44 detailed criticisms of the theology of evolution October 31, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Bible, catachesis, Christendom, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, secularism, self-serving, Society.
Before I post the link and some parts of the list of criticisms someone has created (I’ve never seen this blog before), I will say that while I almost totally disdain theories regarding evolution and the big bang at this point, I don’t take what you might call a dogmatic stand against them. We’ve all been more or less propagandized from our earliest years to accept these unproven theories as hard, irrefutable scientific fact. Among the scientific community, the modern priest caste in our society, rejection of evolution is seen as a heresy against the new religion of rationalist sexular paganism. So I don’t wig out if I encounter faithful souls who believe evolution is real.
What I do try to get people to understand is that there have been powerful motivations in the scientific community towards treating science as the new religion of our culture. As I alluded to yesterday, this was more or less openly claimed by Rene Descartes as his objective, and undermining traditional accounts of Creation was certainly one of Darwin’s main goals. Thus, I hope those who have been stewed in the cultural religious catechesis in favor of evolution – as we all have – will keep an open mind in reading the below. We see how those who support traditional accounts of Creationism get treated as backward loons. That treatment is not incidental, it is part and parcel of the competing religious ethos of scientific rationalism. Again, Edward Feser’s book The Last Superstition is a must read to understand the basic incompatibility of modern “sciencism” with scholasticism and the whole ethos of Christendom. This is not to say all science is false or that science is a field to be avoided by faithful souls: it merely means that we must be aware of the powerful biases and inbuilt conceits that the treatment of science essentially as a religion entails. And those conceits are centered in the fields of evolutionary biology and astrophysics.
Anyway, the full list of criticisms is here, and some of them are quite powerful. I am out of time but here are a select few below:
#1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.
#3 Even some of the most famous evolutionists in the world acknowledge the complete absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. For example, Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and author of “Evolution” once wrote the following…
“I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
#6 If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs. But instead there are none.
#7 If the theory of evolution was true, we should not see a sudden explosion of fully formed complex life in the fossil record. Instead, that is precisely what we find.
#8 Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist, once commented on the fact that complex life appears very suddenly in the fossil record…
“A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants –instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.” [And we see here the profound tendency among modern scienticians to completely disregard any historical evidence or supernatural explanations of Creation, or to even see their failure to find such fossils as an indication of potential falsity in their theory cum dogma. In fact, they deliberately reject any evidence of supernatural Creation, just as Descartes intended.]
#10 Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or in nature. In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind of creature turn into another kind of creature. The entire theory of evolution is based on blind faith.
#11 Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.”
#21 Perhaps the most famous fossil in the history of the theory of evolution, “Piltdown Man”, turned out to be a giant hoax.
#22 If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and therefore life would not be possible. How can we account for this?
#23 If gravity was stronger or weaker by the slimmest of margins, then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would also make life impossible. How can we account for this?
#24 Why did evolutionist Dr. Lyall Watson make the following statement?…
“The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!”
Again, there is much more at the link. I do not recommend the site aside from this one link.
This is for your consideration. Do with it what you will. But I would remind that rejection or undermining of the Biblical story of Creation, especially regarding Adam and Eve, has a profound tendency to undermine all manner of doctrine. It is rejection of the biblical account of Creation that to my mind has led to theories of universal salvation, because if there was no Adam and Eve, there was no Original Sin, and we have no need for a Redeemer. The effects of evolution on the Faith are extremely toxic……..just as they were designed to be.
Corpus Christi Procession in Shafter with Father Rodriguez October 31, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, episcopate, Eucharist, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Holy suffering, Latin Mass, persecution, sanctity, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
1 comment so far
And, I’m pretty sure, there may be a certain commenter on this blog who might be visible in some of the video. And I think also a few other readers may be in the vid.
Please pray for Father Rodriguez. Like so many priests he is a target of satan and he will need a lot of prayers and much Grace.
But for now, it is glorious to see this witness to our timeless and universal faith. I understand many souls come from a long distance to participate in this witness with Father.
Priest gives strong discourse on failings of “big bang” model October 30, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Bible, catachesis, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Papa, priests, scandals, secularism, Society, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
Catholic attitudes towards the “big bang” have been much in the news of late. The “big bang” model of the universe and the theory of the evolution of species are like peas in a pod, chicken and rice. They go together and support each other immensely, and both are diametrically opposed to the non-mythical, real history presented in the first three chapters of Genesis. Both have been used to undermine the Faith in myriad ways, but especially in attacking the reliability of Scripture as the repository of real historical events. The Church for centuries maintained a very strong stand in defense of the history portrayed in Genesis 1-10, but over the past several decades it is possible to find statements from even pre-conciliar that seem to say that “evolution”and the “big bang” may be acceptable ways of describing the Creation of the universe, provided one maintains belief in Adam and Eve as our first parents and God as the author of creation.
However, I have for some time found this near-acceptance of these scientific theories (for that is all they are, neither evolution nor the “big bang” are anywhere near proven like, say, the gravitational constant or the 1st Law of Thermodynamics) evidence not of a tardy enlightenment but of a certain softening with regard to the acceptance and defense of Scripture. I’m not here to fight that battle today, but I would say that it could be spiritually dangerous to attach great importance to these theories, or even to rely on statements from this recent pope or that for evidence of Catholic “acceptance” of same.
Another note, I only listened to one sermon all the way through, I endorse the content therein (video 3), but as for the rest I have not heard all of them and do not necessarily endorse, wholeheartedly, everything therein. Of the three, I think the first may be of greatest import, as the priest argues that the modern scientific “movement” is not so much a dispassionate pursuit of facts backed up by hard evidence, as it is a philosophy deliberately set up by erroneous materialist, rationalist philosphes in the 16th and 17th century to oppose traditional Christian belief. Certainly, that was the goal of the Cartesian rationalism, who designed “science” to accept only supposedly empirical evidence and to discount the huge reams of evidence from sources other than what the 5 senses tell us – that is, the entire spiritual realm. This is all discussed at length in Edward Feser’s excellent book The Last Superstition.
