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.
1 comment so far
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:
Expert imam proclaims violence endemic to islam October 29, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, catachesis, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
add a comment
The following qoutes, also from Catholic newspaper, are from probably the most famous islamic cleric and scholar of the past 100 years, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of the world’s first modern islamic republic. The Ayatollah makes many claims from the koran and hadiths……can any muslim, using the same sources alone, refute his claims as to what islam commands?
Militant muslims constantly point to the numerous surahs that call for killing the enemies of islam, lying to them, cheating them, taking their women, etc., etc. But some muslim proselytes in the West, and even the dialogue obsessed within the Church, always tell us that islam is this great religion of peace that is misrepresented by the militants. But the evidence from around the world seems to indicate that the violent interpretation is by far predominant, and we never, ever see some mass movement of “peaceable” muslims against the radicals, policing their own religion, as it were. All too often, the formerly peaceful ones join in the militancy once it is clear the militants are dominant and controlling a given area. It seems the claims of a peaceful, loving islam are more rhetoric than fact.
The words of the Ayatollah, one of the most evil men of the past few centuries, as quoted in Holy Terror: Inside the World of Islamic Terrorism and reported by Catholic newspaper:
Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of other countries and peoples so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country of the world. But those who study islamic holy war will understand why islam wants to conquer the whole world. Those who know nothing of islam pretend that islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that muslims should sit back until they are devoured by the infidels? Islam says kill them, put them to the sword and scatter their armies. Does this mean sitting back until infidels overcome us? Islam says kill in the service of allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors! There are hundreds of other koranic verses and hadiths urging muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.
There you have it, from the Ayatollah himself. This man managed to convince an entire muslim country – or enough of it to take it over – that he was right. His language and understanding of islam is echoed by centuries of other imams and caliphs. The most devoted muslims almost universally share this understanding. And then there is the entire matter of taqiyyah.
How can the Church “dialogue” with this?
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.
Catholic Hispanics joining radical islam en masse? October 24, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Interior Life, rank stupidity, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare.
I read some of the below last night and was most disconcerted. This is a disaster of the largest proportions, and it simply confirms for me what has been obvious to any faithful souls with eyes to see: the rejection of Doctrine and practice handed down to us by preceding generations is at utter disaster for souls.
It seems thousands of American Hispanics, who have to be at least nominally Catholic (or were not very long ago), are now embracing not just islam, but its most radical varieties. Even more amazingly, the preponderance of those Hispanics doing so are women. And they tell us why that is. They say islam, especially radical islam, gives them doctrinal certainty and a sure moral guide in a Western culture rapidly spinning out of control. It gives them a framework around which to build their lives more substantial than “if it feels good, do it, and the consequences be damned.”
It also demonstrates conclusively the utter failure of the humanist, secularist “opening to the world” the Church has engaged in, by and large, for the past 50 years. We already know millions of souls have fallen away – and each one of those is a tragedy of a magnitude we simply cannot calculate – but now those souls are opting for islam, the most repressive, backward, anti-Christian religion possible. They are telling the Church, in so many words: “You have failed me so completely I now spit you out of my mouth and join your enemy of 15 centuries.”
More Hispanics are turning towards Islam and interestingly, more than half of Miami’s 3,000 Hispanic Muslims are female…….
……A new phenomenon is occurring in the backdrop. More Latinas, such as Greisa Torres and Stephanie Londono, are turning to Islam. They are not alone.
Arriving from Miami four years ago, Torres said she had “lost her identity in the move and found it in the Prophet Muhammad”, according to a report on Voice of America.
Torres explained: “It was very hard for me because we do not have family here, just my husband and my kids. On this day, my baby – Mahdi – he was going to be born. That is why I converted to Islam because I was scared.” [Another way of saying I feel lost in this perverse culture and I need something strong and seemingly authoritative to cling to. The Church, in Her watered down, indifferentist, ecumenical and interreligious present incarnation, simply fails to offer that to the vast majority of souls who do not know or comprehend the right practice of the Faith, especially in traditional communities.]
