Fairytale Salad

E.T. was always one of those films that the adults had unanimously decided kids really ought to like; that kids were supposed to like, and therefore they did like. But E.T. for us kids, while being immanently watchable (our favourite part was the bicycle getaway towards the end), was never what the adults thought it was for us. We never regarded the story as meat, but salad.

The same held for "the Force" mumbo jumbo in the Star Wars films; it was salad, albeit slathered with thousand island dressing (which I used to love but now hate). Though the backstories as hinted by Kenobi and later unfolded was meat. What took our interest and fascination was the Sand People, the light saber, the Millennium Falcon, the hologram chessboard, the Rancor Monster, Greedo (who did not engage in the fairytale salad of shooting first), Jabba the Hut, Boba Fett, Yoda's swamp and his stone dwelling...in other words, we wanted meat.

In other words, we loved The Goonies. Is it coincidental that The Goonies found great favour with kids while adults generally disliked the film?

The Indiana Jones films were totally meat, never salad. The supernatural aspects (or in the case of the second film, the uh, preternatural aspects?) of the films were never salad. I still remember getting the terrible willies from that early scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark when Indiana is approached in the lecture hall by the men about the Lost Ark, and he pulls out the book with the illustration of the tribe of Israel carrying the Ark. No effects, eerie music, all evoked: it was totally meat.

Notice I'm not including the "fourth" "installment" of "Indiana Jones and Skull Something or Other". Fairytale salad.

Perhaps you are starting to get a clue as to what is meant by "fairytale salad".

I recall Tim Jones of Old World Swine blog remarking how when he was a kid it was the same deal with Where the Wild Things Are: the book was something the adults had decided kids really ought to love and that's precisely how the book came across to him. Fairytale salad.

I don't remember being read Hans Christian Anderson stories as a kid. I do remember when browsing through them, looking at the pictures, the particular aura, the particular scent that the books gave off: fairytale salad.

But we were always suckers for such things as Hansel and Gretel. That was meat. That was faerie. Aesop's fables (whatever renditions we read at that time) and other stories such as Br'er Rabbit and the Tar-Baby were meat enough to not be considered fairytale salad.

People like to say that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is redneck white trash. But the fact is, when the movie first came out - this is after the toys and the animated t.v. series - it was so totally meat. It held our fascination because it was so stunningly earthy. One can laugh, but the movie still holds up - for what it is.

Anyways, to carry this further, I thought I would include some meaty cultural twins. Here's a pair: Lord of the Flies and The Lord of the Rings.

Both were published in the same year: 1954. Both have titles referring to the evil one. In the case of Tolkien, to Sauron, the servant of Melkor. In the case of Golding, the title is the literal English for "Beelzebub". Both books went on to become best-sellers, and both went on to become hugely popular albeit in different ways. The Lord of the Rings became the best-selling book behind the Bible and, well, we all know how huge it is; and Lord of the Flies, while a best-seller, became entrenched as required reading for Grade 11 English classes the world over (or other grades, give or take). Both involve a chubby or portly "sidekick" who is regarded as insignificant (and in the case of Piggy, downright mocked and derided) but who turns out to be either the hero or, in the case of Piggy, the one who ought to be listened to. It goes without saying, both authors were English (British). Interestingly, Lord of the Flies is allegorical, boldly so, yet not at all in the same vein as Lewis. There is something much more archetypical, or evocative, about Golding's very imagistic allegory. It's more like the images develop an allegorical sense on their own. But still very different from The Lord of the Rings.

Golding and Tolkien, as far as I know, were not acquaintances. How does one account for this cultural phenomenon, these cultural twins?

Anyhow, here's a quote from a letter that J.R.R Tolkien wrote, Letter 328:

"A few years ago I was visited in Oxford by a man whose name I have now forgotten (though I believe he was well-known). He had been much struck by the curious way in which many old pictures seemed to him to have been designed to illustrate The Lord of the Rings long before its time. He brought one or two reproductions. I think he wanted at first simply to discover whether my imagination had fed on pictures, as it clearly had been by certain kinds of literature and languages. When it became obvious that, unless I was a liar, I had never seen the pictures before and was not well acquainted with pictorial Art, he fell silent. I became aware that he was looking fixedly at me. Suddenly he said: 'Of course you don't suppose, do you, that you wrote all that book yourself?'

