastered all over their three-piece suits when they show up so we know what side they’re on and who they’re actually doing their bidding for.”

At this time, House GOP leadership officials are refusing to answer which lobbyists specifically were involved in writing the bill and which lobbyists wrote which parts of the legislation. Palin told Breitbart News that it’s a “great question” for leadership officials that they should answer because the public deserves to know.

“That’s a great question. That’s a great question,” Palin said when informed of the fact that House GOP leaders have refused to answer which lobbyists were involved in writing the legislation. “The people want to know with this RINO-Care, we know that it helps Big pharma and big lobbyists who need big government to stay in business. We want to and have the right to know who’s actually putting pen to paper and writing this because we know the politicians don’t write the laws.”

Palin also praised Cotton and Paul and Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA), among others, who are standing up and pushing back on this rush from leadership on this bill. She says that they are “right” in pushing to make sure the process is not rushed in the way that Ryan has been rushing it through the House so far. In fact, this past week, the House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees stayed in session all night to ram the bill down to the next stages, rather than taking input from the American people and slowly deliberating the process of healthcare reform.

“Cotton is right. Dr. Rand Paul is right. Dave Brat is right. Some of these public servants are right in saying, ‘Let’s do it right this time’ because, remember, the rush job under Obamacare gave us what we’re having to deal with today, which is the devastating system that is again lorded over us,” Palin said. “They passed it with their rushed-through process of theirs. It’s very important that the people are allowed to see what’s in the bill before its first draft so we know what their thinking is, so we know what the difference is between Obamacare and RINO-Care.”

“But we can’t lose sight of the entire premise between the whole pro-Obamacare and the pro-RINO-care arguments,” she continued. “It’s so wrong because it’s still so unconstitutional. It’s still taxation without representation. It still picks winners and losers because some corporations get to opt out of the requirements that hit everyone else. It still infringes on states’ rights, and it still weaponizes the IRS against Americans who just simply seek freedom and choices and sensibility in their families’ health care. The IRS will be taxing aspects of this without representation because we have no choice. We’re shackled to politicians’ whims and special interests’ bullying interests, which does violate the Constitution, and it actually allows government to have a lien on our health.”

“People need to know it’s the foundation, it’s the premise,” Palin said. “I don’t know why we’re still even giving an inch on aspects of socialized medicine via this new RINO-care proposal. Is that okay with conservatives, with Republicans in office? They say they want the patient first. They say they want freedom. They say they want a free market to drive the insurance system that we have in America. But no, government is still in control. Government actually has a lien on our health because they lord over us penalties if we want to opt out of a big government mandate.”

When asked what she would say to Ryan if he were on Breitbart News Saturday with her this weekend—Ryan has refused to come on the program to discuss these matters and will not answer Breitbart News’s questions about the bill —Palin said she has lots for Ryan to explain here. But she also noted that Republicans party-wide agree that Obamacare is awful and needs to be repealed.

“There is much that we agree on,” Palin said. “Thank the Lord, we all agree that Obamacare is devastating one-sixth of our economy. That’s what health care encompasses. Once the government took it over—it obviously is unaffordable, unsustainable and unwanted. So, from the get-go, thank the Lord we all have that in common, and we want to do away with Obamacare. I would ask Paul Ryan’s forgiveness if I come across sounding like I’m just whining and complaining about a problem without proposing a solution. Like Teddy Roosevelt said, that is the definition of whining. So I want to propose solutions, and I want Paul Ryan to listen to the people who are suggesting that, okay, if government is going to be this involved in our healthcare system and choices, then allow the states to take this over. Get it out of big government’s hands. The most responsive level of government is that which is closest to the people. If you’re not going to allow individuals to have the freedoms and the autonomy and the choices provided in their health care, at least let it be a states’ rights issue. So that’s one.”

“And then let’s talk about the tort reform that I still don’t see in the new proposal,” Palin continued. “I’d like Paul Ryan to address that more clearly. I’d like him to really talk about how he proposes to tackle the waste and the fraud in the healthcare system. I’d really like him to talk about the interstate commerce allowance now because we know that that has caused a lack of competition, and I really want him to address just that good old American freedom of choice. How can he convince the American people that this isn’t just still big government in bed with big pharma and big Wall Street and sticking it to the people with all its globaloney that was part of Obamacare. How is this RINO-care any different?”