…….“When people see you with the hijab, they respect you first. Second, it’s the emotion you feel because you are different. You believe in something. It’s amazing.” Londono said. [Yeah, well, I believe in Jesus Christ and Him crucified, as well as His Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament]
“It defines their world on a clear grid of what’s permitted or ‘halal,’ and what’s prohibited which is ‘haram’. So they know exactly where they stand. So the Qur’an becomes this guidebook that tells you exactly what to wear, what to eat, how to wash, how to behave, when to pray.”
According to the same report on Voice of America, there are more than 3,000 Hispanic Muslims in Miami and more than 40,000 nationwide across the United States……
Great, so our own government is encouraging Hispanics to convert to islam. Big surprise.
Now, before I get too carried away, I must note that there is some other verbiage I did not include that paints the convert as a wacked out leftist. And that re-emphasizes for me the choice the left in this country and in all the West will gleefully make in increasing numbers: since leftism has always had at its foundation hatred of Christianity, and yet it is still an utterly bankrupt and unfulfilling philosophy, it is inevitable that as islam gains more and more cultural cache, more and more leftists will embrace it either through formal conversion or through willing dhimmi participation.
But once again, I do think there is something very significant here with respect to the Church: these souls are lost, they were allowed to either fall away, or felt utterly malnourished by the Faith, were encouraged to embrace leftism through so many of the bad parishes/dioceses/schools, whatever…….the Church is being rejected because of the conduct of the Faith these past 50 years. That conduct is atrociously worldly and does not give that sustenance souls desperately crave. And so they seek it out elsewhere.
It is incredible if it were not true. Data point 1,987,438 for the disasters inflicted on the Church, world, and most importantly, souls by “aggiornamento.”
Remnant video on the Synod October 24, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, SOD, the return.
The video below was posted yesterday. I agree with the sentiments expressed almost in toto, although I do hold out the possibly forlorn hope that the opposition that developed towards the end of the first portion of the Synod may coalesce into something significant. As it is, for now, it seems Pope Francis ably sidestepped that opposition and went ahead and had the disastrous paragraphs included in the final report, anyway, if in a different section and with a bit of discussion regarding the “controversy” they caused.
I can’t say I know for certain what happened at the Synod – was it everything going just about totally according to modernist revolutionary plans, who figured in advance there would be some opposition and just moved the ball as far forward as they could? Or was the “revolt,” such as it was, a sign of serious setback? I know opinions vary even among some of the best, most orthodox/traditional Catholics out there.
Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara below seem to veer predominately on the side of the Synod being almost an unalloyed victory for Pope Francis and the modernist cabal associated with him. Some of the language below (a quite small amount) gets a bit harsh and goes beyond what I would typically endorse, but there is so much good commentary it merits airing. I pray Ferrara and Matt (and D) and others are not right, but I fear they are. If they are……Lord have mercy, I have no idea what the Church looks like in a year, but it will not be good:
If criticism of the Holy Father means falling out of full communion with him, then we have an increasing number of prelates doing so. Fortunately, that is not now nor has it ever been the case.
Several things as way of a brief introduction. The man who introduces Bishop Gracida – a long time friend and supporter of the TLM and one of the most orthodox bishops in entire post-conciliar US Church -is Jim Graham, President of Texas Right to Life. There are two major pro-life political action organizations in Texas, Texas Right to Life, and Texas Alliance for Life. You really, really, really want to support the former and not the latter. Texas Right to Life is completely pro-life up and down the whole panoply of life-related issues and is very strongly Catholic. Texas Alliance for Life is much weaker on end-of-life issues and has equivocated on critical matters a number of times.
Secondly, Bishop Gracida below addresses the really pernicious error of current “end of life” declarations that have been formulated over the past 50 years to support the organ harvesting industry. Organs for transplantation MUST, with present technology, be taken from a living human being. The organs deteriorate to uselessness within just a few minutes of actual death. That is why destructive ideologies like “brain death” have been created, in order to pretend that people with still beating hearts, even those who breathe on their own, are somehow “dead,” and thus suitable victims for organ harvesting. But far too many entities in the institutional Church have accepted this illusory definition and have given the “moral OK” to perform such practices. Bishop Gracida has opposed this form of murder for decades.