Pure Gandalf! I was too well acquainted with G. to expose myself rashly or to ask what he meant. I think I said: 'No, I don't suppose so any longer.' I have never since been able to suppose so. An alarming conclusion for an old philologist to draw concerning his private amusement. But not one that should puff any one up who considers the imperfections of 'chosen instruments', and indeed what sometimes seems their lamentable unfitness for the purpose."

Uncle Corky

Figs, and especially white figs, really do have a peak point at which they must be picked. The fat one sagging there on the tree (and consequently on the plate) was yet too early, in spite of its being squishy and somewhat translucent. 

The fig at its picking point must not be defying gravity at all. It must be fully drooping with its own weight. The one in the picture, while drooping heavily, was still fighting gravity somewhat, and its skin was not starting to break. It tasted mediocre; not nearly what it should be. I knew as soon as I broke into the skin with my fingers that it wasn't going to taste great because you could see areas between the pulp and the skin that were still "cottony".

As Tom at Tall Clover Farm has remarked, a single day can mean the difference between biting into gobsmacking juiciness and biting into a mealy cotton ball.

If you were to pray for the Pope, then maybe you would be led to cease attacking him on your blogs

814     From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church's members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. "Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions." The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

815     What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony." But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:

- profession of one faith received from the Apostles;

- common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;

- apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.

1475     In the communion of saints, "a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. Between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things." In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.

--Catechism of the Catholic Church (Emphasis mine)


From "Apostolic Penitentiary, The Gift of the Indulgence" via the Vatican (emphasis mine):

3. To gain indulgences, whether plenary or partial, it is necessary that the faithful be in the state of grace at least at the time the indulgenced work is completed.

4. A plenary indulgence can be gained only once a day. In order to obtain it, the faithful must, in addition to being in the state of grace:


—have the interior disposition of complete detachment from sin, even venial sin;

—have sacramentally confessed their sins;

—receive the Holy Eucharist (it is certainly better to receive it while participating in Holy Mass, but for the indulgence only Holy Communion is required);

—pray for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff.

7. Indulgences can always be applied either to oneself or to the souls of the deceased, but they cannot be applied to other persons living on earth.

An indulgence, which can be applied to either oneself or to the souls in purgatory, requires one to pray for the intentions of the Pope. The bond of charity which unites the communion of saints is the same that unites the pilgrim Church. There is no division between the charity shared by the saints in heaven and the charity that must run in the body of Christ, His pilgrim Church.

If this is not so, then an indulgence could not be applied to the souls in purgatory. If charity is the "perennial link" that exists between the faithful in heaven, purgatory, and in the pilgrim Church, then praying for the intentions of the Pope is a work that is of high importance in being a Catholic. In the highest prayer of the Church, the Holy Mass, the priest prays "...together with your servant Francis our Pope..."

Together with: unity in the love of Christ. Charity is the bond of unity, of which praying for the Pope is both a work towards edifying and maintaining unity, as well as an immediate consequence and fruit of unity, in the same manner that "as one acts and does, so he believes", and not, "I believe, and then I get to do some random acts as proof".

It is in the same manner of, "nobody is able to say, 'Jesus is Lord' except in the Holy Spirit." And, "Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me." And, "Thus you will recognize them by their fruits."

These take the bearing of resemblance to be the essence. Likewise, this is at the heart of what we call penance: "...in this sense doing penance is completed by bringing forth fruits worthy of penance."

In other words, the act of praying for the Pope is not an optional addition. It is a fruit and consequence of being in communion with the Church, which is united in charity. It belongs to the order of charity which is the perennial link in the unity of the Church; so much so, that the Church makes praying for the Pope one of the requirements to be fulfilled in gaining an indulgence - which, to remind, operates in the above-mentioned unity between Pilgrim Church, Purgatory, and the Saints in Heaven.

