Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
WARNING, some images and sounds of satanic activity are visible in the first video. I strongly recommend turning sound off and averting eyes during the evil parts.
This country was founded on several gross errors, some of the gravest being the false idea of “religious freedom,” which in practice means official agnosticism if not atheism, and the idea that even the most perverse, disgusting acts somehow qualify as protected “speech” (OK, the last bit was not explicit at the founding, but has come to be held as a sacred shibboleth by the purveyors of leftism). Historically, in Christendom, blasphemy was a very grave civil offense. But that was long ago, and governments now, in a sense, endorse not only blasphemy but even offenses to God as infinite as the mocking of His Passion, Death, and Resurrection as re-presented in every Mass.
The black mass was held. I have not really tried to find out the details, but they claim no consecrated Host was used. It seems there were also several other elements apparently missing from this “black mass” presentation. But there was still immense ugliness, perversion, effrontery, and the gravest of offenses against the God whole so loves and created them. Also on display were some very, very, very lost souls, souls who have such empty lives they are willing to commit even an act of ultimate evil in order to attract a bit of attention to barren existence. And that refers not only to those who committed this montrosity, but also those who, either through some desire to bask in the reflected darkness or out of some morbid sense of curiosity, witnessed this nightmare.
Two videos below on the atrocity, and the reaction. The first covers bits of both, and, I have to say, gives a fair amount of coverage to the insane rantings of the satanists at the black mass itself. I would really advise watching with the sound down, or only turning it on for those parts that are licit and not steeped in evil. Avert your eyes from the evil. It may be best not to watch at all. For those who do want to see the reaction from thousands of faithful Catholics, see below. Thanks to reader MS for the link:
This video has more on the reaction with less objectionable content:
There was a large Procession, there were a couple thousand people, at least, protesting (though I saw one site that said 16,000), there was a lot of good witness, but, still, it happened. It was not stopped. That’s where we’re at. That’s how weak we are. Sorry, I don’t see any other way around it. At least a couple of souls went beyond the bounds of what our government overlords saw as acceptable behavior and were arrested for trying to save the souls of those involved in this calamity. Maybe I’m not supposed to say this, but good for them. What is 1000 had rushed the doors?
But we Catholics have been conditioned to be nice, sheep-like Americans for 150 years, at least. Don’t rock the boat! Don’t offend the protestant majority! Don’t make waves! Infiltrate, don’t chastise! Protestants are our brothers! We shouldn’t judge “gays.” Marriage is between a man and a woman, but “civil unions” might be OK! Abortion is bad, but never mention the cause of the vast majority of them, contraception! No one really goes to hell! Muslims are our brothers! We all believe in the same “god!” And on and on, until we got to where we got today?
So, how long before it becomes “protected speech” to bust open tabernacles and let horses drop their dung on Our Lord, as happened in the Cristiada? And will the vast majority of our leaders hide their heads then, too?
If readers judge it advisable, I may delete the first video.
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Bible, catachesis, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, Four Last Things, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, the return, Virtue.
One of the things I find most edifying about belonging to a traditional parish is the vastly increased focus on our last end: death, judgment, Heaven, and hell. This focus takes many forms, but one of the most efficacious, to me, is the regular offering of Requiem Masses. Contrary to critics of the Traditional Mass, this is not because TLM devotees are all incredibly old and dying in great droves. No, it is because Requiem Masses are offered not just once the souls of the departed, but frequently on anniversaries of deaths. I would say that I assist, on average, at at least one Requiem Mass every two weeks. Thus, I have a frequent reminder that one day such a Mass will be offered for the repose of my soul, and I am reminded of how vital it is to pray for the souls of the departed.
I have been struck in recent months at some of the readings used in the Requiem Mass. Obviously selected over the centuries through long use and saintly influence upon the Mass, these readings are not only edifying for those who assist at the Mass, they are also powerful reminders of the errors espoused by so many who take the name Christian.
From the readings for the Daily Mass for the Departed, some salutary lessons in the differences between our Catholic Faith and that of those who persist in the gravest of errors. First, the Epistle, The Apocalype of Saint John, XIV:13:
In those days: I heard a voice from Heaven, saying to me: Write: Blessed are the dead, who die in the Lord. From henceforth now, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors, for their works follow them.
“Their works follow them,” a direct refutation from Sacred Scripture of the protestant idea that works avail nothing, that “faith” alone suffices. But, even more substantially, who are the blessed who die in the Lord? The Gospel from the same Mass, Saint John VI:51-55, tells us:
At that time: Jesus said to the multitudes of the Jews: I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven. If any man eat of this Bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is My Flesh for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, hath everlasting life; and I will raise him up in the last day.
All well formed Catholics know that this famous discourse, the Bread of Life discourse from John VI, is the strongest, most obvious support – I would not say it is even a support, it is a command! – from Scripture for the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament. And those who do not eat that Bread worthily shall not have life in them. Those who do so unworthily shall be “guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord,” according to Saint Paul. There is not a single protestant sect that professes to believe in the Real Presence, and even if they did, they would not have validly ordained priests to confect the Blessed Sacrament. Thus, an extremely strong support for the traditional claim of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and a clear warning to all those who reject formal membership in the Church Christ founded.
There is another very moving passage used in the Epistle for the Mass on the Anniversary of the Death or Burial, from 2 Machabees XII:43-46:
In those days: The most valiant man Judas, making a gathering, sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead): and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.
Now, protestants, starting with Luther, reject all of Machabees, and several other volumes of the Old Testament, as supposedly “apocryphal.” Of course, Luther also wanted to exclude the Catholic Epistle of Saint James since it said some very inconvenient things, but was told there were no grounds to do so. The grounds for the exclusion of the Old Testament books inconvenient to protestantism were similarly flimsy. It was truly the height of effrontery for men to come along, 1200 years after great Saints and Fathers had settled the Canon of Scripture, to tell them they got it wrong. And all to support the pretensions of those who rejected the constant belief and practice of not only the Catholic Church, but all the sadly heretical schismatic and heretical groups who had fallen along the way, the Eastern Orthodox and the Monophysites and the Nestorians.
