Traditional Priest – Soft, liberal Katholycism will offer no resistance to resurgent militant Islam August 26, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, persecution, priests, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society, Tradition.
Great post by Father Carota, as usual. He notes that islam is increasing in population at a time when the Church is shedding members in the millions in most parts of the world, especially Europe and the Americas, Her traditional home. Now, I have read detailed studies of islam’s own fertility collapse, and outside a few countries in Africa the population of muslims will peak around 2030 or 2040 and then begin to follow the same decline that is being seen almost everywhere else, but the problem is, islam’s fertility collapse is trailing Christianity’s by over 50 years, and that time interval represents an increasing window of danger as population percentages shift. Irrespective of the demographics, so long as islam, and especially its radical wing, presents a very vibrant, cohesive, and countercultural set of beliefs, it will continue to attract more and souls disaffected with the prevailing sexular pagan status quo, the sort of soft socialism with pandemic sexual immorality that American hegemony has set loose upon the world. The more the Church rejects Her own countercultural beliefs, the more elements within Her try to please the world and succumb to its prince, the fewer the souls that will be attracted to the Church’s far stronger, reasonable, glorious, charitable, and Truthful belief set.
So while the Church continues to retreat under the twin forces of sexular paganism and militant islam, many souls, including souls raised within the boundaries of the remnant of Christendom (Britain is the source of many of the most extreme of the ISIS psychopaths, including the one who beheaded that poor journalist), will drift into islam’s orbit or formally join this disordered, violent, and even diabolical religion.
Father Carota notes some of the depravities of islam, especially with respect to the persecution of Christians, as well as the cancers eating away at the Church. First, only a very brief list of islamic atrocities:
1) Raping Catholic and other non muslim women and girls. [and performing mass, forced genital mutilation. They also sexually enslave islamists of sects other than wahhabism]
2) Driving Catholics and others out of their homes and country.
3) Bombing, burning and destroying Catholic, Orthodox and other christian churches.
4) Suicide bombings.
5) Kidnapping men, women and children to be sold as slaves, (and some as sex slaves). [indeed, the only parts of the world where slavery has not been totally eradicated are in islamic areas and, perhaps, in East Asia, where women and even children are sold into what amounts sexual slavery. But as the sexular pagan ethos continues to advance in the West, there will be fewer and fewer philosophical and social strong points of opposition to slavery, and I fully believe that if this culture does not turn around, the utilitarian and materialist ethos dominant in the West will find justifications for the reintroduction of slavery and/or indentured servitude in the not too distant future]
6) Stealing Catholic’s and other’s houses, cars, jewelry and possessions as they are driven out of town.
7) Torturing, burring alive, crucifying and murdering of Catholics and other religion members, (and bragging about it on Youtube).
Father Carota also notes some specific atrocities muslims have committed, such as various bombings and terror attacks, and the constant treatment of women as chattel. He then asks how such a religion could be growing and attracting thousands of young men willing to die for religion, when most Catholics, far from being willing to suffer even a minor inconvenience to show up to Mass once or twice a year, demand the Church change it’s Dogmas to suit them and their sins. And that is why islam is attracting at least a fair number of converts, because it presents a strong, masculine-seeming and vibrant set of beliefs in opposition to the ongoing pointlessness of self-absorbed existence in the West and much of the rest of the world. Father Carota lists some reasons for islam’s growth:
1) They have passion for what they believe in.
2) They will kill you or make life difficult for you if you do not convert.
3) They give men a masculine role in their religion; a) God made men to be leaders, and b) Men and boys like to fight. [While Western women want to emasculate men and smash "patriarchy." You know what......success in their endeavor will make them even more miserable than they are now. But ideologues aren't much open to reason]
4) Religion and state work together for their religious laws. [This is very key. Islam demands the state accord to the religion, and islamic nations enforce laws to perpetuate their faith. We in the West are of course far too sophisticated for that, having chosen the false gods of "self-determination" and atheism as the de facto state religion. States founded on such nebulous and ultimately false beliefs will not stand a religiously motivated enemy]
5) Men can marry a lot of women and have more sex.