"I was simply numb, and felt crestfallen. For me the hardest thing has been an inability to pray for Francis as Pope ever since. It might be scrupulosity on my part, but my intellect and my heart just can't be convinced he is Pope.

I remember exactly where I was and who I was with when Ratzinger was elected, and the sense of jubilation at the time, which in hindsight I feel was well deserved.

Not this time." --Comment from "BrianK" in Steve Skojec's combox

"I am a devotee, as many are, of the DIVINE MERCY. In Saint Faustina's diary, Our Lord asks her to pray 33 Blood and Water prayers for The Holy Father's intentions. I had done so for 20 years, but I stopped with Bergoglio. There are several back-stories, speculations, etc..as to why Benedict quit. In January of that year, the false mystics of Medjugorge were in Rome openly saying they would divulge secrets about Benedict, if, as expected, he forbid, under penalty of sin, any cooperation with this billion-dollar/occult fraud. I suppose I was hoping that Benedict could force the hand of God and Peter Romanus would be given us, the last great Roman Pontiff..." --Comment from "Joseph Dreamcoat" in Steve Skojec's combox

When Pope Francis, just elected, came out onto the loggia, he asked the crowds, everyone watching in fact, the whole Church, to pray for him, just as Popes have done previously. He bowed before God after asking the people to pray to God to bless him. Actually, I believe there is even an indulgence attached to the Pope's blessing from the loggia upon being elected, that his blessing extends even to those who are not present in St. Peter's square but are watching on television. The bond of unity.

"I got the creeps. And my reaction, in all honesty, was "man of perdition". I do not say he is that, or that I have not tried to squelch my own negative reaction. I just say gat was the inner word I felt when he stepped out onto that balcony and surveyed the scene. He looked like one who calmly assessed the crowd he would rule.

Like I said, I do not say that is what he is. But that was, honestly, my strong and immediate reaction. I felt strongly gist we were in trouble." --Comment from "Thetimman" in Steve Skojec's combox

Steve Skojec replies to the above comment with:

"'He looked like one who calmly assessed the crowd he would rule.'

Yes. Or eat them. It's hard to say how you can see so much in a blank face, but there was something disturbingly triumphant in it."

Oh, there' so much more where that came from. You're well aware of it I'm sure.

Funny way for Catholics to greet the election of a new Pope.

You will know them by their fruits.

First impressions rule only when people want them to. Especially when you're projecting your present feelings into the past to colour your precious "first impression".

Or perhaps they really did have those first impressions because out of lack of charity, and not being in union with the prayers of the Church which united Catholics the world over on that drizzly night - prayers led by the newly-elected head of the Church, the Pope - they made themselves ripe pickings for the Devil and his instigations? Perhaps the spiritual lines were being drawn from square one - literally, from St. Peter's square? If Pope Francis is a holy man and a God-send, then the Devil surely would have some cunning wiles to attack him, and thus the unity of the Church, right?

Or I guess being in the unity of prayer with the head of the Church that night was papolatry?

Yes, funny way for Catholics to greet the election of a new Pope. And for them to continue it onward and to propagate on their world-wide blogs.

By their fruits you will know them.

Time-stamped:





Be blessed, Papa Francisco! Amen!

Yes, and as can be seen in that video, there are always those who, unexpected and unlooked for, expiate and repair for the sins of others "well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others". As can be seen in that video, though unknowingly done, reparation for the division caused to the Body of Christ - division caused by Catholics who attack the Pope on their world-wide social media - finds willing takers in the Pentecostals. Existential peripheries. The wind blows where it will. Perhaps one day they will be Catholics on fire, and entering into the heavenly kingdom before many learned others.

Special Permission?