Anyway, the sermons:
Next. I did listen to most of this and found no problems. I also heard it maybe a year or year and a half ago and do not recall anything controversial from an orthodox Catholic perspective.
Finally, the one I listened to entirely:
The suffering people experience in trying to find an orthodox presentation of the Faith is immense…….. October 30, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Art and Architecture, Basics, Dallas Diocese, Eucharist, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Latin Mass, Liturgy, North Deanery, sadness, Tradition, Virtue.
……..especially in this Diocese, which is, strangely enough, somewhat on the liberal side of the spectrum as such things go. Which fact is very odd, considering the overwhelming political (if not cultural, which is so much more critical) conservativism of this area.
A commenter and fellow blogger of this Diocese of Dallas has a post up that describes experiences I think many faithful souls suffer through. Trying to find a parish home that provides the spiritual sustenance many so desperately need can be a very daunting prospect. The vast majority of spiritual “product” out there is unnourishing pablum, as offensive to the aesthetic sense as it is to the sensus fidei, the sense of faith.
This blogger relates her own experience as a protestant convert to the Faith who left protestantism behind due to its internal contradictions and flight from reason in its theology. This blogger noted how barren and devoid of sign and symbol the protestant experience is, at least in most of the US. Expecting to find a much more enriching experience in the Church, she instead found almost exactly the same thing: casual, barren liturgies, ugly buildings, insipid music, and an appalling lack of an appropriate sense of reverence as beings in the Presence of God Incarnate. While her experience has varied, she has f0und only one parish in the Richardson/Plano/Allen/McKinney area acceptable, and with rest being inhibited by the same litany of deficiencies so many of the rest of us have lamented and, ultimately, fled:
So I’ve tried three parishes close to my home, and here is a partial list, in random order, of horrible things I have experienced:
- Protestant style “worship music” with a full band, lead singer, and backup singers. Even the liturgical music is in this style, so that I am listening to a guitar and drums and a woman wailing like Christina Aguilera while the priest prepares the altar and I approach to receive Communion. This has been the case at 2 of the 3 churches I’ve attended, and at one of those the band included – I am not making this up – bongo drums. In one of them, the band blocked 1/4 of the congregation from being able to view the altar. In another, the woman – in a tight, low-cut tank top – canted the psalm Christina Aguilera-style, replete with making “I’m hitting a high note right now” faces. [Heh. Pretty apt description. Choirs were put in a loft at the back for a reason. It's not a performance, it's an act of service and, yes, worship.]
- People wearing t-shirts, yoga pants, shorts, flip-flops, and baseball caps to Mass. [Well I've literally seen women in a tank top over a bikini during the summer]
- In one church, there was a bathroom right off the sanctuary, and people constantly came and went – yes, throughout the liturgy of the Eucharist and even during the blessing of the Body and Blood. I glanced up from prayer at one point during this and saw someone standing there right outside a bathroom door pumping hand sanitizer onto his hands and thought Where am I?
- A priest looking at a cell phone in the confessional. [Just horrible. Abomination of desolation, indeed.]
- A priest, after giving announcements before Mass, asking all the visitors to stand up and be welcomed. (I did not stand up.) When a few stood, everyone clapped. I do not go to Mass to be singled out and clapped for, or clap for other people – not even Christina Aguilera. I am here to receive Christ. That is the kind of crap I hated about the Baptist churches of my youth, and I was totally bummed that it happened at a Catholic church. [And this blogger noted that it was the lack of reverence and way over developed focus on me, ME, ME! that drove her from the protestants. Expecting to find much better, she has been disappointed. Unfortunately, I know far more than a handful of Catholics who have fled the other direction for the exact same reasons. They may find some relatively reverent small protestant community and it gives them at least some saccharine, if not the D5W they need in their state of spiritual emergency. When you're spiritually starved, you'll take anything. And that is the condition far too many souls find themselves in. The NO Mass in most parishes is a thin spiritual gruel that neither nourishes nor appeals to the taste, when it should be the smorgasbord of the TLM with the finest in fare and 5 star execution. How's that for beating a metaphor to death!]
- People letting their children act like they are in a doctor’s office waiting room: taking off their shoes, digging around in Mom’s purse for gum, etc. [how about video games complete with sound!]
- A marked lack of reverence: hardly anyone genuflects; hardly anyone receives on the tongue; hardly anyone even seems to care that they are in the presence of Christ. They don’t sing (although young people seem to love singing along loudly to the horrific “worship music,” probably because they know it from the radio.) I’ve seen only two other women in veils throughout all these visits, and we get stared at like museum curiosities.[A woman walked up to my wife after Mass in Bandera, TX at a pretty little parish run by Polish priests that was actually pretty orthodox - at least for San Antonio diocese. Anyway, she walks up to my wife and says "Are you Byzantines?" And I turn around with a great big s---eating grin and say "NO, WE'RE TRADDIES!" She had no idea what I meant.]
- Spaces that are at best modern and Protestant-looking, even if beautiful (St. Joseph is a good example) and at worst resemble converted gyms or community centers.
This is the same lament I made about 50 times on this blog in the period 2009-2010. Then I found the TLM, and I was even more outraged. How could the Church have ever traded this glorious Mass for what we have now?!? What were they thinking?!