This excerpt from Machabees is one of the strongest supports for the Catholic belief in Purgatory, a place after death distinct, in a sense, from Heaven and hell (although Purgatory is formally part of hell). Of course, Catholics should not fall into the protestant game of looking solely to Scripture to support our beliefs – the Church existed before Scripture was written, She has practiced the same Faith constantly since Her inception, and thus must look to Her own past, to the earliest days of the Church to see what the Church believed and did, then. And all the evidence is clear that prayers for the dead have been a part of the Catholic religion since its inception. It is truly a “holy and wholesome thought” to pray for the dead, which many protestants do, anyway, even if their various sects officially disbelieve such “nonsense.”
Have a blessed weekend!
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Ecumenism, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, paganism, priests, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, true leadership.
Some good points below. When one’s Church and culture are a mess, sometimes the grass seems greener on the other side. Western nations have sunk into an historic abyss of immorality. Many people are dismayed at what they see around them. Muslim countries, for all their many problems, errors, and even evils, do seem to be able to enforce some cultural moral standards.
And they seem to have some doctrinal consistency (from the outside) and definitely the fervor of the convicted. To some people, that’s attractive, as Father notes below:
A young man came up to me Sunday after Holy Mass, very very concerned asking if he could just have a few minutes to speak with me.
He had seen on the news all the atrocities that the muslims are doing to the Catholics and christians in the Middle East. His first reaction was to enlist in the military to go to battle against them.
But he thought it would be wise to investigate about the muslim people and their religion before he did so. To his surprise he became very confused. In spite of his predisposition of anger against them, he began to admire them. He saw how they pray, how they strongly believe in Allah and have their countries living by Allah’s rules. [Islam, being a perverted form of Christianity, does contain some truth, just enough truth to be attractive to fallen man (as good Father pointed out in this sermon). And some of "allah's rules" seem to be virtuous and good. But others are absolutely terrible, like polygamy and the general treatment of women as chattel. There is also a culture of lying and thievery that is tacitly embraced within islam, at least with respect to outsiders. But if we do evil to our enemies, does that make us any better than them, Our Blessed Lord asked?]
One web site really moved him when it stated that: “if you were to see Jesus walking down the streets, he would be a muslim with robes and a beard”. [I'm not sure what a beard has to do with Jesus, and He certainly wouldn't be muslim, but he would be virtuous and calling out sin]
“If you were to run into Mary, she would be a muslim with her head covered and modest clothing”. This really made an impression on him. [THIS is a very interesting point. I think it makes a brilliant question. If Our Blessed Mother were to return to earth today, would she not be dressed rather as muslim women do? Has She not appeared so in Her many apparitions? Is that, perhaps, significant? If the Blessed Mother is the model for all women (and men, in a slightly different sense), if She is the embodiment of perfect womanhood, should Her appearance not be emulated? Discuss]
After reflection on all that he knew, he was again convinced that Catholicism is greater than Islam. But he just had to share what he had discovered and how what he had discovered had attracted him and caused him to doubt his faith. Let us never forget, our founder of the Catholic faith, Jesus Christ, never killed anyone. He was murdered on the cross.
I am sure there are many other good people, including Catholics, becoming muslims because as he stated: “We, as Catholics, have become very weak and passive”. [Thousands of post-Christian Europeans have flocked to join ISIS and other islamist groups. Many of these are descendants of muslim lineage, but some are not. While there are always a crazy few, I think there is a growing trend among people in Western culture to be profoundly alienated and disaffected from the culture around them and to seek out something that seems more real. They may write off Catholicism at present precisely because, in the vast majority of what they will find, it is very weak and passive. And they want something strong, committed, and vibrant. Dialogue, is not very attractive to all but committed leftists and academic types.]
As most of you already know and lament, the feminists (that run and have feminized the Church), and the homosexual cardinals, bishops and priests, (whom Pope Benedict called “The Homosexual Mafia”), [I'm not sure Pope Benedict used that term, but he did lament and fight the reality.] have made the Church passive to evil that is everywhere around us. And if you or I might criticize what is happening in the Church, we are silently silenced. [Or loudly silenced. Or just ignored. Or sent to Shafter. Or we have our TLMs taken away. Or......]
It is exactly like in the Old Testament, when everything in Israel was crumbling down, the False Prophets kept saying, “everything is just fine”. And when the True Prophets spoke of doom, they were shunned, beaten, exiled and killed. The pope, the cardinals, the bishops, the religious, the priests all read all about the True Prophets in their Novus Ordo Liturgy of the Hours, yet it goes in one eye and out the other. [Heh. Yes, it sure seems to.]
Do go read the rest. Especially you, DoTDO. You’ll like it.
I think the broader point is an important one to make: not many people, and very few men, are attracted to a weak kneed, lisping, emasculated, self-doubting church. People want certainty in religion, they want to know the Truth and abide by it – unless they simply use religion as a justification to continue in their sin, which certainly fits many people today. I’m talking about people who are honest with themselves, have some desire towards virtue, and are seriously looking for something to fill the void in their lives. Post-conciliar Catholicism simply does not offer that, in the vast majority of locales, which is why most of the Masses are filled with elderly women. I’m speaking broadly, of course, but in many places, that’s the exact truth. People clinging to a religion of their childhood which no longer exists in any discernible way, outside a few well hidden, broadly ignored locales.
I think that is one reason why traditional Catholicism has been growing at an impressive rate. It’s not just the smells and bells, it’s not just the Latin Mass (which is, however, the heart of it all),
traditional real Catholicism satisfies that hunger for Truth and certainty that many people are craving – but it is so little known most of those people never find it and fall into weird cults and false religions which may contain some kernel of what they are looking for. I am struck by how few people I meet even know there is a TLM available in the Dallas Diocese (if they even know what that is), even though quite possibly the largest TLM parish in the world is right here! One might find that a newsworthy item, but apparently not, from the silence that generally surrounds the place.
But still, souls do find their way there, almost entirely by word of mouth. As souls finding the world wanting have always found such places. The difference is that, in the past, great men like Francis Borgia would have numerous witnesses to the Faith that could make them whole, and convert under their influence. Today, such influences are very rare, and so people completely lost, with no sacred hand to guide them, drift into unspeakable evil in their starving hunger to be filled. That is the great tragedy of our times, when so many in the Church have given up on Her sacred mission because it is too hard, too unpopular, too contrary to false shibboleths they hold more dear.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Christendom, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, history, priests, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, Spiritual Warfare, true leadership.