"Padre Pio, already over 80 and with failing eyesight, exercised the faculty Pope Paul VI gave to all elderly priests, to continue celebrating according to the Roman Missal of 1962." --Colin Donovan (emphasis mine)

Elderly priests were routinely given this faculty to continue saying the 1962 Mass.

Then why do some bloggers claim that St. Padre Pio wrote to ask for special permission to continue saying the 1962 Mass? Or rather, special permission not to have to learn the New Mass, since Vatican II did not suppress the 1962 Mass. In other words, they want us to believe that St. Padre Pio was adamant, on "traditionalist" grounds, not to celebrate the New Mass. They want us to think that Padre Pio (who of all saints is a paramount example of filial obedience to the Holy See) regarded the liturgical reforms under way (he died before the Novus Ordo was fully placed) as a break from tradition, as something evil. Can they supply the evidence? A letter of some kind that doesn't have dubious origins, or even a letter that has dubious origins?

There is this letter, addressing Pope Paul VI, which the same bloggers would hold to be of dubious origin:

San Giovanni Rotondo
September 12, 1968

Your Holiness,

I unite myself with my brothers and present at your feet my affectionate respect, all my devotion to your august person in an act of faith, love and obedience to the dignity of him whom you are representing on this earth. The Capuchin Order has always been in the first line in love, fidelity, obedience and devotion to the Holy See; I pray to God that it may remain thus and continue in its tradition of religious seriousness and austerity, evangelical poverty and faithful observance of the Rule and Constitution, certainly renewing itself in the vitality and in the inner spirit, according to the guides of the Second Vatican Council, in order to be always ready to attend to the necessities of Mother Church under the rule of your Holiness.

I know that your heart is suffering much these days in the interest of the Church, for the peace of the world, for the innumerable necessities of the people of the world, but above all, for the lack of obedience of some, even Catholics, to the high teaching that you, assisted by the Holy Spirit and in the name of God, are giving us. I offer you my prayers and daily sufferings as a small but sincere contribution on the part of the least of your sons in order that God may give you comfort with his Grace to follow the straight and painful way in the defense of eternal truth, which never changes with the passing of the years. Also, in the name of my spiritual children and the Prayer Groups, I thank you for your clear and decisive words that you especially pronounced in the last encyclical "Humanae Vitae"; and I reaffirm my faith, my unconditional obedience to your illuminated directions.

May God grant victory to the truth, peace to his Church, tranquility to the world, health and prosperity to your Holiness so that, once these fleeting doubts are dissipated, the Kingdom of God may triumph in all hearts, guided by your apostolic work as Supreme Pastor of all Christianity.

Prostrate at your feet, I beg you to bless me in the company of my brothers in religion, my spiritual children, the Prayer Groups, my sick ones and also to bless all our good endeavours which we are trying to fulfill under your protection in the name of Jesus.

Humbly yours,

P. Pio, Capuchin

As to its authenticity, I do not know. There are two versions of the letter, one that doesn't say "the Second Vatican Council". It's featured on Catholic World Report and EWTN, and other places.

But the supposed letter in which St. Padre Pio supposedly asks special permission to be dispensed from saying the New Mass (when in fact this dispensation was, as mentioned, being regularly granted to elderly priests)? The evidence?

See, that's the point I'm making about people who hypocritically tell you to always do your homework but absolve themselves from such a task: Padre Pio may or may not have written a letter asking special permission. What is certain is that elderly priests were given the faculty by Pope Paul VI, and the giving of this faculty to elderly priests was regular, not something specially given, and that certain bloggers find this oh so convenient not to mention in the case of St. Padre Pio. They will cite hearsay, rumours regarding Padre Pio; things that have as much, or less, indication of authenticity as the letter I cited above - that is, if it works for their particular ideology. If it does not work for their ideology - as with the letter I cited above - they will say it is of dubious origins.