At the same time, I recognize that even for me it took some time to “build” to the point of assisting at the TLM. That seems absurd now, but Catholics have been conditioned by hostile priests, laity, media, etc. for decades to view the TLM and the traditional practice of the Faith in general as something strange and alien, reserved only for kooks. I recognize not everyone is ready to step from your average spare to fair NO Mass to the glorious TLM. So, in the interests of helping souls find better sustenance short of the only TLM parish in the Diocese (ever? It’s been threatened!), here are a few alternatives in descending order of orthodoxy and reverence, at least so far as I know. Note, this list is biased towards the northern suburbs because that’s where the commenter lives:
1. St. William the Confessor, Greenville: Far and away the best non-Mater Dei alternative. Fr. Paul Weinberger has been pastor here since 2003. A very good priest and even better man, Fr. Weinberger makes his NO Latin Mass as traditional and reverent as he is allowed to make it. He would offer the TLM if he were permitted. NO Latin Mass on Sundays. Chant in Sunday morning Masses. Communion received kneeling and on the tongue at the altar rail. Benedictine arrangement of the altar (again, would offer Ad Orientem, but not allowed to do so). Takes Confession very seriously and it is available almost every day, and for hours on Sunday. Fr. Weinberger has endured many sufferings and unjust persecutions. Please pray for him.
2. Saint Sophia Ukrainian Catholic Church, The Colony: Reverent liturgy. Consecration behind iconostasis, per Byzantine custom. Old Slavonic liturgy, at least on Sundays. Beautiful eastern liturgy. Very small but gorgeous church. Confession not nearly so frequent as St. William.
The video below gives you some idea of what the parish looks like. I cannot vouch for the content of the video, just watch the first bit to see how the iconostasis looks!
3. Our Lady of Lebanon, Lewisville: Parish somewhat famous for being Fr. Mitch Pacwa’s “home” parish. Maronite Rite. Some or all of the liturgy in Aramaic, the language of Christ. Another pretty church. I really can’t comment too much as I’ve never been but I know those who have and they would probably put Our Lady of Lebanon somewhere between St. William and Saint Thomas Aquinas for overall reverence, beauty, symbolism, and orthodoxy.
From here things drop pretty fast. Really, the more time I spend at a TLM parish exclusively, the more the rest of the Novus Ordo parishes seem pretty much the same. I’ll list a few more, in no particular order, that are either pretty, tend toward the orthodox side, and/or are known for not being very abusive:
St. Mark the Evangelist, Plano: Horridly ugly church, built as a descending pit/amphitheater with the altar BELOW most of the people, at least there is a large true stained glass window, but full of modernist imagery. However, the liturgy on Sunday especially at 9 and 10:30 is pretty orthodox as are the priests. Incense generally used at 10:30. Choir is improving and I think mixing in some chant. Don’t go to the yute Mass at 6:30, many others in Spanish. Also avoid those, they are less reverent and orthodox.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Dallas: Nice old church, somewhat wreckovated, I understand the liturgy swerves all over the map. I know my dear departed friend Vicki Middleton, God rest her soul, got very fed up with abuses here. Still, it is generally known – or used to be known? – for being somewhat on the orthodox side. YMMV.
St. Edward Dallas: One of the most beautiful parishes remaining in the Diocese, it has not been wreckovated to death but the altar rails were ripped out. I cannot vouch for the liturgy, it may be bad as the parish is almost entirely Spanish speaking now, but on the other hand the parish is still very traditional looking, so maybe it’s not so bad. Only English Mass is at noon, Sunday.
Christ the King, Dallas: Located near Highland Park and attracts the richy-rich crowd. Gorgeous parish, still has altar rails and high altar, Msgr. Zimmer is on the liberal side but the liturgy was OK 15 years ago. Tabernacle in the right place. Lots of photos online, the parish is very popular for weddings, etc, for its traditional Catholic appearance and beauty. But if you’re looking for real liturgical and catechetical meat, this is probably not the place. Best for aesthetes who aren’t much interested in liturgy.
St. Anthony, Wylie: Ugly church, can’t say the pastor is Mr. Orthodoxy, laity are actually quite faithful and well informed, by and large. As for Mass…….meh.
I’m way out of time. There are a few other pretty churches that haven’t been ruined like the new St. Cecilia (the namesake of my dear departed mother in law), but as for liturgy and homoletical catechesis, that list above is probably most of the tops north of say downtown Dallas, roughly. You could pick a fight over some left out or included. This was just a real quick, super large brush-stroke presentation.
Getting in the mood for the Purgatorial month of November October 30, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Christendom, Four Last Things, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Holy suffering, Latin Mass, Liturgical Year, mortification, sanctity, Tradition, Virtue.
All Saint’s Day is Saturday, a Holy Day of Obligation. All Soul’s Day is moved to Monday November 3 due to November 2 being a Sunday, the 21st after Pentecost. The month of November is a time of prayer for the dead. We must pray for the souls in Purgatory, in this modern Church where most funereal Masses are instant canonizations, so few pray for souls these days! I strongly recommend obtaining a copy of the Raccolta, that awesome compendium of the indulgenced prayers of the Church, and offer those prayers for souls in Purgatory, both those you know, and for those unknown and forgotten souls.
The Church makes the first week of November (Nov 1-8) a season of immense Grace for the poor holy souls suffering in Purgatory. They are holy because they are saved, even if they must be purified! The sufferings in Purgatory are as intense as those of hell, save for the glory of knowing that they will, at some point, see God. This consolation is enormous but does not assuage all the great physical and moral sufferings of Purgatory, the greatest of which is being so close to God and yet unable to see the Beatific Vision.
During this great Octave for the souls in Purgatory, plenary indulgences can be gained daily for the poor souls. On All Saints Day, each soul who assists at Mass, and meets the other usual conditions, can gain a plenary indulgence for the poor souls by reciting in church or oratory an Our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory Be six times. By special dispensation, this indulgence applies to EACH time you visit a church and receive Holy Communion, the normal limit of one plenary indulgence per person per day being waved on this great Feast.