I believe this is the same priest that I tried to post yesterday. He’s certainly hitting on all cylinders. I’m sure this one will work, since this is a Video Sancto product, and not my own fumblings.
The priest below lays out the origins of islam as I have always understood them, although I have tended to think the influence upon Mohammad was more Arian than Nestorian, but I could be wrong. I had understood, and it seems supported by many statements from that false religion, that Jesus Christ was a man and great prophet but just a man. Perhaps the greatest of men, but just a man. That is a highly Arian position. But I may have misunderstood subtleties in their position, that may make it more Nestorian.
It is important to understand the etymology of all these early Eastern heresies, still very much with us today in the Church. All of these heresies were dedicated towards stealing honor from Christ and reducing Him to something more natural, less mystical. So you had the Arians claiming Christ was just a man; that was squashed, so the Nestorians came along and said he was not one person with two natures, perfectly melded, one human, one divine, but was somehow two persons, one human and one divine, melded into one body. That was declared heretical, and so the Monophysites came along and said Christ was God, and man, but that his divine nature squashed his human nature and so Christ was not tempted, did not struggle with human desires, etc. That was also declared heretical, and the Monophysites are still around in the Coptic Church today.
I think the priest makes a brilliant point in saying that the many Eastern Church heresies so weakened the Church by the 7th century that it was ripe for the picking by islam’s terrible sword. The priest also notes that islam, unique among all major religions, makes almost all its converts by forced conversion, instead of appealing to people’s reason and the better angels of their nature. There are also very strong pagan and heretical Jewish overtones in islam, which makes sense, since even islam’s own history of Mohammad makes plain he took pieces from various religions extant along the Red Sea coast of Arabia and forged a new religion from the parts. Not only that, but he would try out various beliefs, see which ones appealed to the various tribes he was trying to win over, and then adopted those. Then there is the manifest immorality so prevalent in islam from its very inception, the lack of any miracles to attest to its veracity, and Rushdie seems even tame in the title of his book.
By the way, it pays to pause the video from time to time and read the statements from various Saints on islam. They are quite edifying.
I may have a fatwa against me tomorrow.
May God have mercy on the adherents of all false religions and sects and convert them to His Church.
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Papa, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the enemy, the return.
UPDATE: Dear Readers, sorry for the video problem. It played for me – which I don’t understand, it’s like Google somehow “knew” I was the same person who uploaded it, even through the blog software, and it would play for me on the blog. Can you tell me if it plays, now? It was really a bear getting that thing activated, because it’s longer than the 15 minute limit. Again, excuse the picture, although, in some respects, it does seem apropos.
OK, maybe I highlighted the leaders. I have often wondered what it must have been like, as a Catholic, to have lived through the revolution that was inflicted upon the Church between 1962 and, say, 1972. I know there was much other insanity going on at the time, so it was only a signficant part of a larger picture, but, nevertheless, I have wondered why there wasn’t more opposition, more “thus far and no farther.” Well, it seems there is a determined effort to relive those halcyon days (for the progressives) again. It is odd seeing geriatric men thinking their decades old ideas are “hip” and “with it.”
But the broader question is, if there is a revolution, and it is obvious, what are we going to do about it?
I really like this sermon below. Thanks to reader D for sending it. I am sure it comes from Audio Sancto. There is a real zinger in the last minute, quoting, it is said, Paul VI, in response to a question posed to him, as to why he was so severely against the Traditional Latin Mass, and kept pretending it was “abrogated:”
“He would never permit the “Old Mass” to remain, for to allow the TLM a home within the Church, would mean that many of the other changes made by the ‘modern church’ might be brought into question, and it might, even, bring some elements of the recent Council, perhaps, into doubt.”
The priest then concludes by asking whether many of the destructive changes of the past 50 years ought to be brought into question. A year a go, that question could still be fairly asked, now, I think the question is, what will be left even of that rump of Catholicism that existed, say, in 2012.
The sermon——Oh, you don’t know what a battle I had to get this uploaded. I am sorry for the picture but I am out of time for the day. Just disregard the pic and listen. I do not have time to figure out the movie making software, upload umpteen pics, and do all the rest. Suffice it to say, I will not be providing much competition to Video Sancto anytime soon.
This gets me back to a post I mentioned earlier, another post from Rorate, regarding how the Novus Ordo, or new Mass, was developed. I sometimes feel bad picking on the Novus Ordo, because I know there are many people who simply do not have the TLM as an alternative. I pray every day for that to change. But I think the below is so key in describing what a false, fabricated, underdone, poorly thought out a product the Novus Ordo is. It also reveals how the arch-modernist Bugnini used a weak Paul VI and the still incredibly strong unquestioning, almost unthinking obedience to the Holy See to achieve his most nefarious end:
It was Bouyer who had to remedy in extremis a horrible formulation of the new Eucharistic Prayer II, from which Bugnini even wanted to delete the “Sanctus”. [Knowing how truly awful EPII was and is, can imagine what this must have been like, if what we got was an improvement?] And it was he who had to rewrite the text of the new Canon that is read in the Masses today, one evening, on the table of a trattoria in Trastevere, together with the Benedictine liturgist, Bernard Botte, with the tormenting thought that everything had to be consigned the following morning. [And for this, the Roman Canon, 1700 to maybe 1900 years old, was thrown over]
But the worst part is when Bouyer recalls the peremptory “the Pope wants it” that Bugnini used to shut up the members of the commission every time they opposed him; for example, in the dismantling of the liturgy for the dead and in purging the “imprecatory” verses from the psalms in the Divine Office.
Paul VI, discussing with Bouyer afterwards about these reforms “that the Pope found himself approving, not being satisfied about them any more than I was,”asked him. “Why did you all get mired in this reform?” And Bouyer [replied], “Because Bugnini kept assuring us that you absolutely wanted it.” To which Paul VI [responded]: “But how is this possible? He told me that you were all unanimous in approving it…” [But Bouyer was far from innocent. One of the original agitators demanding they had the right to change the immortal Mass, to "improve" it, he did recoil when the revolution quickly got out of hand. But see how Bugnini skillfully played one side off the other to keep the revolution always moving forward. This is the dominant view of how the liturgical aspect of the revolution - the driving force for the whole revolution - was carried out. Fr. Cekada argues in his book, however, that Paul VI was far from a hapless dupe in this process, and that he got exactly the "reform" he wanted. Not too many have argued that point as strongly as Cekada, who claims to have seen Paul VI's handwritten notes all over developmental copies of the Novus Ordo. The quote from the sermon above seems to indicate Paul VI had a certain motive for the liturgical deform, doesn't it? But who am I to judge?]
