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 Basics, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Our Lady, Papa, sanctity, Spiritual Warfare, the return.
One could even say it is beautiful, in parts. It is occasional statements like this that make me uncertain as to what Pope Francis really believes, how he rationalizes relatively strong statements like this with some others that seem to cause such confusion.
But enough with my impressions, a commenter left a link to another site covering this same info yesterday, and I did not have time to read it. I hope L understands that my return comment to her was general and not in reference to this particular exhortation from the Pope:
Without the Church, which is our mother, we can not go on. This was confirmed by Pope Francis in his sermon for the feast of the Dolors of Mary at Holy Mass in the chapel of the Vatican guest house “Domus Sanctae Marthae.”
After the liturgy of the Exultation of the Cross, we are shown in the present day, a humble and gentle mother. In the Letter to the Hebrews (Heb 5:7 to 9), the apostle Paul emphasizes three powerful words: “Jesus taught, he obeyed and he suffered” (“Though he was a Son, he learned obedience through suffering”; V. 6). The Pope explains this is the contrary to what happened with the progenitor, Adam. He did not want to learn the Commandments of the Lord, nor did he want to suffer or obey. Though he was God, Jesus offered Himself on the other hand, He humbled Himself by becoming the servant: “This is the glory of the cross of Jesus”. [And I like this thought very much, but is it undermined by certain statements to other religions that reject both Christ as God and Mary as Mother of God?]
“Jesus came into the world,” said Francis, “to learn to be human, to be human, to go with the people. He came into the world, to obey, and he obeyed. But he has learned this obedience through suffering. [OK, since I know nits will be picked, I may as well jump the gun. I think this statement can be true in a sense, but Christ, being God, is the perfect embodiment of all virtue, and was just as omniscient as God the Father, being always part of the Trinity even while man, and so He knew obedience perfectly before enduring any suffering. But He did give us the example of obedience through suffering. The translation on Eponymous Flower could be spotty.] Adam has left from paradise with a promise, the promise that has been going on over the many centuries. Today, with this obedience, this self-destruction, with this self-humiliation of Jesus, that promise is to hope. And the people of God go ahead with this certain hope. The Mother, ‘the New Eve,’ as Paul called her, would share this way with her Son: she learned, suffered and obeyed. And she became a mother.”
The Gospel (Jn 19:25 – 27) shows us Mary at the foot of the Cross. Jesus says to John: “Behold your mother” (verse 27). Thus Mary would be “anointed as the mother:”
“And this is our hope. We are not orphans, we have mothers: Mother Mary. But the Church is the mother, and the Church is anointed as mother and she strikes out on the same way as Mary and Jesus, the way of obedience, the way of suffering, and if it continues that attitude to keep learning the way of the Lord. These two women – Mary and the Church – bring forward in hope, which is Christ, they give us Christ, they bear witness to Christ in us. Without Mary, there would have been no Jesus Christ. . “Without the Church, we can not precede.” [And I think that is true. But what is the understanding of the "Church?" Is it the Church of Rome, of the Apostles and the constant line of bishops since and formal communion with Her, or does it exist invisibly and include even people who reject and attack Her? How can we be full "brothers" with protestants who spit on the Blessed Mother? This is where I get confused, not about what I believe, but about what Francis believes. I find it very difficult to reconcile a strong Marian ecclesiology with such a fervent embrace of protestants. Being a former protestant, I well know the degree to which most protestants despise their caricatured understanding of Marian theology, and how much their erroneous understanding of the Blessed Mother distorts their whole approach to Christianity.]
There is more at the link. The lede at Eponymous Flower said, in quotes: “Pope Francis: “No Way For Christians Without the Holy, Hierarchical, Mother Church”, which I didn’t see directly in any of the text, so it’s possible some good parts got left out. Sorry if that is the case. I am out for the day.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, rank stupidity, sadness, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, sickness, silliness, unadulterated evil.
And I read somewhere it is “sold out,” whatever that means. Satan is indeed having a field day and then some. How sad is that?