Also, the faithful who, during the period of eight days from All Saints Day, visit a cemetery and pray for the dead may gain a plenary indulgence, under the usual conditions, on each day of the Octave, applicable only to the dead. Here is a simple invocation for the dead, called the “Eternal Rest” prayer:
Eternal rest grant unto him/her (them), O Lord; and let perpetual light shine upon him/her (them). May he/she (they) rest in peace. Amen.
Réquiem ætérnam dona ei (eis) Dómine; et lux perpétua lúceat ei (eis). Requiéscat (Requiéscant) in pace. Amen.
There are many more edifying customs and traditions associated with All Saint’s and All Soul’s Day at the Fisheater’s site. This Octave was for a very long period of the Church’s history embraced by the faithful as one of the great seasons of the year, certainly below Christmas and Easter but only just, and certainly on a par with Pentecost and some of the other feasts of the Ascension in late spring. But today it is mostly a highly disordered secular holiday and forgotten by many Catholics. It is such an enormous tragedy that this great well-spring of Grace is left untapped by so many! May their hearts be touched this year and may they pray fervently for the dead.
Find below the great Sequence of the Requiem Mass in the traditional Rite, Dies Irae with the preferred, traditional translation into English. I pray this stirs your heart to great efforts for the poor suffering souls! The vast majority of those who are saved will spend at least some time in Purgatory. You probably will. But if you pray for the souls in Purgatory, and through your prayers their penance is completed, they will pray for you from Heaven. I expect a very long time in Purgatory, so I try to be especially dedicated to all the poor souls, especially the forgotten ones.
Make this Octave of All Saints a time of great devotion for your family this year! BTW, I really like this custom of lighting candles at the graves in Catholic cemeteries. Do we have a specifically Catholic cemetery in this Diocese? That is such an awesome thing in Europe, each old church has it’s own cemetery. I wish we had that more here. I have spoken to Father about having a cemetery at Mater Dei but I’m told it probably won’t happen.
Understanding the cold sterility of perverse, “same-sex” relations October 29, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
The very philosophical E.Bougis at FideCogitActio has a post examining the ontological differences between normal, rightly ordered (and God-ordained) desires ordered towards the procreation of children, and the cold, barren sterility of perverse relations between people of the same sex. Both Mr. Bougis’ own analysis, and a quote from Germain Grisez are worthy of reading. First, Mr. Bougis:
Homosexuality is, by definition, love of one’s sameness-in-sex. It is, in other words, love of one’s self-in-sex. Homosexuality is, therefore, onanism by a longer name. It is the quintessence of the contraceptive (i.e. sterile) mentality. As such, it is not simply immoral; it is an aesthetic outrage, and therefore it is the pageant of our grotesque age.
For those who are, like me, unaware of what “onanism” means, it means self-abuse. And without going into too much detail, I fervently agree. I have long believed that so-called homosexuality is a very highly developed form of narcissistic self-love, fed by self-abuse, that over time and especially with repeated exposure to pornography can eventually – not in every case, but in some – cause an individual to actually develop appetites for the same in intimate relations rather than the opposite. Yes there are many corollary factors such as childhood sex abuse by a same-sex abuser (THE number one cause for falling into this kind of lifestyle), absent or distant fathers, perhaps even a certain predisposition to this kind of perversion, but overall, the perverse appetites develop as a result of unconstrained and truly abusive descent into addictive self-pleasuring. As the mind and soul experience more and more of this pleasure at the, ahem, hands of the self, somehow the natural appetites are deranged to desire not the opposite, but the same in this powerful and almost totally misunderstood realm of psycho-sexual behavior. Acceptance of self-abuse as “natural, normal, and harmless” in pseudo-scientific literature on the subject in such disastrous “guides” as The Joy of Sex and others caused, I believe, the explosion in perverse behavior we have seen in the past few decades. Between normal relations rendered sterile by contraception, and the virtual epidemic of self-abuse in our culture (virtually every man today abuses himself regularly, and the large majority of women now, too), individual’s normal repulsion towards unnatural behaviors has been dramatically lessened, and the groundwork laid for “tolerance” and even “acceptance” of incredibly destructive behaviors. We presently have an epidemic of intentional sterility in our culture, and that epidemic is destroying it. God always allows our own worst sins to be our downfall, whether as individuals, or as a society.
On to Germain Grisez’ comments:
“[A]lthough it is true that partners in sodomy also could conceivably share in a committed relationship with sincere mutual affection and express their feelings in ways that would be appropriate in any friendship, the coupling of two bodies of the same sex cannot form one complete organism and so cannot contribute to a bodily communion of persons. Hence, the experience of intimacy of the partners in sodomy cannot be the experience of any real unity between them. [Which is why so many same-sex "couples" practice serial "infidelity" and few relations last any length of time. Even those most "committed" partnerings held up as examples of "virtuous" same-sex behavior almost always tolerate regular couplings outside the "committed" relationship]Rather, each one’s experience of intimacy is private and incommunicable, and is no more a common good than is the mere experience of sexual arousal and orgasm. Therefore, the choice to engage in sodomy for the sake of that experience of intimacy in no way contributes to the partners’ real common good as committed friends.