6) Muslim men get non muslim women to fall in love with them and convert. They then could later on find out that these men have other wives as well. [That's not the half of it. They can claim any women from the infidels they conquer and keep them as concubines in their harem. This has been ongoing in Iraq and Syria. Those don't even count as marriages. So muslim men get to screw a lot of different women, which has a certain animalistic appeal].
7) There is sex in heaven. [Their entire conception of "heaven" is entirely worldly. Islam is incapable of understanding God or existence outside of time as they must be, where worldly "pleasures" (almost always associated with some pain or downside) have no meaning. That's because it's a recycled version of pre-Christian Judaism with heretical Arianism thrown in]
8) Oppressed races are given honor when they convert, like when (Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr), Mohammed Ali converted. (Read here his conversion on a pro muslim blog). Many black men convert to the muslim religion in prison. [I don't know about "oppressed," but converts are certainly lauded.]
So what is the Church doing in opposition to this existential threat?
we Catholics 1) feminize our Catholic faith, 2) accept all religions as good and equal and 3) become more and more hedonistic, we will continue to see more and more Catholics converting to islam.
And that’s just the beginning. We also see Church leaders fawning all over islam as a great “religion of peace,” we are told, rather coyly, that islam “worships the same God,” in the current catechism, we see Koran’s kissed, we see even TFG tell muslims there is no reason for them to convert……we see a very great deal, none of it good. We see a constant denial of islam as an endemically hostile religion that seeks to conquer or convert the entire world, and has the zeal and willingness to do so. We also see pointless “dialogue” that often gives scandal and undermines the Faith of the relatively few souls striving to accept and practice what the Church has always believed. We see a very great deal.
Father Carota concludes:
I find it interesting that when the Israelites would become evil, God would send people from Babylon to destroy them and take them into exile. Isn’t Iraq where Babylon was? Yes, it is. [see Psalm 43, which I posted yesterday]
But God will never be outdone, even when we are giving away our Catholic souls to the muslims. God will come to our aid. And that is why we need the passionate traditional Catholic beliefs and practices. At least a few of Jesus’ followers are standing up strong for His Catholic Faith. And our loving Catholic witness in our everyday life, speaks powerfully in a world filled with selfishness and hate.
Meanwhile we should be praying, sacrificing and sending money to help the Catholic refugees from muslim terrorism. Especially offer your Holy Rosaries for the conversion of muslims and the spreading of the Catholic faith. [I do, every day. Even if my devotion and attentiveness during prayer is not what it should be] Mary has always had a powerful hand in defeating the muslims and all evil. [Dang right! And another sign of the weakness in the Church today was the replacement of the great Feast of Our Lady of Victory every October with Our Lady of the Rosary. I have a great devotion to the Rosary, but Our Lady is also a powerful intercessor in earthly Christian struggles against rampaging hordes of pagans and infidels of all stripes, especially muslims. She has intervened to effect miraculous victories on numerous occasions. And, in response to the overly pacifist tendency in Catholicism today, a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Saint Francis, in particular, our God is the God of Armies! That's what "God of Hosts" means, He is the God of Armies, earthly and angelic! And He always intervenes to protect and bring victory to His souls, when they are faithful to Him!]
I’ll add this final consideration – does not soft, liberal katholycism, far from offering any opposition to islam and its effectiveness in bringing in many converts, some former Catholics, but does it not instead immensely aid islam in its continued growth and depredations? Does not the pathetically soft response of so many Church leaders only help convince radical islamists that Christianity is weak and ripe for attack? And for how long must we be told that the great mass of muslims are peaceful and kind and loving, just like the best Catholics, when they seem to offer absolutely no opposition to the radical elements at all (exactly the opposite from how “radical” traditional Catholics are treated), and in fact can be found, in much coverage of the ongoing atrocities, happily milling around and taking photos and videos while people are crucified, beheaded, raped, or shot? Where is the movement of this “great mass” of muslims in opposition to the radicals? They are nowhere to be found, because they are either too cowed to stand against them, or really don’t mind seeing Christian, shiites, and others, get what they “deserve.”
End post. I was going to post a great writing by Saint Louis, King of France, but I have run out of time. Tomorrow, God willing! Dang work!
