I-The Knight battles for Christ and His reign. II-The Knight serves his Lady the Blessed Virgin Mary. III-The Knight defends the Holy Church unto blood. IV-The Knight maintains the tradition of his fathers. V-The Knight fights for Justice, Christian Order and Peace. VI-The Knight wages war without truce or mercy against the world and its Prince. VII-The Knight honours and protects the poor, the weak and the needy. VIII-The Knight despises money and the powers of this world. IX-The Knight is humble, magnanimous and loyal. X-The Knight is pure and courteous, ardent and faithful.
Welcome to the Order of the Knights of Our Lady's Official Web Blog!
Meditation: How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him!
Prayer: Lord, Thy Church often seems like a boat about to sink, a boat taking in water on every side. In Thy field we see more weeds than wheat. The soiled garments and face of Thy Church throw us into confusion. Yet it is we ourselves who have soiled them! It is we who betray Thee time and time again, after all our lofty words and grand gestures. Have mercy on Thy Church; within Her too, Adam continues to fall. When we fall, we drag Thee down to earth, and Satan laughs, for he hopes that Thou will not be able to rise from that fall; he hopes that being dragged down in the fall of Thy Church, Thou will remain prostrate and overpowered. But Thou will rise again. Thou stood up, Thou arose and Thou can also raise us up. Save and sanctify Thy Church. Save and sanctify us all.
Malcolm Ranjith Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship
Archbishop Ranjith on Kneeling for Communion during the liturgy and Communion on the Tongue, writing a foreword on the Book, "Dominus Est":
1) At the same time, speaking of communion in the hand, it must be recognized that the practice was improperly and quickly introduced in some quarters of the Church shortly after the Council, changing the age-old practice and becoming regular practice for the whole Church. They justified the change saying that it better reflected the Gospel or the ancient practice of the Church... Some, to justify this practice referred to the words of Jesus: "Take and eat" (Mk 14, 22; Mt 26, 26).
Now I think it is high time to review and re-evaluate such good practices and, if necessary, to abandon the current practice that was not called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium, nor by Fathers, but was only accepted after its illegitimate introduction in some countries.Now, more than ever, we must help the faithful to renew a deep faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species in order to strengthen the life of the Church and defend it in the midst of dangerous distortions of the faith that this situation continues to cause.
I mention for example, a change not proposed by the Council Fathers or by the Sacrosanctum Concilium, Holy Communion received in the hand. This has contributed to some extent to a weakening of faith in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This, and the removal of altar rails and kneelers in church and the introduction of practices which oblige the faithful to sit or stand at the elevation of the Sacred Host, weakens the genuine significance of the Eucharist and the Church's profound sense of adoration for the Lord, the Only Son of God. Moreover in many places, the church the 'house of God', is used for meetings, concerts or interreligious celebrations. In some churches the Blessed Sacrament is almost hidden away in a little chapel, hardly seen and little decorated. All this obscures a belief so central in the Church, belief in the real presence of Christ. The church, for Catholics, is the 'home' of the Eternal One.
Another serious mistake is to confuse specific roles of the clergy and the laity at the altar making the sanctuary a place of disorder, too much movement and certainly not the 'place' where the Christian is filled with a sense of wonder and awe in front of the Lord's presence and His act of redemption. The use of dancing, musical instruments and singing which have little to do with liturgy, is not in keeping with the sacredness of a church and liturgical celebrations; I would also add, certain homilies of a political-social character, often badly prepared. All this distorts the celebration of Mass, making it a choreographic, theatrical event, instead of an event of faith.
"Numquam abrogatam - Never abrogated" ."It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated." (Motu Proprio, art. 1)
1) If the Tridentine Mass is never abrogated, it is still in force ever since 1969, when the New Mass was promulgated.
2) What legal force the Tridentine Mass had then, in 1969, it therefore still has today.
3) In 1570, Pope St. Pius V in "Quo Primum' had made the Tridentine Mass
a) a general (universal) law of the Church, b) recognized it as an immemorial custom, and c) made it a perpetual privilege. It means in short that the Traditional Mass now in 2008 is still what it was legally in 1969: the normal, ordinary, universal rite of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, an immemorial custom and a perpetual privilege.
4) In relation to the Society of St Pius X: Msgr Lefebvre, in his historical sermon of June 29, 1976, summed up the pressure which had been continuously put on him, especially in the previous days, to abstain from giving any priestly ordinations on that day. "They put a new missal in my hands, saying, 'Here is the Mass that you must celebrate and that you shall celebrate henceforth on all your houses'. They told me as well that if on this date, this June 29th,, 1976, before your entire assembly, we celebrated a mass according to the new rite, all would be straightened out henceforth between ourselves and Rome. Thus it is clear, it is obvious that it is on the problem of the Mass that the whole drama between Ecône and Rome depends." (Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Angelus Press, vol. 1, p. 207)
And that's another reason why His Excellency refused the New Mass.
7) In Summary, Msgr Lefebvre was suspended because he refused to celebrate the New Mass. He had to cling to the Tridentine Mass, which, as Pope Benedict XVI said, is never abrogated.