Bouyer recalls in his “Mémoires” that Paul VI exiled the “despicable” Bugnini to Teheran as Nuncio, but by then the damage had already been done. [Of course, many reports attribute that sacking to the irrefutable evidence found of Bugnini's masonic membership. It did take place in 1975, after Bugnini had been given over a decade to wreckovate the Mass and entire Church, and over 5 years after the grave deficiencies of the Novus Ordo were well known] For the record, Bugnini’s personal secretary, Piero Marini, would then go on to become the director of pontifical ceremonies from 1983 to 2007, and even today there are voices circulating about him as the future Prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship. …
Everything old is new again:
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Holy suffering, horror, martyrdom, Papa, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, shocking, the return.
I tell you, Rorate had some very troubling posts in the past 18 hours or so. The focus of this post, the possible (likely, certain?) removal of Cardinal Burke from a position of influence to one of so little value as to be a mighty slap in the face, is, while very newsworthy and immediate, perhaps the less significant of the two posts I am referring to. I will get to the more significant matter later, God willing. Hopefully NC and the other good posters at Rorate do not mind my “ripping off” so much of their material! I do try to be good about attribution!
Anyway, Sandro Magister is reporting that Cardinal Burke will be removed from his role as Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the court of final appeal in the Church, and will be named not to a see, not to some other curial post, but to the obscure and strictly ceremonial role of “Cardinal Patron” of the Sovereign Military of Malta, a fine and storied organization to be sure, but one usually given to retirees or strictly as a side job:
The next victim would in fact be the United States cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, who from being prefect of the supreme tribunal of the apostolic signatura would not be promoted – as some are fantasizing in the blogosphere – to the difficult but prestigious see of Chicago, but rather demoted to the pompous – but ecclesiastically very modest – title of “cardinal patron” of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, replacing the current head, Paolo Sardi, who recently turned 80.
If confirmed, Burke’s exile would be even more drastic than the one inflicted on Cardinal Piacenza, who, transferred from the important congregation for the clergy to the marginal apostolic penitentiary, nevertheless remained in the leadership of a curial dicastery.
With the shakeup on the way, Burke would instead be completely removed from the curia and employed in a purely honorary position without any influence on the governance of the universal Church.
This would be a move that seems to have no precedent.
Rorate adds some strong commentary:
If this rumor is confirmed (which seems quite possible, considering Magister’s excellent sources), it is obvious that this very gentle Cardinal will accept it humbly and silently — but, make no mistake, it will the palpable symbol of the hatred (yes, unfortunately that is the precise word) for the person of Cardinal Burke and especially for all that he represents, that is, a life of complete and absolute fidelity to the Authority, Tradition, and Magisterium of the Apostolic See…… [Fr. Blake notes that Cardinal Burke is one of a very few prelates who have never played the episcopal game, never compromised their virtue or ethics. Is there no room for such men in the new order?]
……It would be the greatest humiliation of aCurial Cardinal in living memory, truly unprecedented in modern times: considering the reasonably young age of the Cardinal, such a move would be, in terms of the modern Church, nothing short than a complete degradation and a clear punishment (for what?).
And this disturbing bit, which is, perhaps, the point of it all:
Now, should Magister’s prediction come to pass before the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops convenes in October, this will have another dire effect: the removal of Cardinal Burke from the Synod, which he is set to join on the strength of his position as Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura. A silencing and removal that will be all the more significant because willed by Pope Francis, and so ill-timed (or so well-timed, depending on which side of the Kasperite proposal one stands.) [And bear in mind, the boy-rape cover up poster boy of Belgium, an extreme dissident, has been appointed to this Synod, as well.]
In the same post, Rorate also quotes an influential Brazilian cardinal as saying the Church has always been seeking a way to recognize “stable” sodomite unions! Think about that word, perhaps carelessly chosen, but nonetheless……always. Do you think this prelate defines the Church as beginning in AD 1965? Even if you grant that, his comment is ridiculous, but when we think of the stand the Church has always taken against this sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance, one has to wonder, to what church does this prelate belong? Even many of the sects would have more than a small problem with this statement.
They are sure coming out of the woodwork, are they not? It’s a veritable Night of the Long Knives at the Vatican. Our new progressive overlords are not so very tolerant towards those who espouse the bad, old religion. For them, there is no mercy, only the mailed fist of naked power.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, catachesis, Christendom, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, pr stunts, rank stupidity, Saints, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, Tradition.
There is so much confusion in the Church today regarding islam. Many – heck, almost all – leaders in the Church seem to be almost eagerly dhimmi in their attitudes towards religion. Atrocities committed by mohammadans are routinely explained away as aberrations, while the mythical “moderate islam” is praised to the skies. We had a particularly disgusting instance of that recently, when retired Cardinal McCarrick, whose predatory behavior towards young males is well substantiated, gave this sad example at an interreligious confab with some muslims in DC:
Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick offered Islamic religious phrases and insisted that Islam shares foundational rules with Christianity, during a Sept. 10 press conference in D.C.
“In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate,” McCarrick said as he introduced himself to the audience at a meeting arranged by the Muslim Public Affairs Council. [Which routinely apologizes for islamic violence] That praise of the Islamic deity is an important phrase in Islam, is found more than 100 times in the Koran, and is akin to the Catholic prayer, ”In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” [Which a muslim would never, ever allow to pass his lips. But they have faith, even if it is blasphemous and false]
McCarrick next claimed that “Catholic social teaching is based on the dignity of the human person… [and] as you study the holy Koran, as you study Islam, basically, this is what Muhammad the prophet, peace be upon him, has been teaching.” [Especially the part about putting infidels to the sword. What the Koran actually preaches is that muslim men have dignity, everyone else, including muslim women, not so much. But none is so blind as a fervent adherent to the religion of sexular paganism]
McCarrick was 71 when 19 Muslims brought Islam to the public eye by murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11. He is one of the 213 Cardinals of the Catholic church, but is too old to vote in church debates. [Good grief. Move on]
“Either the cardinal has studied the whole thing and does not know what he’s talking about, or he is making a somewhat misleading statement,” said Michael Meunier, head of the U.S. Copts Association. “The practice of the Muslim majority people that adhere to the Koran… have proven that [claim of equivalence] is not correct,” he told The Daily Caller during a Sept. 11 trip to Jordan. [To draw even a remote equivalence is offensive not just to the virtue of faith but also to plain reason. Even Church-hating atheists note this.]