Someone who admits that sodomy necessarily lacks the unitive significance of heterosexual intercourse which makes a couple a single reproductive principle might nevertheless suggest that a couple can choose such sodomitic intercourse as a way of communicating good will and affection. [I'm sorry, but to sodomize someone is such a violent, unnatural act, I find any such claims to be mere shams, ridiculous cover given to try to excuse the inexcusable.]However, just as with fornicators, sexual intercourse is not chosen by sodomites in preference to conversation and mutually beneficial acts because it is the more expressive means of communicating good will and affection. Rather, it is chosen because it provides subjective satisfactions otherwise unavailable. [And I think the act in question involves the acting out of very sick and twisted roles of aggressor and submissive which, in almost every human society in history until now, were always understood to be the resort of a demented mind. Fem-fem acting out is just as sick even if the abuse takes place in different ways.] Consequently, while sodomites may not choose, as fornicators do, an illusory good instead of a real one, they do choose to use their own and each other’s bodies to provide subjective satisfactions, and thus they choose self-disintegrity as masturbators do. Of course, while masturbators can be interested exclusively in the experience of sexual arousal and orgasm, sodomites also are interested in the illusion of intimacy.” (From The Way of the Lord Jesus, vol. 2)
Perhaps, but I would argue that even these relatively benign (but still outrageously perverse) reasons for this behavior given above are rare in the individuals so accursed. That is why even in public demonstrations of their perversions these poor lost souls cannot help but engage in outrageous displays of nudity, sado-masochism, denigration of wholesome institutions (like the Church and family), and violence. Anyone who has seen photos of “pride” parades knows this to be true, and while perhaps most do not engage in these very public displays of degeneration, a very large number do so in private.
And what is more, these folks know, deep down inside, what they are. That is why they demand such constant affirmations and even glorification from the culture at large, and why they will persecute the faithful with an unyielding savagery.
It is amazing I even have to write this. The very idea that someone would have to explain the manifest grotesqueness of this perverse behavior against widespread societal acceptance would have shocked the average person from even 20 or 30 years ago. That is how far we have fallen, so very fast.
And yet our beloved Church is absolutely infested with this perversion. Lord, have mercy.
More proof leftism is a false religion October 29, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, paganism, rank stupidity, secularism, self-serving, Society.
Our “friends” on the left like to tell us they are the “rational,” “fact-based” community. But when it comes to the sacred shibboleths of leftism: whether abortion may cause cancer, or the disastrous effect divorce and contraception have had on the family- they are almost impervious to any contrary evidence.
And when it comes to one of their latest fetishes,
global warming cooling climate change, they are so uniquely opposed to any contrary evidence and so determined to enforce lockstep doctrinal uniformity that the religious connection becomes clear. Take, for instance, recently unearthed satellite weather photos from the early-mid 1960s that show radical changes in polar ice caps at least as large, if not larger, than those we see today, which were supposed to be “unprecedented.” Do the acolytes and high priests take this new evidence to re-evaluate their theory? Of course not! This new evidence is simply inexplicable!
Scientists have uncovered a cache of satellite images of Earth from the 1960s that had been forgotten in storage for nearly 50 years and that push back the first satellite images of our planet a full 17 years. [well I know of some shots from the Ranger Program that showed the entire earth by 1965. Yet again the media screws up a very easy topic - I guess they were saying their were no shots of the full earth from space until 1980 or so?!? What about all the Apollo pictures!?!]\
What they found astonished them: The images revealed new records for both the smallest maximum [Antarctic] sea ice ever recorded and the largest. The latter record was just broken this year. The two records were just two years apart, but the difference in sea ice extent was more than 1.5 million square miles (4 million square kilometers), an area twice the size of Mexico.
“We’re talking a 20 percent difference,” says Gallaher. “That’s a sizeable change.”
The Nimbus satellites also caught images of the Arctic before warming from climate change accelerated. Gallaher and Campbell were surprised to see some mysterious holes in the ice in the old images. [See how they do that! Present "global warming" and "climate change accelerated" as accomplished facts, rather than highly dubious and contested theories. This new, old evidence rather explodes the theory, does it not, or at least gravely undermine some of its central assumptions? But rather than discuss that, we have scientists acting bewildered, unable to explain how this could be, since the "theory" isn't a theory, but a religious tenet.]
Holes in the Arctic ice are a common phenomenon today, as the Arctic warms. But in the colder 1960s, a large patch of thin or melted ice was unexpected—and nothing like it was seen again until the 21st century.
Now, wait, how do you know that? How many other photos are “missing?” During the 60s, 70s, and most of the 80s no one was much concerned about polar ice caps or gerbal worming so there may not have been much notice taken of such photos but I guarantee they exist. We have no idea what the ice coverage looked like from space then. So you can’t say this is some weird 60s-2000s phenomenon.
We also now know supposed “unprecedented” changes in the levels of polar ice, which are supposed to “prove” climate change (whatever that means, today), do in fact have precedent. We also have little to no proof that the Arctic has “warmed” any more than an absolutely trivial amount. And ice coverage in the Arctic is higher this year than it has been in some time.
It is also very significant that ice coverage in Antarctica varied 20% in only 2 years. That tells me our scienticians have very little idea of how this ice coverage behaves, or its significance.
But, being the cardinal archbishops of the religion of materialist sexular paganism, that won’t stop them from dictating to the rest of us huge penances for the sins of carbon emissions in order to appease the dread god Gaia.
I tell you, if we had a few thousand of these climate change scientists as Catholic bishops and priests our troubles in the Church would soon be over my friends. That kind of religious fervor is rarely found in the Church today.
On the contrary, our present situation in the Church today is that a sizable number of nominal Catholics, including a good number of bishops and priests, have more faith in “global warming” than they do in Jesus Christ, the Real Presence, and all the Truths of our Faith.
On Confidence in God October 29, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, Latin Mass, sanctity, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, Virtue.
I think I have conveyed how I feel about the Catholic newspaper put out by the Transalpine Redemptorists before, but for those who may have missed that, I love this publication. It always edifies me, and fills me with peace. Perhaps a strange response to a newspaper, but it really does. There is a great deal of spiritual content like the below, which is just one small example from one issue. I have always found the content in this paper to be solidly orthodox and enriching. I highly recommend it for all faithful Catholics.