Over at The Remnant Newspaper’s website, Christopher Ferrara has a loooooong article about the upcoming Synod and all the many, many reasons faithful/traditional Catholics might want to oppose it. Some of the reasons are mere annoyances or doubts caused by TFG’s behavior, while many others are quite detailed and deserve serious consideration. Because the post is so long and detailed, it’s a bit difficult to excerpt, but here’s a couple of extracts (my emphasis and comments):
First they came for the Roman Rite, which they destroyed. Then they came for the Church Militant, which they disarmed and surrendered to the spirit of the age. Now, at the Synod, which threatens to become Vatican II rebooted, progressivist bishops and their apparatchiks will be coming for the moral law itself under the guise of a search for “pastoral solutions” to “challenges facing the family” [This is a point Christopher Ferrara and Michael Matt have argued extensively in other settings. Suffice it to say, the argument, I believe, proves beyond a doubt there is certainly a large segment of the hierarchy that does seem set on that last bit, which is the unwinding of the Church's entire moral law, or whatever remains after 50 years of concerted assault. I will say that Cardinal Kasper and his greatest ally have been almost diabolically wise in their choice of point of attack, because if one undoes the current belief surrounding marriage as one time union of man and wife resulting in a radically new and different union that simply can't be undone, while simultaneously turning the Blessed Sacrament, the reception of God in the Flesh Himself, into something to which every person has a positive right, irrespective of their sinfulness......if you do these two things, the entire moral Doctrine of the Faith can be completely unwound and destroyed, along with much of the remaining positive theology in other areas. The Church would be left a totally prostate liberal protestant sect, about on the par with the episcopalians. And look at how well they're doing, with their average congregation size of, I kid not, 67 souls]
But the proposal to find “solutions for remarried divorcees” is only part of the looming threat posed by the Synod—a Synod for which there is no more actual need than there was for the disastrous Second Vatican Council itself. The entire Synod project smacks of an effort to determine Church practice on the basis of what people who reject Church teaching would like to see. In that regard, the Synod’s Instrumentum Laboris(working document) refers to the earlier “Preparatory Document” containing a survey filled with loaded questions which give the impression that Church teaching is a matter for debate and discussion at the “pastoral” level. While the questionnaire was directed solely to the bishops, many bishops promptly distributed it widely or posted it on diocesan websites to obtain “input” from any priests and members of the laity who wished to speak for “the People of God.” The result, quite predictably, was that a questionnaire intended for the bishops became an opinion poll generating what the Instrumentum Laboris calls “significant reflection among the People of God” regarding “new demands of the People of God.” Demands! [So, after 50 years of catering to the absolute lowest common denominator in the Church, from aggrieved liberals to apostate priests, how has that worked out? Has the Church, through this debasing of Herself, at least attracted scads of liberal converts and reverts into the fold? Absolutely not. In fact, it is the liberals who have left, or stayed gone, in the greatest numbers. Because liberalism/leftism is a competing religion in its own right, one our secular friends much prefer to any worldly version leftists in the Church can trot out]
It seems, however, that “the People of God” have a problem with the Law of God. Half a century after the imaginary “renewal of Vatican II” supposedly began, the Instrumentum admits: “[t]he People of God’s knowledge of conciliar and post-conciliar documents on the Magisterium of the family seems to be rather wanting,” that “many Christians, for various reasons, are found to be unaware of the very existence of this teaching,” and that “even when the Church’s teaching about marriage and the family is known, many Christians have difficulty accepting it in its entirety.”[Ha! That's a mild understatement! How about stating the Truth, which is that a whole great swath of people are deeply mired in sin, and don't want to be reminded of that fact, so they demand the Church change Her beliefs in order to assuage their own consciences. It still won't work, because God is God and sin will remain sin - all that will happen is the continued destruction of the Church and condemnation of millions of souls] It is of course inconceivable to the ideologues of Vatican II that what the Instrumentum describes is a catastrophic failure of the attempt to “update” Church teaching by restating it in more accessible language. Yet the very title of the document, “The Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization,” is an implied admission that fifty years after the Council it islapsed Catholics who must be evangelized because they are more or less apostates, producing the “silent apostasy” John Paul II lamented. Instead of admitting the Council’s utter failure to “renew” the Faith, however, the drafters of the Instrumentum—one can only laugh at the suggestion—call for yet another “updating” of Church teaching…..