The infinitely evil affront against the Living God that is the black mass will, barring a miracle or some unforeseen event, take place this Sunday – although, it is believed, without a consecrated Host. On Our Lord’s day, naturally. I do not know what kind of response is planned in OKC – I hope a very crowded and vociferous one. At one time I did plan to travel to OKC to participate in any protests, but this dang staph infection just doesn’t quite want to go away (please keep praying). And, we must keep praying that this mass – which, by its very nature, recognizes in its blind hatred the existence of not only God but the Real Presence, but rejects the Love of both – will be cancelled. The affair in Boston at least resulted with the satanists, as they should be, on the run, and having to conduct their evil under cover. And that was all decided at the last minute, so there is still hope.
TFP Student Action, whatever you think of their parent organization, has pushed a petition that has over 50,000 signatures and is seeking to hit 100,000 before Sunday. The petition will be presented to Oklahoma City civic leaders prior to this sacrilege taking place. If you haven’t signed it already, you might consider doing so:
I regret to inform you that satanists are still planning a “Black Mass” on city property at the Civic Center in Oklahoma City on Sunday, September 21, 2014.
Please spread the word to all your friends so we can stop this sacrilege. Your voice and prayers were decisive at Harvard University – the “Black Mass” there was stopped. Canceled. Saint Michael won a great victory that day. And God can win again.
Our first goal of 50,000 petitions has been achieved. The new goal is now 100,000. Your petition, together with many more, will be presented to the Civic Center, as well as the Mayor of Oklahoma City and the Governor of Oklahoma before September 21.
One news item refers to the “Black Mass” in these terms: “A Religious Black Mass will be conducted as a public event to help educate the public about Religious Satanism. Enjoy the delights of the Devil.” [Was that proselytism for satan done by some newsie in ignorance, or forbearance?
Registered sex offender Adam Daniels will be leading the anti-Catholic satanic ritual on public property.
Every black mass is a direct, deliberate and sinful act of hatred against God. Typically, a Consecrated Host is stolen from a Catholic Church and then used to desecrate, mock and insult the Catholic Mass. The Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ is attacked in a most vile and unspeakable manner. These insults against God are not only offensive to Christians, but also repulsive to everyone of good will.
In this instance, maybe we should be like democrats – voting early and often. If you have multiple e-mails addresses and a few convenient aliases…..
Locally, I know some parishes will be having Adoration in reparation for this diabolical sickness. I know Bishop Slattery, at least, plans Eucharist Processions and Adoration in Tulsa. Are there acts of reparation planned for your diocese or parish?
Lord what a dark time! Have mercy on us for having so offended You! Please change our hearts through Your Grace! Help Your poor suffering Church.
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, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, Papa, pr stunts, sadness, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, shocking, the return.
That’s the strong implication of this article from the Daily Telegraph, quoting a spokesman or the Diocese of Rome. The actual term is cohabiting….whether they have repented of and confessed their sin, and have abstained from fornication for some time, is anyone’s guess:
Couples who have been “living in sin” and women who had children out of wedlock will be married by Pope Francis at a ceremony at the Vatican on Sunday, in a further sign of his determination to make the Catholic Church more inclusive and compassionate.
They will be among 20 couples from Rome who will tie the knot in St Peter’s Basilica, in the first such ceremony led by the Pope in his role as Bishop of Rome since he was elected in March last year.
For the Vatican, it will be the first such event since Pope John Paul II joined eight couples in matrimony in 2000.
The prospective brides and grooms had varying personal backgrounds, the diocese of Rome said in a statement.
“There are those who are already cohabiting, those who already have children, who got to know each other in Church,” the diocese said.
One of the women getting married has a grown-up daughter from a previous relationship and will marry a man who was previously married but obtained an annulment.
The woman, named only as Gabriella, said she never imagined that she would be married by the Pope in St Peter’s.
“We didn’t feel worthy or able to meet the requirements of a good Catholic couple,” Gabriella told La Repubblica newspaper. “But the Church under the leadership of Pope Francis has welcomed and embraced us.”