If the Traditional Latin Mass was not abrogated in 1969 and was thus, still the ordinary rite of the Catholic Church upto now, 2008,
and if Archbishop Lefebvre was sanctioned in 1976 for ordaining priests, and later in 1988 for consecrating bishops— if both acts were done explicitly in relation to this Traditional Mass and for refusing to accept a rite which was only a derogation to the Tridentine Mass, then, by stating that it was 'never abrogated' the Holy Father is implicitly declaring that all the grounds for the sanctions against Archbishop Lefebvre and his Society of St Pius X are non-existant…
As Our Lord Jesus Christ is both God and Man, it is His right to rule over all of creation and also to rule over all of Mankind. Furthermore, having created Man to be a social being, God is the creator of both Man and society. Hence, Our Lord has the right to rule over each individual human person and also over all human social and political institutions. Of course, this implies that Holy Mother Church, being founded by Christ Himself to perpetuate His mission on earth, should have the authority to instruct the nations of the world. Since the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and the Visible Head of the Church, he has certain powers over the princes or governments of each and every nation, in order to teach, admonish and correct them.
Where can we find the basis for this doctrine?
This doctrine is preached in both the Scriptures and Tradition. In the Scriptures, one often finds passages in the Old Testament mentioning that all the nations of the world will render praise to God and worship Him. Even before His Ascension, Our Lord instructed His Apostles to “teach ye all NATIONS; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matt 28:19)
The Popes had always taught this doctrine and it was even expounded in pontifical documents. Pope Boniface VIIIth explicitly mentions it in his encyclical Unam Sanctam in the year 1302. The Doctors of the Church (St. Augustine, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc) had also unanimously taught the same.
Was this ideal ever implemented in history?
Yes. In the Middle Ages, the Church converted many princes which in turn led to the conversion of their whole countries. Some prominent examples:
1) Clovis, king of the Franks, baptised in 496 A.D. 2) St. Ethelbert, king of Kent, baptised in 597 A.D. 3) Boris, king of the Bulgars, baptised in 864 A.D. 4) St. Wenceslas, duke of Bohemia, martyred in 929 A.D. 5) Mieska, duke of Poland, baptised in 966 A.D. 6) St Wladimir, grand prince of Kiev, baptised in 989 A.D. 7) St Stephen, baptised in 985 A.D. and crowned “Apostolic” king of Hungary on Christmas day 1000 A.D. by Pope Sylvester II.
This union of Church and State, which we call Christendom, reached its apex during the Carolingian Dynasty, the second Frankish Dynasty (751-987 A.D.), during the reign of the emperor Charlemagne. In fact, the Western Roman Empire was restored only when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne as Roman Emperor on Christmas day of the year 800 A.D. Unfortunately, many later emperors and kings refused to acknowledge the Pope’s teaching authority over them and sought to rule their own lands as if they had absolute power. They resented the popes’ interference when they erred and some have even tried to establish national churches. The 12th and 13th centuries witnessed a new and perhaps greater apex of the union of Church and State in Europe where political and social institutions and customs were permeated by the Faith. The Council of Trent made an attempt to restore Christendom in the 16th and 17th centuries but never really succeeded due to the partitioning of Europe into Catholic and Protestant factions.
Why should the Church intervene with secular affairs when Our Lord Himself said to “render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God”?
That statement is frequently misunderstood, especially by modern man. If the state enacts bad laws that either force or encourage its citizens to sin, how then can it claim to have rendered to God what belongs to God since every human person owes perfect obedience to God? Therefore, the laws and customs of the state must be made in harmony with the Law of God. Since the Church is the sole infallible guide to True Faith and Morals, she has the right to intervene particularly through the person of the Supreme Pontiff.
Is this doctrine therefore advocating theocracy for all nations?
No. A theocracy would be a confusion between Church and State. A good example of such regimes would be fundamentalist Islamic states where religious leaders themselves hold the reins of power. The proper Catholic view is that Church and State are distinct but not separated. An analogy would be the body and soul of a human person. The soul and the body are distinct entities but they are not separated. In fact, we all know that a separation of body and soul implies death. The state has the right to enact laws and implement policies for the acquisition of her citizens’ material needs, but these must be subordinated to the Laws of God since it is Faith and Morals that directly determine the final ends of each of her citizens. Once again, this reflects the fact that a human person can legitimately pursue material gain provided that such a pursuit does not lead to the detriment of his soul.
In such a country, what happens to people of other religious persuasions? Will it lead to persecution of the other religions?
When the state accepts the Laws of God and is obedient to the Church, it is declaring that it recognises the Catholic religion to be the One, True Religion. Surely, only Truth has rights while Falsehood does not. God, however, has given mankind the psychological freedom (not moral freedom) to choose to accept or reject Him. Therefore, the followers of false religions cannot be coerced into accepting the True Religion through violence. However, the state cannot allow the public expression of these false religions nor lend its support to them in any way. In other words, these false religions are tolerated out of charity towards their believers even though they do not have the right to exist.
How can the average layperson contribute to the establishment of the Social Kingship of Our Lord?
Besides doing his best to lead an exemplary life in accordance with the Commandments of God and the Church, a Catholic should try as far as possible to infuse good habits and customs, inspired by the Gospels and Catholic Tradition into every social institution and environment of which he belongs to. This includes his family, workplace, school, clubs or associations, etc. It is also beneficial to set up Catholic professional associations, Catholic citizens’ associations, Catholic press, formations sessions or even parents’ organisations.
It is also important that one should, in a legitimate manner, resist or act against currents within society that seek to promote bad or sinful customs and laws. Legitimate actions should also be undertaken against public expressions that blaspheme against the honour of God and the Saints.