The below contains some excerpts from Saints on having confidence in God. During this time of tremendous trial and upheaval, we must remember that all that is occurring has been permitted to occur by God, for reasons we will likely never fathom in this life. In times of such trial, there is a great temptation in our fallen human nature to turn inwards, to think we must rely on ourselves and our own abilities, rather than continuing to trust in God. As we see so many things in the Church today that are simply inexplicable and seem so damaging to the good of souls, we must maintain both our hope and our trust in God that all this is according to His Divine Will (permissive or positive) and that our reaction to this crisis may even play a role in our salvation. In fact, the sufferings so many are experiencing and, hopefully, offering up, may be a source of Grace that will result not only in their own sanctification but even the inflow of Grace into others for their conversion.
On Confidence in God:
“When a man trusts in his own talents and powers, it is a great misfortune. For such a one, who trusts in his own knowledge, prudence, or mind – God, in order to make him learn his own insufficiency, withdraws him His help, and leaves him to his own resources; from whence it comes, that notwithstanding all his labors, they produce little or no fruit. Form this we may learn why it is that we so often fail in our undertakings.” – Saint Vincent de Paul
What an example we have of this, in the passage of the Red Sea by the Israelites and Egyptians. The former, putting all their trust in God, went through the midst thereof on dry ground, the waters standing on each side of them as a wall of defense; the latter, placing their confidence in chariots and horses, perished in the midst of the waves.
Saint Francis of Sales prospered in all that he undertook for God: and the reason of this was, because he never trusted in his own abilities, but only to Divine Providence; and he never felt so sure of success, as when he had no other ground for hope but this, the goodness and power of God. [And this great Doctor put himself in tremendous danger for the good of souls, constantly battling protestants in Switzerland and exposing himself to great physical danger in the process. Saint Francis de Sales converted tens of thousands of protestants back to the Faith. His life was repeatedly threatened. By trusting in God, He was able to overcome all. What a lesson for all of us.]
Saint Philip Neri used to say, “When a person of his own accord puts himself in the way of some temptations or occasions of sin, and says, I shall not fall or I shall not sin; there is, perhaps, no surer sign that such a one will fall with the greatest possible risk to his everlasting salvation. But when temptations come upon us, without our seeking them, we should not fear them; but sweetly trusting in our Lord, lift up our hearts to him, and go cheerfully on in the way of the Lord.“
I have been reading that Church History book mentioned in some recent posts. It does remind me that there have been times in the history of the Church when things looked about as dark – maybe even darker in some respects – than they do now. There was a period from about 1540-1580 or so when it appeared that protestantism might overcome the Church. So many nations, great princes, and powerful armies fell into this heresy, so many bishops and priests went over as well, that the matter was really in doubt there for several decades – at least from a natural perspective. We haven’t much detailed history on the Arian heresy, but it may have been even worse than the protestant heresy.
Our own crisis is without precedent in some regards, but in a few, things are better. First of all, the faithful, scattered and few though we may be, are at least aware that there are others out there who feel and believe as we do through modern communications. Secondly, there are still some very solid and faithful bishops, and as the traditional Mass proliferates, their number will only grow. I really believe Cardinal Burke, though always solid, has grown tremendously in his faithfulness and appreciation for Tradition since he has become so intimate with the TLM. There are others, as well, few, to be sure, but it’s not quite as desperate as “Athanasius against the world.” There are also more and more priests being exposed to the Traditional Mass, and who almost always then also embrace the great Tradition of the Church overall as a result. As bad as things are, they could be worse. We are blessed in very many respects – I have only named a few.
So keep your trust in God and remain close to Our Lady at the Foot of the Cross. We are surely going to suffer, and the worst wounds will come from those who should be our greatest allies and protectors. But so long as we remain faithful all that suffering will only redound to our heavenly glory some day. That is the most wonderful aspect of being Catholic, no matter how bad things get, so long as we remain faithful, we know we shall be victorious in the end.
The Council of Trent is still completely relevant today October 28, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Papa, reading, scandals, secularism, Society, SOD, Tradition.
1 comment so far
I am reading a book on the history of the Church written in the late 20s by a Father Poulet and translated into English in the 30s by a Dr. Raemers. I already pulled one set of quotes out of the book regarding protestantism and the immorality of both private interpretation and justification by faith alone. The fact that I pulled these quoted out does not mean that I am not a sinner – as one commenter ludicrously tried to claim – but that was not the point. The point is, how much good can come from a theology that is rooted so deeply in error and can be shown to have given rise to other errors and even highly destructive behaviors within even months of its promulgation and acceptance by confused souls? The answer is, not much. This latter consideration used to weigh heavily on the Church’s approach to separated sects, but under the misguided ecumenical movement of today, these considerations of basic facts of theological derangement are ignored in the pursuit of earthly goals.