“Has Cardinal McCarrick converted to Islam?” asked a scornful critic, Robert Spencer, the best-selling author of many books on Islam.
“‘Peace be upon him’ is a phrase Muslims utter after they say the name of [their reputed] prophet… [so] probably he is unaware of the unintended Islamic confession of faith he has just made,”said Spencer……[I would not make that assumption. He may be quite aware. The point is, he doesn't care, the false idol of "dialogue" trumps all]
Now, what have some great Saints said, as a form of rebuttal to the above, regarding islam?
“Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian faith is lost, like your false prophet Muhammad.”
-St. Peter Mavimenus (d. 8th century), martyr from Gaza. Response reported in the Martyriologum Romanum when he was asked to convert to Islam by a group of Muslims.
“There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist…. From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.” [Saint John Damascene, who fought against the islamic-inspired iconoclast heresy, understands the etymology of islamic belief well. Islam is a completely man-made religion founded by a man lost to lust and incorporating perverse beliefs from apostate (Arian) Christian and Jewish sects, prevalent in Arabia in the 7th century]
-St. John Damascene (d. 749), Syrian Arab Catholic monk and scholar. Quoted from his book On Heresies under the section On the Heresy of the Ishmaelites (in The Fathers of the Church. Vol. 37. Translated by the Catholic University of America. CUA Press. 1958. Pages 153-160.)
“We profess Christ to be truly God and your prophet to be a precursor of the Antichrist and other profane doctrine.”
-Sts. Habenitus, Jeremiah, Peter, Sabinian, Walabonsus, and Wistremundus (d. 851), martyrs of Cordoba, Spain. Reported in the Memoriale Sanctorum in response to Spanish Umayyad Caliph ‘Abd Ar-Rahman II’s ministers that they convert to Islam on pain of death.
“On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, the point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”
-St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), Theologian and Doctor of the Church. Quoted from his De Rationibus Fidei Contra Saracenos, Graecos, et Armenos and translated from Fr. Damian Fehlner’s Aquinas on Reasons for the Faith: Against the Muslims, Greeks, and Armenians (Franciscans of the Immaculate. 2002.)”
As we have seen, Muhammed had neither supernatural miracles nor natural motives of reason to persuade those of his sect. As he lacked in everything, he took to bestial and barbaric means, which is the force of arms. Thus he introduced and promulgated his message with robberies, murders, and bloodshedding, destroying those who did not want to receive it, and with the same means his ministers conserve this today, until God placates his anger and destroys this pestilence from the earth.[…]
(Muhammad) can also be figured for the dragon in the same Apocalypse which says that the dragon swept up a third of the stars and hurled down a third to earth. Although this line is more appropriately understood concerning the Antichrist, Mohammed was his precursor – the prophet of Satan, father of the sons of haughtiness.[…]
Even if all the things contained in his law were fables in philosophy and errors in theology, even for those who do not possess the light of reason, the very manners (Islam) teaches are from a school of vicious bestialities. (Muhammad) did not prove his new sect with any motive, having neither supernatural miracles nor natural reasons, but solely the force of arms, violence, fictions, lies, and carnal license. It remains an impious, blasphemous, vicious cult, an innvention of the devil, and the direct way into the fires of hell. It does not even merit the name of being called a religion.” [Saint Juan de Ribera would not be popular in today's Church! But, while his language may be harsh, there is none of it that is false. Islam alone among major religions has been spread almost totally by the sword.]
-St. Juan de Ribera (d.1611), Archbishop of Valencia, missionary to Spanish Muslims, and organizer of the Muslim expulsions of 1609 from Spain. Quoted in several locations from his 1599 Catechismo para la Instruccion de los Nuevos Convertidos de los Moros (my translation).
“The Mahometan paradise, however, is only fit for beasts; for filthy sensual pleasure is all the believer has to expect there.”
St. Alphonsus Liguori (d. 1787). Quoted from his book, The History of Heresies and their Refutation.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, SSPX, the return.
Reader D provided a link to a most interesting article at The Remnant, which raises most important questions. The main one being, why are so many bishops, even relatively good ones, ever ready to be lovey dovey and ecumenical with protestants, even to the point of indifference or at least tacitly accepting, even promoting, protestant errors, while their attitude towards the Society of Saint Pius X is that they are a dangerous group of heretics that Catholics must avoid at all costs. Really?
Bishop David Zubik is a good man, reportedly one of the better bishops in the country in fact. He has been an outspoken opponent of homosexual “marriage”; he has prayed the rosary in front of abortion clinics; he’s even gone on the record opposing Common Core.
Because he’s a good man we’re confident he must be concerned when members of the Catholic faithful become confused and scandalized by something his chancery office has done.
A bit of background: Last week we reported that Bishop Zubik of the Diocese of Pittsburgh encouraged the Catholic faithful of Pittsburgh to join him in joining hands with Billy Graham’s son, Franklin, for the recent 3-day praise and song festival in Pittsburgh—the Three Rivers Festival of Hope at which “altar calls” and “forgiveness of sins” by Protestant ministers were reportedly part of the program.
We posted video of the Bishop in attendance at the gathering and in fact praying with the Protestant attendees (though electing not to make the Sign of the Cross onstage), asking God to bless them but saying nothing about any need for them to convert to the Catholic Church. [This is what I mean by at least tacitly accepting, even promoting, error. To pray with them, to endorse their erroneous acts (one time altar calls resulting in "salvation," rejection of the Sacraments....the list is long) is to give at least visible, tacit approval to those errors. Now, there could be reasons to participate in such acts, but such should always be accompanied with a clear explanation as to why such participation might have been seen as necessary, as well as a repudiation of any errors present at the ecumenical function. But that clarification/rejection virtually never happens anymore]
We also reported that a few days later Bishop Zubik’s office released a sternly-worded letter of warning against any association on the part of Pittsburgh’s faithful with the Society of St. Pius X, which had recently purchased an old Catholic church in downtown Pittsburgh with the intention of restoring it and reopening it for use by Catholics rather than Muslims, for a change.