There is just so much wrong with that statement it’s hard to know where to start. If you have confessed any previous sins and have no currently valid marriage, where is he impediment? It seems to me rather likely something very significant has been left out of this brief description. As in, was the previous “relationship” a marriage?
I did see one constant apologist say this is no big thing! The Church is full of sinners! These people are getting their relationships regularized, that’s good! And it is…….but the traditional practice was and is that those persisting in that kind of relationship had to stop their fornication (and cohabitation in almost all cases) to give an indicator of good will and to have their sins washed away through repentance and confession prior to receiving such an august Sacrament. Simply getting married does not remove the guilt of grave sin due to fornication/cohabitation – it takes Confession to do that. We also have the reception of the Blessed Sacrament to consider.
But that was in the bad old days. The obvious doubleplusungood think of back then was that one must show both a true compunction for the sin by abstaining from fornication for quite a while before receiving either marriage or the Blessed Sacrament, and give visible testimony to that by terminating the scandalous aspects of the relationship. I know people who have had to do so at traditional parishes today. Pray God, someone has at least thought to get these souls to Confession before they possibly blaspheme the Holy Ghost.
What do you make of this? Just hype, no big deal, happens all the time, or something more ominous? And what does this act mean in light of the upcoming Synod, if anything?
I’m too tired to figure it out.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, sadness, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, shocking, Society, the return.
Reader TM sent me a link to the following letter sent by Virginia House of Delegates member Bob Marshall to Archbishop Carlo Vignano, Apostolic Nuncio of the United States. Who knows how that letter will be received, what with the new focus on “mercy” cum indifference, but the author has requested that this letter be shared as widely as possible, and I agree with the concerns expressed therein. Some excerpts:
New York’s Cardinal Dolan, appointed as Grand Marshal of the 2015 St. Patrick’s Day Parade, praised the decision to allow an openly gay group to march in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade. “I have no trouble with the decision at all … I think the decision is a wise one,” he said.
His action has left many Catholics, including elected officials like myself, puzzled and disheartened especially when we measure Cardinal Dolan’s new policy with that of his predecessor, John Cardinal O’Connor. [I understand there is a massive new excavation on Manhattan Island. It developed only recently, but has already achieved prodigious proportions. It is caused by Cardinal O'Connor spinning in his grave at hypersonic speeds.]
In 1993, when LGBT groups and government officials demanded that openly homosexual groups be included in the Parade, Cardinal O’Connor vowed in a St. Patrick’s Day sermon that he “could never even be perceived as compromising Catholic teaching. Neither respectability nor political correctness is worth one comma in the Apostles Creed.” (New York Times, 1/20/93) [We certainly do not have the same caliber of man as Cardinal Archbishop of New York today. What a buffoon this Dolan is.]
At that time, the New York Times also noted that, “The Hibernians and Cardinal O’Connor have said there is no place for a gay contingent in the parade because it is a Catholic Event and the Church teaches that homosexual acts are sinful.”
Yet, Cardinal Dolan claimed, “Neither my predecessors as archbishops of New York nor I have ever determined who would or would not march in this parade,” adding that “the parade would be a source of unity for all of us.” (New York Times, 9/3/14) [Which shows that Cardinal Dolan was either ignorant of the very public stand of his predecessor, or is quite willing to prevaricate. The repeated statements by Dolan in defense of this indefensible act are increasingly troubling and reveal a man detached from the Catholic sensus fidei.]
Would Cardinal Dolan, as Parade Marshal, applaud the inclusion of Irish abortion clinic owners or Planned Parenthood employees in a Parade honoring Saint Patrick? On what logical grounds does he applaud openly LGBT marchers and reject openly pro-abortion Catholics, including some “Catholic” nuns? [Give him time. He well might.]
……..This situation is not about judging individual souls. God loves all his children, and fortunately He is the only one who judges men’s hearts, but we live in a world of actions that have individual, social and legal consequences. [But there is such a thing as objectively sinful acts. And we have to judge those acts and the people who commit them - not their eternal destiny or the state of their soul, but whether such acts conform to Truth and goodness, or falsehood and evil. And we cannot give support to those who manifestly and unrepentantly promote their evil.]