Palin concluded the interview by noting that she has the utmost confidence that President Trump will move to scrap Ryan’s bill and fix this whole process before this gets out of hand.

“He will step in and fix it,” Palin said. “I have great faith that President Trump is one who will fulfill campaign promises. He already has a track record of doing so well in these first months, I’m just really proud to have been part of the constituency that wanted him in there and worked hard to get him in there. So, yeah, I’m sure that President Trump is going to do the right thing and listen to all sides, of course, but understand, especially, that as a businessman, he’s going to understand whether this makes sense in his vision of how to grow businesses and how to get government off our back and back on our side. How will we create a smaller, smarter government with a proposal like this that basically allows for the continuation of a growth of government? That’s what any aspect of Obamacare or RINO-care does. So asking President Trump specifically about how running a business, not a Wall Street business, but mom-and-pop main street business, how does RINO-care help their business get to grow and drive and survive in this economy?”


Fourth Bishop – Eleison Comments

Fourth Bishop

Bishops there must be, where souls strive for Heaven.
Try Vienna in Virginia, May eleven!

Ever since the summer of 2012 when the Society of St Pius X decided officially to change course and abandon the doctrine-first stand taken 40 years previously by Archbishop Lefebvre, it has been interesting to watch Providence in action to ensure the Church’s defence. One might have expected a widespread uprising in defence of God’s Truth. Resistance from inside the Society? Existent, but at least up till now, largely silent. And from outside? Existent, but only a scattering of layfolk and a handful of priests, riven by divisions for lack of a recognised authority. Catholics need authority. And that need is so great that even while Truth is draining out of the man-centred Newchurch and the Rome-centred Newsociety, still souls cling to each because of the remains of Papal authority in the former, and of Catholic authority bequeathed to the latter by the Archbishop.

But Truth remains the purpose of Authority and Authority is not the purpose of Truth. Given fallen human nature, Authority is the indispensable defender and guarantee of Truth, but it comes after Truth and not before. Take for example one of Our Lord’s last instructions to Peter before He will leave Peter behind to govern the Church (Lk.XXII, 31–32): “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you (plural), that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee (singular) that thy faith fail not (Truth); and thou, being once converted (Truth), confirm thy brethren (Authority).” And when on Palm Sunday a few days beforehand the Pharisees had attempted to rebuke Our Lord for the joyful noise being made by His disciples, so necessary is the adoration of God in Truth that Our Lord replied (Lk.XIX, 40): “I say to you that if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out.”

In today’s Newchurch, Authority is mixing Conciliar error with Catholic Truth in the engine o f the Church, which is like mixing water with gasoline (petrol) in the engine of a motor car – the car is crippled, the Church is crippled. And whereas Archbishop Lefebvre defied that crippling, not least of all but rather above all, by his consecrating of four bishops to maintain a Catholic authority that would protect God’s Truth, his successors at the head of what was once his Society are doing their utmost to submit his protection of Truth to the crippled and crippling Authority of Rome! If these successors seriously think that once they are “inside the official Church” they will be in a position to convert the neo-modernists, they are excessively naive. Already they are holding their fire on Vatican II. Just when do they imagine they will be able to open fire again?

In these quite exceptional circumstances, there must be disciples of Our Lord who tell the Truth – so as to spare the stones the effort! These disciples may not be united as they would be beneath tr ue Authority (always allowing for human weakness). They may be “straitened and cast down,” they may suffer “tribulation and persecution” (cf. II Cor. IV, 8–9), but they must be there for as long as Truth is held in captivity. Will that be a long time? God knows. Many of us expected Him to intervene long ago, but God has a very long fuse. However, intervene He will, if anything at all is still to be saved. Patience.

Meanwhile these disciples need a handful of bishops to ensure a minimal continuation in Truth of episcopal teaching and of the sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders. In 1988 the Archbishop consecrated four of them for the same reason, two for Europe, and one each for North and South America. As of now the “Resistance” has two in Europe and one in South America. There remains a gap in North America. God willing, this coming May 11 Fr. Gerardo Zendejas will be consecrated bishop in the Traditional parish of Fr Ronald Ringrose in Vienna, Virginia , USA. Please pray for the blessing of Almighty God upon the ceremony – and for good weather!

Kyrie eleison.