Bishop Zubik let it be known that he was not happy that the old church had been spared the wrecking ball or worse in this manner, and instead determined to admonish the faithful to stay away from the SSPX and their recently acquired building because the Society is “separated from the Catholic Church.” [Which, in and of itself, is certainly within his prerogative and many would consider both prudent and just. But why the difference? Why are protestants given approving participation and great doses of mercy, while the SSPX is always given the iron fist of harsh discipline? It's the double standard that grates so. You want to defend Church unity? Great! But then why don't you publicly lament the far vaster disunity, division, pain, and suffering caused by the protestant heresies? Even if you assume the SSPX really is completely outside the Church, to which group does the Church lose far, far more souls - the SSPX, or protestants? So why are the SSPX almost universally treated as the greater threat?]
Conspicuous by their absence from the diocesan letter of warning, however, were any expressions of love, hoped for reconciliation, willingness to dialogue, or words of kindness or solidarity with the souls attached to the SSPX. Nothing! Just: “SSPX, BAD! Stay away!” [Because the "right" has none? Is this not a parallel to the radically harsh treatment being meted out to the Franciscans of the Immaculate, in comparison to the constant mercy and endless generosity extended to radical women religious who left the Church decades ago in all but name?]
And this is part of a bizarre pattern on the part of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. In an earlier “official statement” regarding the status of the SSPX’s Our Lady of Fatima Chapel in Collier Township, the faithful were informed that the SSPX Masses do not fulfill Sunday obligation (a contention that contradicts several statements from the Vatican, including not a few issued by the Vatican’s Ecclesia Dei Commission), that participation at Our Lady of Fatima Chapel implies “separation from the Catholic Church” and results in “ex-communication from the Catholic Church” and the “subsequent denial of Christian burial from the Catholic Church.” [That's a very harsh stand. And one that has been specifically repudiated by the Vatican in the past. The Bishop of Honolulu some 20 odd years ago, an active and unrepentant sodomite, it turned out, claimed faithful who had been confirmed at an SSPX chapel had incurred excommunication. The faithful appealed to the Vatican and that judgment was overturned. The Vatican has repeatedly confirmed that participation in SSPX Masses and other Sacraments is not cause for excommunication. The Masses are valid, but not licit. Confession is much trickier, but that's not the point of this post.]
Even if one assumes that the SSPX is 100% in the wrong, there is still an inexplicably harsh attitude towards that group, as opposed to virtually any other religious body in the world, from most of the hierarchy in the Church, even “relatively” good bishops. There is a huge double standard, because the only true remaining heresy in the Church today seems to be being too old fashioned, too traditional, too orthodox. So long as you aren’t that, you can attack marriage, the Blessed Sacrament, even the Divinity of Christ, and you can have a tenured faculty position or lead an international religious order. But if you start to drift…….heaven’s to Betsy, call out the Inquisition! Crush them!
It’s not the actions themselves. It’s the dichotomy, the double standard, that is jarring, even scandalous. I know most bishops cannot stand having the SSPX in their diocese for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the Society both exists outside their control (while being in their jurisdiction) and also serves as a sort of living rebuke to, ahem, “spirit” abroad in almost all dioceses. But it’s a bit much to have the SSPX be the only group get labeled schismatic, excommunicate, and even to be denied Christian burial, when protestants, wiccans, muslims, you name! it are all our brothers, and shouldn’t we have unlimited mercy towards them?
In reality, I fear this all comes down to the fact that there really is a sense among many in the Church, and especially the leadership, that there was a new church started in December 1965 and that the bad old Church just has to die. The SSPX are seen as being that bad old Church, and so they must be crushed.
I that an unfair appraisal?
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, Christendom, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, Spiritual Warfare.
Dangit you people, when are you going to get it that DIALOGUE is sole answer to marauding bands of islamists conquering huge chunks of the Mideast and the North African Littoral! In fact, insofar as you are not on board with the sainted “dialogue,” you are to blame for the crisis in the Mideast!
Think this infection’s gone to my head? Not mine…….the USCCB’s, as reported by Pat Archbold at OnePeterFive (Pat in italics, USCCB text in block quote):
It is a curious conceit of an obtuse generation that it believes itself to be committed to modernity, embodied by devotion to science and reason, and yet is so irrevocably immutable to evidence.
The spiritual (but not religious) Mecca of modernity in the Catholic Church is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the headquarters of which would likely be a smoking ruin if we had a God quick to anger rather than slow.
The absurdity of this very modern institution is embodied perfectly in their recent USCCB statement on their “Commitment To Dialogue With Muslims.”
What is the bottom line? They are so committed to dialogue with Muslims, it seems, that they will persevere in useless dialogue until every last one of us Christians is dead……[As I've said of late, liberalism/leftism is a competing religion to Catholicism. Many in the hierarchy are fervent adherents to this competing religion - and the bureaucracy the hierarchy has created is utterly eat up with these types. They are as ideologically committed to this inimically hostile religion as the best Catholics are to the Faith. "Dialogue" is a sacred shibboleth of the religion of leftism, and it must be engaged in in spite of all contradiction, scandal, or pointing up of error. Dialogue is an end to itself - especially when it occurs in posh resorts over several weeks, after first class flights]
………In the face of a terrifying juggernaut of death and destruction that 50 years of dialogue have done absolutely nothing to stop and arguably encouraged, the USCCB is committed to more of the same. Everyone knows that dialogue with Islam is impossible since there is no monolithic Islam with which to dialogue, so we have endeavored to dialogue merely with its adherents. I think the most humble and unambitious goal of such interreligious dialogue would have been some sort of consensus that, in general, they shouldn’t try to kill us or anyone else. Even with the bar set so low, by any measurement, 50 years of dialogue has been a miserable failure.
So what do we need? More dialogue!! [Just as Catholics turn to the Blessed Sacrament or Our Lady for solace and support, religious leftists have their own sources of such.....and endless, pointless dialogue is one of their favorites]
You know why? You know what the real problem has been? You and I—we are the problem.