The faculty was given regularly to elderly priests, but certain bloggers believe...what exactly? That the Holy See decided to give Padre Pio a special permission to say the Old Mass because he was adamant that the reforms were a break from tradition? LOL! Oh, you know, it's Padre Pio, the one we banned earlier on from saying Mass and hearing confessions. He doesn't like the Second Vatican Council. He has stigmata, so let's give him special permission to say the Old Mass. ROFL! I suppose that's the reasoning behind those who have been studying the church for years and years on how it is must have worked. Talk about cheap boilerplate ecclesial tourism. LOL!

Padre Pio was an elderly priest when the Council was taking place. He was given the faculty that was given to any elderly priest to continue saying the Old Mass. That is what we know for sure (in addition to the fact that he was a living example of obedience to Holy Mother Church and we have the chops from earlier in his life to back that up), but certain bloggers run with this and do the filling-in according to their own lights. Padre Pio had to have hated the reforms and refused them (though he died before the Novus Ordo took place) because, you know, I took the red pill, and I just know.

Always do your homework.

Anyways, then there is this, from a former aide to Padre Pio (emphasis mine):

An Italian priest who served as a liaison between the famed Capuchin St. Padre Pio and English-speaking followers says that the saint had incorporated elements of the new or "Novus Ordo" Mass into his own celebrations of the liturgy before his death in 1968 despite rumors to the contrary.

The assisting priest, Padre Ermelindo Di Capua -- currently stationed in San Giovanno, Italy, where St. Pio spent nearly his entire ministry -- says the saint strictly adhered to dictates from Rome and sought information on precisely what he needed to do in order to conform with new strictures as the liturgy was changed from the Latin Rite after Vatican II.

The remarks are significant at a time when controversy has arisen over both the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo and the reaction to it by Pio -- considered a paragon of discernment.

It also comes at a time of enhanced interest (including here) of reintroducing elements of the Latin Rite into the modern Mass to bring back its mystical aspects. "It's not just old-timers wanting to cling to pre-Vatican II ways who are coming to the liturgies," notes one newspaper recently. "People in their twenties and thirties are filling many of the pews, finding serenity and a sense of awe in the solemn rituals." Additional interest has been sparked by director Mel Gibson, who recently made headlines with his movie about the Passion and who reportedly adheres only to the Latin Rite.

While there is no indication that Pio embraced all the reforms of Vatican II -- and indeed are even reports that he was distressed by certain Church trends -- Padre Ermelindo told Spirit Daily there was no indication that the saint opposed the new way of saying Mass, which has the priest facing the congregation and speaking in the national vernacular, which many believe detracts from reverence.

Ermelindo notes that the Novus Ordo is the only rite used at San Giovanni today and that visiting priests who request to use the Latin Rite are denied in conformance with the national bishops.

"He used to say Mass according to the new order," asserts the Franciscan, who lived in the same monastery as Pio and answered his English-speaking correspondence. "By 1968 [when Pio died] the new order was not yet complete, but had changed some things from Latin into the Italian language. He attempted to say Mass according to the new disposition of the Church. He tried to learn and adapt himself to the new rules of the Mass. There was still some Latin. It wasn't yet completely changed. The canon I don't remember exactly."

"Latin proponents have asserted that in fact Pio never did recite the new rite. "When the Mass of 1965 was introduced, bearing the first changes that were the precursors to the Novus Ordo, Padre Pio, without even reading the text, publicly took the position that he did not want to celebrate it," claimed one such correspondent. "He died before the full-blown Novus Ordo was issued in 1969 (and then recalled for doctrinal flaws)."

Padre Ermelindo -- who left San Giovanni Rotundo in 1970 and returned four years ago -- contradicts that, saying that he never heard Padre Pio criticize the new rules and that Pio always referred to Rome as "our mother." Ermelindo adds that the sainthood of Pio would have been impossible without strict obedience and that the greatest miracles around the saint were conversions. During his last Mass Padre Pio, who was too ailing to stand, sat on a chair in front of the people, says the assistant.

Dubious? The priest is lying? Hijacking Padre Pio for his own ends?

But why then should one believe the claim that Padre Pio asked special permission to be dispensed from saying the New Mass along with believing every other anti-Vatican II claim that the SSPX and Red-Pill Catholic bloggers love to put into the mouth of St. Padre Pio (who was canonized by Saint Pope John Paul the Great)?