Finally, I must agree with Jim Graham’s introductory notes, the reason that we have seen Western culture collapse to the terrific extent it has in the past several decades – an incredibly rapid acceleration of a process building for 500 years – is due to the failure of the Church to uphold traditional morality and Doctrine and instead try be a never challenging, often indifferentist “friend” of the world.
Some really very good comments below from Bishop Gracida, it is worth watching:
That man is 93 years old. Can you believe it? He looks and sounds 20 years younger. Which sort of explodes the mandatory retirement age program put in place after Vatican II. I can imagine how blessed the Diocese of Corpus Christi would now be had Bishop Gracida remained in office until now – over 30 years. Ad multos annos! My father-in-law looks and works 15 years younger than he is at 85 but I think Bishop Gracida might put him to shame.
We need a good laugh October 23, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, fun, General Catholic, Holy suffering, scandals, silliness, SOD.
This laugh brought to you by Bones, and it is much appreciated (by me). It seems a compilation of music to listen to the Synod will hit Vatican shelves this week:
When your sitting back, reading that glorious “Relatio,” think how well hearing “Losing My Religion” or “Heartbreak Hotel” will sound?
How about Lonesome, On’ry, and Mean? That’s how it makes me feel.
Ralph Mooney’s steel guitar played a huge role in defining Waylon’s unique sound. That and the driving bass line. Best steel guitar man ever. Waylon was my age when this was filmed. I must say, though both addicts, he looked a good bit more chewed up at that age than I do. Heh. Maybe.
Another good laugh, via Eye of the Tiber. Cardinal Kasper proposes three more Sacraments:
Citing the need for the Church to “update herself with modern times,” Cardinal Walter Kasper declared that the Church has now added three Sacraments to the original seven instituted by Christ. In an interview with America, Kasper explained his decision: “Christ challenged the Pharisees to look deeper than the Mosaic Law, and he challenges us to the same. The original seven sacraments were sufficient for their time, but times have changed, and the Church owes the world a greater number of spiritual life rafts.”
Kasper’s new list of Sacraments is as follows:
6. Holy Orders
7. Anointing of the Sick
9. That YouTube video of that Lifehouse song with that Jesus skit
10. Christmas trees
I don’t know what to think of Providence, RI Bishop Thomas Tobin. Under Pope Benedict, he was noted for being one of the more vocally orthodox bishops – he even criticized Pope Francis early on – but seemed to have made a turn toward the heterodox over the past year or so (understand the terms orthodox and heterodox are made relative to the present standard in the Church). Perhaps he was tacking into the prevailing winds. But now Bishop Tobin seems to be saying that the Pope has made a doctrinal mess of the Church:
Thomas J. Tobin, the Catholic bishop for the Diocese of Providence, R.I., commented on the recent Synod of Bishops on the Family held at the Vatican as “being rather Protestant” in having bishops vote on “doctrinal applications,” and added that in terms of Pope Francis’s fondness for a “creating a mess,” you can say, “mission accomplished.”
“Pope Francis is fond of ‘creating a mess.’ Mission accomplished,” said Bishop Tobin in his Oct. 21 blog post at the Diocese of Providence website. [Which isn't absolutely a criticism. It certainly can be taken as such, but if one was into modernism it could be looked on as a good thing. But I don't think that's what Bishop Tobin meant.]
……Commenting further on the Synod, Bishop Tobin said, “The concept of having a representative body of the Church voting on doctrinal applications and pastoral solutions strikes me as being rather Protestant.” At the close of the Synod, the bishops voted on all 62 paragraphs in the final document, the Relatio Synodi. [Yeah, you're not the only one. But see what he says below.]
The Synod of bishops will meet again in one year to review the document, make more changes, and then Pope Francis will review that material and write a public letter on the family and marriage issues examined. [Oh goody. I just can't wait. Be still my heart.]