The bishops expressed sadness over “deliberate rejection” of the call to engage in dialogue with Muslims by some Christians, Catholic and not. They noted that the call to respect and dialogue comes from the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate) and has been reaffirmed by subsequent popes. They also noted that, for nearly 20 years, their committee has dialogued with several national Muslim organizations, producing documents on education, marriage and revelation.”
All of which are utterly pointless and have absolutely nothing to do with the present crisis. Not only that, how many of those “national Muslim organizations” have stridently and unreservedly condemned the ongoing atrocities perpetrated by the “radicals?” What concrete steps are they taking to insure supposedly “moderate” islam triumphs over exceedingly well funded Saudi wahhabist extremism? Or are they the type that happily join the strong horse once it manifests itself, and would just as soon butcher those bishops they have such presently cordial relationships with, as continue wining and dining with them?
In a sense, the bishops are blaming scandalized Catholics for the failure of their grand (if not just useless, but positively destructive)
ecumenical interreligious project.
No matter what criticisms we lay, however, they won’t listen. We are two religions talking past each other. They have their wrong, evil, disordered, destructive viewpoint, and we have ours, which is something radically different (and, I pray and believe, in accord with timeless and constant Catholic Dogma). Saying such is not to sit in judgment of nominal ecclesiastical superiors, nor is it to engage in pointless tribalism. I saw a post the other day by our local bishop in which he decried what he saw as tribalism in the Church, seemingly equating error with Truth and wishing we could all just go along to get along. But as Raymond Cardinal Burke notes below (@32:00), saying such is just mindless feel-good indifferentism, since Catholics are constantly called to make judgments of situations, people, and all aspects of life, weighing whether this action is virtuous or not, if this person might be a grave source of temptation, etc:
As such, in spite of claiming the support of Vatican II and the entirely prudential actions of some recent popes, Catholics are perfectly free to examine the conduct of muslims, the history of islam as a predatory and terminally destructive religion, and the rank indifferentism and failures of the ecumenical and interreligious dialogue efforts and make their own assessments. It is an absolute falsehood to try to make the ecumenical/interreligious “movements” into some kind of Doctrine – there isn’t any to support it. The ecumenical movement is entirely novel, and represents a massive departure towards how the Church traditionally approached both fallen sects and infidel religions.
Nostra Aetate did not define beliefs Catholics must hold with respect to other religions, nor have subsequent popes. Once again, this was the Council that deliberately avoided defining Doctrine! So appealing to its authority is pretty weak tea, but that has been one of the revolutionaries most effective trump cards in arguments, since so few Catholics have suffered through the stultifying prose of the conciliar documents and have any idea what they really say. But even given the general ignorance, I think most even semi-involved Catholics are scandalized by the tendency towards indifferentism, erroneous dogmatism, and plain lack of common sense that has been manifest in this “dialogue” from the beginning. The “documents” of which the USCCB is so proud are read by no one but their own apparatchiks, and have no influence outside Catholic schools, where that influence is baleful, indeed. I will never forget the young Catholic girl from Oregon who couldn’t be bothered to fast or give up anything of substance for Lent, but thought it a great idea to join the “ramadan” fast of some of her classmates at Catholic school (yes, in many places, Catholics are in the minority in their own schools). That was several years ago, and more likely than not, that girl is no longer Catholic.
And that is the real fruit of the ecumenical/interreligious dialogue movement: a glorification of outside religions, an almost unavoidable diminution of the Faith, and massive, institutionalized indifference. Ecumenism is one of the prime drivers in the collapse in Catholic education. And as Mr. Archbold cogently observes, it appears the religious progressives in the Church will not be swayed from one of their holiest “sacraments” until the last one of us is dead. Lord help us all.
One final note: saying that ecumenism (as a blanket term for competing religions Christian or not) as presently practiced in the Church is out of control, tended towards indifferentism of the worst kind and positively destructive of Faith, is not to say that we should not have charity towards all, nor that we should begin pogroms against muslims in our midst forthwith. But I believe prudence dictates we have a reasonable understanding of islam and other religions, any threats they pose to ourselves or other Catholics, and deal with them appropriately based on that. Islam has not been tamed or even toned down in nearly 1400 years. It is the height of arrogance to think that endless dialogue and pointless documents are going to effect any change in this most irredeemably hostile of religions.
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, persecution, priests, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society, Tradition.
Great post by Father Carota, as usual. He notes that islam is increasing in population at a time when the Church is shedding members in the millions in most parts of the world, especially Europe and the Americas, Her traditional home. Now, I have read detailed studies of islam’s own fertility collapse, and outside a few countries in Africa the population of muslims will peak around 2030 or 2040 and then begin to follow the same decline that is being seen almost everywhere else, but the problem is, islam’s fertility collapse is trailing Christianity’s by over 50 years, and that time interval represents an increasing window of danger as population percentages shift. Irrespective of the demographics, so long as islam, and especially its radical wing, presents a very vibrant, cohesive, and countercultural set of beliefs, it will continue to attract more and souls disaffected with the prevailing sexular pagan status quo, the sort of soft socialism with pandemic sexual immorality that American hegemony has set loose upon the world. The more the Church rejects Her own countercultural beliefs, the more elements within Her try to please the world and succumb to its prince, the fewer the souls that will be attracted to the Church’s far stronger, reasonable, glorious, charitable, and Truthful belief set.
So while the Church continues to retreat under the twin forces of sexular paganism and militant islam, many souls, including souls raised within the boundaries of the remnant of Christendom (Britain is the source of many of the most extreme of the ISIS psychopaths, including the one who beheaded that poor journalist), will drift into islam’s orbit or formally join this disordered, violent, and even diabolical religion.
Father Carota notes some of the depravities of islam, especially with respect to the persecution of Christians, as well as the cancers eating away at the Church. First, only a very brief list of islamic atrocities:
1) Raping Catholic and other non muslim women and girls. [and performing mass, forced genital mutilation. They also sexually enslave islamists of sects other than wahhabism]
2) Driving Catholics and others out of their homes and country.
3) Bombing, burning and destroying Catholic, Orthodox and other christian churches.
4) Suicide bombings.