There was an interim version of the Mass before the Novus Ordo was fully implemented. Did Padre Pio seek to learn that form? Would he have sought to learn that form, as his aide said he did? What does his former aide have to gain from this? Is he a blogger with an ideology?

Seems that St. Padre Pio was against the trends (the Council of the Media) that were happening at the time, but not the Council, and that any insistence on saying the 1962 Mass would have been owing to physical impairments severely limiting any capacity to learn the New Mass, even though his aide says Pio was diligent to learn the new forms for the interim Mass, and were those impairments not there...the question is, would St. Padre Pio have refused to learn and say the Novus Ordo?

Always do your homework? What?

"The difference between the liturgy according to the new books, how it is actually practiced and celebrated in different places, is often greater than the difference between an old Mass and a new Mass, when both these are celebrated according to the prescribed liturgical books." Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Ten Years of the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" (Oct. 24, 1998)

Milkshake IV

Ah yes, the homily that teaches how three things are needed to constitute mortal sin and if one of these things is lacking then the sin is not mortal; and, ah yes, let's see how we can run with this to make the commission of mortal sin look near impossible.

And ah yes, our venial sins are washed away in the Confiteor and the Agnus Dei and the reception of Holy Communion and one needs only open the sacrament of confession for mortal sin.

And ah yes, you wonder why the confessionals are empty but people are presenting themselves for Communion in droves.

It's called something: the wrong approach to sin.

God is offended by the least venial sin and the sacrament of confession is not a utility. Toilets are utilities. The sacrament of confession is not a utility.

Funnily, the regard for Confession as a utility is something common to both the loosey lefties and the tighty righties.

Something I wrote and then posted even though I wrote this title before posting it

Life is very simple, and we waste much time complicating it. Re-heating old flash-frozen memories, and flash-freezing present circumstances for later re-heating. Life is very simple in precisely the same way that suffering is inevitable. There are people who believe that power is true life, for power attains results, and power therefore must be power over suffering. But Jesus the way, the truth and the life totally contradicted this; in his word, his deed, in his sacrifice. God Himself did not choose results-based power. He totally contradicted it.

Just as we complicate life, so we generate for ourselves (and others) greater and more inextricable sufferings in trying to avoid suffering - which could just as well read: in trying to avoid life. Life is simple in that it does not answer our existential queries. Life simply is, and marvelous it is, marvelous and dangerous beyond telling, for who can speak fully of the adventure they are presently immersed in?

And our modern age has kept us from the most elementary level of belief. Our age is primarily defined as the avoidance of suffering at all costs, and the dulling of conscience through noise, and the only result is suffering beyond belief. And suffering beyond belief - that is to say, in a Neitzschean sense, beyond belief to knowing as achieving (a main fault of the Red-Pill Anti-Francis New Seer Movement, We-R-Truth Inc.) - is the worst suffering: the despair of unreality. It is earthbound suffering that at the same time can never get down to earth; it is focused on the flesh, but it is flesh that is hollow to the core.

Flesh from Flesh

The eye excites to see, where no feet tread,
the spry veins from trees’ crown-thrown seeds thread
upwards near the parent bole, from a bed
that was ancestral leaves and scales and cones;

how the pliant sprout dons, like a badge,
just a few of what the parent in abundance has:
set of ten meagre needles light locked on top
for its life-sustenance-star, a cap,

the same the sentinel sheds without a thought.

"But Rex, what if the Pope were to say that the Synod is way, way broader a picture, and that it shows a sad and blighted attitude towards family on the part of Catholics that they would accede to the Media's ploy to instrumentalize the Synod by focusing obsessively on one subject?"

"Well, then it would be so."

"But what if it wasn't so?"

"Well, I suppose it would mean it was a sort of Synod that hadn't taken place yet but you were too obsessed with one single subject to see it."

Ah, Rex isn't so imbecilic after all!