As for more of his “Random Thoughts about the Synod on the Family,” Bishop Tobin said:
– “Have we learned that it’s probably not a good idea to publish half-baked minutes of candid discussions about sensitive topics, especially when we know that the secular media will hijack the preliminary discussions for their own agendas? [Please. It wasn't half-baked, it was written weeks in advance. What a joke. And the man who wrote it, Archbishop Forte, is a disciple of Kasper/Kung/Rahner/von Baltasar and the whole school of Tubingen, and slippery as an eel.]
– “Wherever he serves, Cardinal Burke will be a principled, articulate and fearless spokesman for the teachings of the Church.” [Dang straight. And possibly emerge as a desperately needed leader.]
Thanks to reader D for the link. Some more of Bishop Tobin’s comments, perhaps less reassuring:
In addressing contemporary issues of marriage and the family, the path forward will probably be found somewhere between the positions of Fr. Z and the National Catholic Reporter. [Amazing he knows who Fr. Z is. Probably 2/3 of American bishops would have no clue, while they would have intimate familiarity with Michael Sean Winters, the Heretic Reporter, and Thomas Reese. Nevertheless, here we see another bishop pretending Doctrine - eternal Truth revealed by Jesus Christ - can be compromised on. Muy malo.]
Pope Francis encouraged fearless and candid discussion and transparency during the Synod. I wonder if the American Bishops will adopt the same protocol during their meeting next month in Baltimore. [Heh. Nice zinger.]
I for one am extremely saddened to see yet another American prelate, like Cardinal Burke (who surely deserved his stunning demotion), fall out of that precious full communion with the pope. So sad.
It’s called sarcasm, people.
Seriously, though, how much are the apparitions at Fatima, Akita, and Quito being borne out? Bishop against bishop, cardinal against cardinal……..it’s 1517 all over again. Just great!
Great sermon on the horrid evil of admitting manifest sinners to the Blessed Sacrament – FIXED October 23, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, Bible, Christendom, damnable blasphemy, disaster, episcopate, error, Eucharist, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Latin Mass, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, SOD, Tradition, Virtue.
I do not know this priest’s name, and even if I did they like to be anonymous, anyway. But this is the 5th or 6th sermon of his I’ve heard that has extremely solid.
The priest goes over very solid ground rules regarding the state our souls must be in for valid and holy reception of the Blessed Sacrament, reception that fills our souls with Grace instead of bringing condemnation upon us. The priest notes that sins against the 6th and 9th Commandments have always been understood as placing a soul in a position that it is unworthy to receive Christ Real Presence. A dead body cannot be fed, the priest notes, and in the state of mortal sin, our souls are dead.
After solid background, the priest shifts to the recent Synod of Darkness. He notes how it appears that many bishops are not interested in guarding the Holy of Holies. The priest goes on to list aspects of the egregious elements of the midway “Relatio” which has served as an awesome tool in advancing the modernist agenda and the destruction of souls, hardly ameliorated by the “revolt” of October 16 and some changes to the final document. As far as millions of souls are concerned, including some either badly informed or willingly duped Catholics, the Church has formally changed 2000 year old Doctrine. The damage is incalculable.
Lots and lots of good stuff below. I strongly advise dedicating 18 minutes to listen:
“Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the Kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, [transgenders, cross dressers, etc] nor liers with mankind, [sodomites, gomorrists] nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the Kingdom of God.” [1 COR VI:9]
And thus we know why there is such a powerful movement among liberal Christians, especially those ludicrous sects dedicated towards producing a mockery of Christianity to serve the sodomite interest, either totally downplay Saint Paul or actually advocate for the exclusion of all his Epistles from the Bible. There is no limit to which error and sin will not stoop.
I pray you find this edifying, as I did.
UPDATE: Thank you to the commenter for letting me know it was the wrong video. It’s those darned Youtube playlists, if I go to VideoSancto’s page on Youtube, and see the list of all their videos, if I click on one, it doesn’t give me the direct link to that video, but a link embedded in a playlist. So when VideoSancto uploads a new video, the list updates, and the video I wanted is no longer there – same link, different video. My apologies, that always gets me.