Equality of persons is not the same as equality of behavior. What message does Cardinal Dolan’s decision give? The US Supreme Court is considering whether to hear challenges to state laws allowing only one-man, one-woman marriage. Cardinal Dolan’s statement and actions are most untimely……… [More than untimely, almost diabolical in their likely effect]
……I know from a lifetime in and around politics that federal judges and Members of Congress read newspapers. They are influenced by the actions of moral leaders. They gauge what they can “get away with” by what Catholic prelates “tolerate.”
We do our brothers and sisters no service by pretending that God’s teaching or the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” are not important today. No one can change Natural Law or the Word of God, written in the blood of Our Savior for our wellbeing and redemption/
I haven’t talked to one Catholic who thinks that what Cardinal Dolan did was prudent or helpful in defending the Faith, marriage or morals. Converts, especially, are distressed. [Yes, I am distressed. But there are millions of katholycs out there who think what he's done is just grand. But I agree, I don't think a single Catholic could support Dolan's actions - including Bill Donahue. Perhaps he should change his group's name to the Katholyc League.]
Some contemporary American Catholics falsely think that “tolerance” is exercised by maintaining indifference towards ideas, opinion or even error, or holding that all points of view are equal. For a Church authority to embrace political correctness at such a time will have consequences which extend far beyond the parade route. [False tolerance, meaning indifference and the pretension that this life is the only one to be concerned with, is the driving heresy of the sexular pagan religion]
Cardinal Dolan’s actions will make enacting legislation in conformity with the Natural Law immeasurably harder to defend especially for lay Catholics or Catholic legislators……..[Dang straight. Already, one or two tragic, flippant comments are constantly thrown in faithful Catholic faces regarding all manner of moral issues, from abortion to sodomy to fornication to whatever! "Who am I to judge?" goes right along with "I think the decision a wise one." The position of faithful Catholics has been horribly undermined.]
Cardinal Dolan is rapidly becoming the American poster boy – at least for the present day, there have been many others – for the new state religion of sexular paganism. From all appearances, it seems Dolan seeks to change the Church to suit the ways of this fallen and evil world, rather than the other way around. Or, if not change the Church, at least change the appearance of the Church so that She never appears to stand in contradiction to the oppressive desires of the power elite. It’s so much easier that way! And Governor Cuomo will answer your calls, and let you feel important for a few minutes! And you’ll get more interviews on 60 Minutes!
See! It’s win-win!
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, pr stunts, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness.
Bill Donahue, head of the Catholic League, is not known for subtlety. The man constantly reminds me of Archie Bunker, but Bunker was frankly not quite as over the top.
Donahue has spent years attacking the sodomite agenda in this country and defending Church Doctrine – and good for him for doing so. Unfortunately, he has also consistently shown himself to be a creature of the Archdiocese of New York and has contradicted himself, and undermined the Doctrine he used to defend, increasingly as Cardinal Dolan continues his descent into pathetic political pandering.
Perhaps the conflict generated by Dolan’s increasing heresy has finally become too much. The Catholic League has pulled out of the Saint Patrick’s Day Parade for reasons that seem flimsy at best. See what you think (note, the article below consistently misuses the term “gay,” as does Donahue):
For the first time in 20 years, the president of the the Catholic League has announced the group will not be marching in New York City’s St. Patrick’s Day parade next year.
The decision comes one week after parade organizers lifted a ban on gay groups marching under their own banners. Catholic League President Bill Donohue said the decision was based on parade organizers not allowing a pro-life group to march as well.
“Prior to the announcement that a gay group would march under its own banner in the 2015 parade, I was consulted by parade organizers about their plans,” he said in a statement, a New York CBS affiliate reported. “I told them that I could only support this decision if there were a formal revision in the parade’s rules governing marching units, and that is exactly what I said in my first public statement.