5) Kidnapping men, women and children to be sold as slaves, (and some as sex slaves). [indeed, the only parts of the world where slavery has not been totally eradicated are in islamic areas and, perhaps, in East Asia, where women and even children are sold into what amounts sexual slavery. But as the sexular pagan ethos continues to advance in the West, there will be fewer and fewer philosophical and social strong points of opposition to slavery, and I fully believe that if this culture does not turn around, the utilitarian and materialist ethos dominant in the West will find justifications for the reintroduction of slavery and/or indentured servitude in the not too distant future]
6) Stealing Catholic’s and other’s houses, cars, jewelry and possessions as they are driven out of town.
7) Torturing, burring alive, crucifying and murdering of Catholics and other religion members, (and bragging about it on Youtube).
Father Carota also notes some specific atrocities muslims have committed, such as various bombings and terror attacks, and the constant treatment of women as chattel. He then asks how such a religion could be growing and attracting thousands of young men willing to die for religion, when most Catholics, far from being willing to suffer even a minor inconvenience to show up to Mass once or twice a year, demand the Church change it’s Dogmas to suit them and their sins. And that is why islam is attracting at least a fair number of converts, because it presents a strong, masculine-seeming and vibrant set of beliefs in opposition to the ongoing pointlessness of self-absorbed existence in the West and much of the rest of the world. Father Carota lists some reasons for islam’s growth:
1) They have passion for what they believe in.
2) They will kill you or make life difficult for you if you do not convert.
3) They give men a masculine role in their religion; a) God made men to be leaders, and b) Men and boys like to fight. [While Western women want to emasculate men and smash "patriarchy." You know what......success in their endeavor will make them even more miserable than they are now. But ideologues aren't much open to reason]
4) Religion and state work together for their religious laws. [This is very key. Islam demands the state accord to the religion, and islamic nations enforce laws to perpetuate their faith. We in the West are of course far too sophisticated for that, having chosen the false gods of "self-determination" and atheism as the de facto state religion. States founded on such nebulous and ultimately false beliefs will not stand a religiously motivated enemy]
5) Men can marry a lot of women and have more sex.
6) Muslim men get non muslim women to fall in love with them and convert. They then could later on find out that these men have other wives as well. [That's not the half of it. They can claim any women from the infidels they conquer and keep them as concubines in their harem. This has been ongoing in Iraq and Syria. Those don't even count as marriages. So muslim men get to screw a lot of different women, which has a certain animalistic appeal].
7) There is sex in heaven. [Their entire conception of "heaven" is entirely worldly. Islam is incapable of understanding God or existence outside of time as they must be, where worldly "pleasures" (almost always associated with some pain or downside) have no meaning. That's because it's a recycled version of pre-Christian Judaism with heretical Arianism thrown in]
8) Oppressed races are given honor when they convert, like when (Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr), Mohammed Ali converted. (Read here his conversion on a pro muslim blog). Many black men convert to the muslim religion in prison. [I don't know about "oppressed," but converts are certainly lauded.]
So what is the Church doing in opposition to this existential threat?
we Catholics 1) feminize our Catholic faith, 2) accept all religions as good and equal and 3) become more and more hedonistic, we will continue to see more and more Catholics converting to islam.
And that’s just the beginning. We also see Church leaders fawning all over islam as a great “religion of peace,” we are told, rather coyly, that islam “worships the same God,” in the current catechism, we see Koran’s kissed, we see even TFG tell muslims there is no reason for them to convert……we see a very great deal, none of it good. We see a constant denial of islam as an endemically hostile religion that seeks to conquer or convert the entire world, and has the zeal and willingness to do so. We also see pointless “dialogue” that often gives scandal and undermines the Faith of the relatively few souls striving to accept and practice what the Church has always believed. We see a very great deal.
Father Carota concludes:
I find it interesting that when the Israelites would become evil, God would send people from Babylon to destroy them and take them into exile. Isn’t Iraq where Babylon was? Yes, it is. [see Psalm 43, which I posted yesterday]
But God will never be outdone, even when we are giving away our Catholic souls to the muslims. God will come to our aid. And that is why we need the passionate traditional Catholic beliefs and practices. At least a few of Jesus’ followers are standing up strong for His Catholic Faith. And our loving Catholic witness in our everyday life, speaks powerfully in a world filled with selfishness and hate.
Meanwhile we should be praying, sacrificing and sending money to help the Catholic refugees from muslim terrorism. Especially offer your Holy Rosaries for the conversion of muslims and the spreading of the Catholic faith. [I do, every day. Even if my devotion and attentiveness during prayer is not what it should be] Mary has always had a powerful hand in defeating the muslims and all evil. [Dang right! And another sign of the weakness in the Church today was the replacement of the great Feast of Our Lady of Victory every October with Our Lady of the Rosary. I have a great devotion to the Rosary, but Our Lady is also a powerful intercessor in earthly Christian struggles against rampaging hordes of pagans and infidels of all stripes, especially muslims. She has intervened to effect miraculous victories on numerous occasions. And, in response to the overly pacifist tendency in Catholicism today, a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Saint Francis, in particular, our God is the God of Armies! That's what "God of Hosts" means, He is the God of Armies, earthly and angelic! And He always intervenes to protect and bring victory to His souls, when they are faithful to Him!]
I’ll add this final consideration – does not soft, liberal katholycism, far from offering any opposition to islam and its effectiveness in bringing in many converts, some former Catholics, but does it not instead immensely aid islam in its continued growth and depredations? Does not the pathetically soft response of so many Church leaders only help convince radical islamists that Christianity is weak and ripe for attack? And for how long must we be told that the great mass of muslims are peaceful and kind and loving, just like the best Catholics, when they seem to offer absolutely no opposition to the radical elements at all (exactly the opposite from how “radical” traditional Catholics are treated), and in fact can be found, in much coverage of the ongoing atrocities, happily milling around and taking photos and videos while people are crucified, beheaded, raped, or shot? Where is the movement of this “great mass” of muslims in opposition to the radicals? They are nowhere to be found, because they are either too cowed to stand against them, or really don’t mind seeing Christian, shiites, and others, get what they “deserve.”
End post. I was going to post a great writing by Saint Louis, King of France, but I have run out of time. Tomorrow, God willing! Dang work!