But on a broader level, there is much wisdom in this basic history book (intended for college students and adults) that extends far beyond the errors of protestants. As some excerpts from the canons of the Council of Trent show, they have great relevance for Catholics today, which only makes sense, as Trent was a Council for all time, and not just for one particular moment of mid-20th century humanist exuberance. See if you agree with me as I quote from pp. 91-93 of Church History by Dom Charles Poulet of Solesmes:
“The teaching mission of the Church,” says the Council of Trent, at the head of its dogmatic decrees,”is to keep intact those two sources of our faith, Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. In virtue of this authority which it has received from Christ, the Council reiterates the ancient canon of the Scriptures, declares the Latin translation known as the Vulgate to be the only normal and authentic text, and, finally, watches over its spread and interpretation. Again, in matters pertaining to faith and morals no one may interpret the Scriptures against the authoritative interpretation of the Church or against the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” [And what would the Fathers have to say about admitting those in manifest states of adultery/concubinage to the Blessed Sacrament, or to be married by high Church officials without Confession and any sign of contrition on their part, or at least the termination of their concubinage prior to marriage, let alone the enormous scandal of purported "gifts" offered the Church by unrepentant sodomites. They would be staggered at the audacity of the error, and broken-hearted to learn its high source]
…….The Council also defined the divine institution, nature, minister and effects of the Sacraments, as well as the dispositions required to receive them. It concerned itself especially with the Eucharist and the Mass, which had been so distorted by protestants. The Council defined both the reality of the Real Presence and its integrity. “If anyone denies that in the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist are truly, really, and substantially contained the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and hence the whole Person of Jesus Christ, but maintains that they are there only as a sign or figure, or virtually; let him be anathema.” In respect to the mode of this Presence, and in reply to the objection of John Calvin that if Christ were here on earth, He would no longer be in Heaven, the Council defined: “There is no contradiction between the two facts that Our Savior continues to exist in Heaven and at the right hand of His Father, according to His natural manner of being (juxta modum existendi naturalem), and that nevertheless He is present to us in several other places by His Substance and in a sacramental manner (sacramentaliter prasens sua substantia nobis adsit). This second mode of being is one which we can but imperfectly describe in words, although our reason, enlightened by faith, can understand how such a mode of being is possible with God.” Finally, in opposition to the Lutheran theory of impanation, or consubstantiation, the Council affirmed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation: “If anyone says that in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine, together with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and denies that marvelous and unique change of the whole substance of bread into the Body, and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, a change which leaves only the appearances of bread and wine, and which the Catholic Church very appropriately terms transubstantiation: let him be anathema.“
A few points on that second paragraph quoted. First, was that really the best Calvin could come up with, that Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, God Himself, could not be both in Heaven and on earth?!? Really?!? Because that’s just so infantile and silly it is ludicrous. No wonder Saint John’s Apocalypse was also under scrutiny by the protestant revolutionaries (again, I do not call them reformers, nor do I capitalize protestants, because I think it has been an enormous mistake by faithful sons of the Church to give even that much credit to these rebels against the Faith. They did not reform, but deform, and they are not Churches proper, and thus do not deserve to be capitalized. I know that violates rules of spelling, but I care not) for exclusion from the Canon of Scripture, since it makes plain that Christ’s Sacrifice is always ongoing before the Father in Heaven and that the prayers and sacrifices of the faithful on earth (especially the Mass) are also offered in that same mystical rite so beyond our limited comprehension.
Once again, too, we see strong denunciations of the modern error in the Church, so distressingly widespread, of lowering the Blessed Sacrament to just a sign or symbol. I must say, that has to be a driving belief behind the most recent attempts to destroy the Church’s Moral Doctrine, because no one to me could possibly believe in the Real Presence and yet be pushing so hard to see it constantly received sacrilegiously! We could also add those numerous pro-abort politicians, Supreme Court justices, and others, who like to pretend at faithfulness and receive the Blessed Sacrament (on their occasional appearances at Mass), albeit with great sacrilege again.
Truth is divisive. Truth is clarifying. It is not uniting. It is not indifferent. It is not worldly. It is highly dubious that Truth is “ecumenical.” Truth cuts through, it separates, it casts out. Truth is not subtle shades of grey, contradictory, or requiring of a PhD to understand.
God willing, if we are deserving, we may soon return to a more sane understanding of the Truth that Christ has revealed through His Church. Or it could be that the local priest is correct, and that we are deep into the Passion of the Church, which will mirror the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He said we are in the time when Peter denied Christ. Perhaps that is true. If so, we have a very long night and day of suffering and misery ahead of us.
God have mercy on us.
When Pope Francis spoke on corruption, just who did he condemn? October 28, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Papa, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, shocking, Society, SOD, Spiritual Warfare.
I know many may not be comfortable with this post. I am sorry that I feel there is some necessity in putting this out. I know many others have already covered Pope Francis’ amazing comments on corruption from last Thursday, but none of that coverage has mentioned the part of this address I found most……..I don’t know, revealing, disconcerting, damning? You be the judge (just not of ……..you know).
Now, for the few who may not know, Pope Francis had an address on Thursday in which he, among other things, stated his opposition to both the death penalty and life imprisonment:
“All Christians and people of good will are thus called today to struggle not only for abolition of the death penalty, whether it be legal or illegal and in all its forms, but also to improve prison conditions, out of respect for the human dignity of persons deprived of their liberty. And this, I connect with life imprisonment,” he said. “Life imprisonment is a hidden death penalty.”
The pope noted that the Vatican recently eliminated life imprisonment from its own penal code.
Just for clarity’s sake I would like to reiterate that the constant Doctrine of the Faith regarding the death penalty has been that the state has the right of the sword. It is a prudential matter to determine whether, or when, to apply that power. Pope Francis may not like that fact, he may think that the death penalty’s day has passed, but he cannot declare the Church in formal opposition to the use of the death penalty, because She has never been so opposed and is not now. For many centuries the Church cooperated in the use of the death penalty by the civil authority for those who committed crimes against the Church. While many may find this cooperation abhorrent today, for me, it was just another indication of how much more seriously the Church, and the souls within Her, took at that time their considerations of the eternal life and their recognition that this life on earth is not the be all and end all of our existence. For those many long centuries, the taking of a human life, even in the name of the defense of the Faith, was seen as far preferable than running the risk of exposing many souls to pernicious, destroying error. But, as a local priest might say, compared to them, we are pygmies in the Faith, and those men giants.
I will also note in passing that Pope Francis’ declaration regarding the Vatican is pointless. When is the last time a murder took place in that uniform community of celibate males? How about an armed robbery, a rape, or a terror attack? So it is not such a great work of magnanimity, it is more another post-conciliar PR move.