“To be specific,” he continued, “I asked them to pledge that a pro-life Catholic group would also be permitted. I was told that a formal change in the rules had been approved and that a pro-life group would march. Now I am being told that the list of marching units is set and that no pro-life group will march in next year’s parade. Accordingly, I have decided to withdraw our participation.”
Mr. Donahue said his decision has nothing to do with gays, but with the inconsistencies of the parade committee.
But perhaps I’m all wet, thinking Donahue might have had enough of being Dolan’s lap dog:
“Attempts will now be made to pit me against Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the Grand Marshal of the 2015 parade,” Mr. Donohue said, the station reported. “The suggestion that I am at odds with the New York Archbishop is not only false, it is despicable. Cardinal Dolan has no more rabid supporter than Bill Donohue, and nothing that has transpired recently changes anything.”
If the above is really true, Mr. Donahue, the only thing that is despicable is your willingness to subvert revealed Truth, cause huge scandal, and undermine the salvation of innumerable souls, in order to continue your cozy relationship with the Cardinal Archbishop of New York. What Doctrine, exactly, would Dolan have to reject in order to lose your most fervent support.
I will say, though, that if Donahue is anything, he’s politically adept. He knows which way the winds are blowing in the Church, and he has changed tack to follow suit.
That should be troubling for us all. If a man like Donahue is willing to publicly make a fool of himself by appearing so blatantly hypocritical, he must have a pretty strong motivation to do so. And I fear that motivation comes from more sources than just the Archdiocese of NY. There is a completely different feel and emphasis in the Church today, it is as if the is 1970 all over again.
Thanks to reader MFG for the link.
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 Admin, Basics, catachesis, episcopate, General Catholic, Latin Mass, religious, Tradition, Virtue.
A couple of days ago I put up a post noting a beautiful occurrence in the Church, the entry into the novitiate of a young woman in the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (MICM) in Still River, Massachusetts. As part of that post, I mentioned again that I did not understand why there still seems to be some lingering suspicion towards this group in particular, which is completely regular in every respect. This statement led to some discussion in the comments about other Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary/MICM groups, and their canonical status. I was frankly a bit ignorant, or had fallen for some of the prevalent rumors, in stating that I didn’t think the other groups were fully regular, or that I at least thought there was some question on their status.
Well, Brother Andre Marie of catholicism.org and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Richmond, New Hampshire dropped by to provide some clarification on the matter of the canonical status of these different branches of the Slaves, all originally descended from the Saint Benedict Center/Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary centered around Father Leonard Feeney. Here is what he had to say:
Canonically, the group that you speak of here has the same exact status as the group in New Hampshire (of which I am the Prior). Both are essentially private associations of the faithful.
The other group in Still River is Saint Ann’s House — — a house of Sisters only (affiliated with male house of MICM — the Benedictines next-door are no longer MICMs.). The Sisters of Saint Ann’s House actually have a higher canonical status than any of the other MICM houses, as they are an episcopally approved private association of the faithful. (In Canon Law, there is a distinction between a de facto private association of the faithful and one that has episcopal approval.)
The New Hampshire Slaves (also called the Saint Benedict Center) discuss their canonical status at some length here.
I am certainly not a canon lawyer, nor an expert in these matters, but I wanted to make clear all of these groups both claim to be and appear to be recognized as having regular canonical status in the Church, and are not under any episcopal/ecclesiastical approbation. There is a great deal of confusion around the internet regarding the status of these groups, with many folks retaining the impression that because Father Feeney was once in a problematic position several decades ago, any or all of the groups associated with him in the past or “descended” from those associated with him must still be so today. The evidence indicates that Father Feeney died reconciled to the Church and that the groups listed above have regular recognition/interaction with their local dioceses as private associations of the faithful. I know the Saint Benedict Center in Still River and in Richmond both have priests in residence offering valid Masses and with valid faculties for Confession. I believe, but have not confirmed that the Saint Ann’ House group does, as well.
Hopefully this helps clear things up. Sorry for perpetuating any confusion.