Moving on, the comments that many found most perplexing in this somewhat meandering address were the following:
The corrupt one does not perceive his own corruption. It is a little like what happens with bad breath: someone who has it hardly ever realizes it; other people notice and have to tell him,” the pope said. “Corruption is an evil greater than sin. More than forgiveness, this evil needs to be cured.“
Far be it from me to question the theological formation of the reigning pontiff, but this statement is simply amazing on so many levels. There is no evil greater than sin, because all evil stems from sin. So it’s a non sequitur at the top. But often overlooked in dyspepsia about the first part is what is said in the second part: what is being said there? How does this correlate with all the calls to mercy we’ve heard? So, apparently, there are some things we can be judgmental about, especially those that interest sociaslist-leaning (Peronist) elites from Argentina? Who are we to judge the “corruption” of another? Note there was also a bit of nationalism in this part of the address, where the “corruption” was ascribed, at least to some degree, to being a particular fault of “Anglo-type” capitalism.
But for me, the most incredible part of the address is this, below:
The pope spoke scathingly about the mentality of the typical corrupt person, whom he described as conceited, unable to accept criticism, and prompt to insult and even persecute those who disagree with him.
And as the Pope readily noted, corrupt people are notoriously difficult to convince of their corruption. What they need is to be cured, or, as a Catholic might say…….converted.
I believe this was much the point of Father Ray Blake’s excellent post, which conclusion I excerpt below:
The impression that is given is that Justice in the Church is itself corrupted, indeed, that it is actually about settling scores and has nothing to do with truthfulness which was once considered a Christian virtue. Rather than being consoled by accounts of these investigations I become increasingly alarmed, it seems as if some religious orders or diocese that seem to produce fruit and are orthodox are subject to investigation whilst others which are barren and often highly unorthodox carry on in their own sweet way, especially if the have powerful or wealthy friends at court. The problem is that Justice appears to used as a robber baron or some New World dictator might use it, as a means of intimidation and threat, not to bring the Salvific Light of Christ to bear on dark and hidden corners. It is as if some are above the Law and others crushed by it.
In other words, physician, heal thyself. It is more than slightly ironic that in this most “merciful” and “humble” of pontificates, both are amazingly lacking, especially if one happens to fall on the wrong side of the ecclesiastical spectrum. Far from a populist pontificate, it seems far more aristocratic and elitist, much more in the mold of the Renaissance Borgias than the early Church Fathers.
And yet, of course, the Pope remains capable of saying some good things, but I will note the below, which a commenter mentioned and which is being much ballyhooed in some quarters, seems passing strange with respect to the documents just released by the Synod on the family:
In an audience with members of an international Marian movement, Pope Francis warned that the sacrament of marriage has been reduced to a mere association, and urged participants to be witnesses in a secular world.
“The family is being hit, the family is being struck and the family is being bastardized,” the Pope told those in attendance at the Oct. 25 audience.
He warned against the common view in society that “you can call everything family, right?”
“What is being proposed is not marriage, it’s an association. But it’s not marriage! It’s necessary to say these things very clearly and we have to say it!” Pope Francis stressed.
He lamented that there are so many “new forms” of unions which are “totally destructive and limiting the greatness of the love of marriage.”
That’s all very true. And it’s nice to hear. But to quote my father: “a hundred ‘attaboy’s’ are wiped out by one ‘aw shit!'” Maybe not fair, but certainly human nature. I will note these comments are very much opposed to the spin that came out of the Synod, to Cardinal Kasper’s claims of having the fervent support of the Pope in the Synodal attacks on the family, and in Pope Francis’ refusal to clarify his stance with respect to the Synod in any public statement.
Modernists thrive on confusion. Pope Francis, I think, does enjoy adulation and attention. He was with a group of fairly orthodox Catholics. You do the math.
Perhaps I am being unfairly critical. Perhaps I am not giving the utmost benefit of the doubt. But criticism of a Holy Pontiff is most certainly permitted to the faithful, especially when we are confronted with such a bewildering array of statements, PR events, doctrinal proposals put forth in the Pope’s name, reactions, calls for clarifications, virtual defenestrations of the more orthodox members of the Curia, vibrant religious orders shut down, an apparently growing movement to sack any faithful/orthodox bishop who has even a slight scandal in his diocese, etc., etc.
Again, you do the math. Maybe the Pope’s statements on the family above fill you with great hope, but then I would ask, do the documents produced by the Synod, especially the mid-term “Relatio” which speaks in the Pope’s own voice, correspond with these statements above? Does the principle of non-contradiction still apply? And what of the Synod fathers rejecting the most egregious statements of the Relatio, and excluding them from the final report, and then the Pope reinserts them on his own authority?
So please forgive me if in my sinfulness and hardness of heart I am not overly relieved to see the Pope denounce attacks on the family. I appreciate this defense, given in nicely strong terms, but I must ask if recent actions do not correspond with this bit of rhetoric? Could these words be the start of some great conversion? Again, forgive me if I am skeptical. Just today there were some more than slightly discomfiting words from the Holy Father regarding evolution and the “big bang” theory:
Reading Genesis we imagine that God is ‘a wizard with a magic wand’ capable of doing all things, he said. ‘But it is not so. He created life and let each creature develop according to the natural laws which he had given each one.
God is not capable of doing all things? What?!? How counter to Scripture and Tradition can you get?!? You mean God is bound by our pathetic human theories, theories that have been proven wrong time and time again in the history of the religion of science? Coupled with the second half of the statement – taken in context – these are almost the views of an “enlightenment” deist.
So I do not think it will do to get into a “tit for tat” game with Pope Francis’ many off the cuff (or are they?) remarks. For one, the tally may not bode well for Pope Francis’ Catholicity, and then there is the matter that one crazy statement does more damage than a hundred orthodox ones do good. Again, maybe not fair, but that is human nature.