[Well, of course. As I’ve said recently, the post-conciliar Church represents a competing religion, the religion of secular leftism, trying to exist within the Church. That is impossible, which is why these “spirit of…..” types are irrepressibly hostile to the traditional practice of the Faith. And as Ferrara notes, they are dogmatic ideologues, so they are completely closed to any contradictory evidence – they are literally blind to the destruction their project to redefine the Church has caused. Or, they secretly see it as a feature, and not a bug. Either way, they press ahead with one “new evangelization” and “new catechesis” project after another, only to see Church attendance, donation, vocation, and other indicators slip, yet again. And then we’ll have another “new” program, more slip, etc., ad infinitum, until……..? But I will say this Synod represents one of the gravest threats to any possibility of true restoration in the Church in the past few decades. And it won’t take a formal “change” to Doctrine, Doctrine can be obliterated in practical terms by secular pastoral approaches
So I almost put a question mark at the end of the lede, because while I fear this upcoming Synod (while retaining confident hope of a miracle), I don’t think a petition is going to accomplish very much – especially one with only 1000 signatures. It would take 1000 times that many to attract any serious attention. But, in conscience, I thought I would go on the record as putting forth my wish that it be stopped. I am very concerned that even some subtle “pastoral” changes that seem innocuous at first could have enormous repercussions that are impossible to discern in advance. Certainly we’ve seen that with regard to many pastoral “advances” made in the past 50 years.
You can sign the petition at the bottom of the Remnant link. Whether you sign or not, prayer is an even better response.
I read the following commentary on the ongoing civil unrest in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, MO, on Friday. I’ll present the text before I tell you who wrote it and provide a small amount of commentary:
As we watch the scenes from Ferguson, Missouri unfold on the nightly news, does it prompt some questions? Certainly, they are not scenes that we in the United States expect to see in 2014. But, what do we see?
Are we looking in a mirror? Are we seeing ourselves as others see us? Are we seeing ourselves as God sees us? Do we feel the pain and frustration of those protesting? Do we feel the fear and anxiety of the police officers? Or, are they like figures in an NCIS episode?
I wonder if we have become anesthetized to the authentic agony of others, whose real life pain and suffering will not be resolved by the end of the show. Have we fallen victim to the culture of indifference that inures us to the sufferings of others?
Have we lost the capacity to weep over the pain of those different from us? I hope not. I pray that we seek to be compassionate not judgmental. I pray that we stand down, not stand firm. May God bring peace, justice, understanding and mercy to all the people of Ferguson and throughout this great land and may He grant us all the wisdom to see ourselves as God sees us.
The author was Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell.
I really don’t want to say too much, I am interested in your reactions. But I will say a few things.
I could bring up a number of matters of prudence, such as the seeming assumption that the audience is a group of 5 year old’s that have difficulty discerning reality from a TV show (a manifestation of clericalism?). Since I haven’t had a TV in a while, perhaps its influence is even more pernicious than I thought, and there are scads of people who think what is occurring in Ferguson is entertainment.
There is much room for commentary on both the original shooting, the crimes that led up to it, the rioting and looting of the community, the extremely militaristic response of the police, and the ongoing strife in that town. Indeed, there have been probably thousands of pages written in response to this Ferguson matter, already.
I noted above, from a man standing in an office inherited from the Apostles, a heavy focus on emotion in place of reason. This is very common in the world and such emphasis on emotion over reason has crept into the Church to a marked degree over the past several decades.
Taking in all of the above, I am struck by how many opportunities for catechesis by Bishop Farrell were missed in choosing to place the emphasis on emotion and non-judgmentalism. Saint Thomas does make plain that to rebel against the state authority is a grave sin, unless the state’s tyranny be truly egregious and all other methods of recourse have been exhausted. Even then, any rebellion against the state, which this kind of rioting represents at least in part, must have at least a reasonable chance of success in changing the government, either by overthrow or by forcing a change in behavior. I do not think either likely in response to the rioting in Ferguson, although I do hope this militarization of the police gets reconsidered.
There seems to be a growing sentiment in this country that if a white cop shoots a black person, some injustice has occurred. But how does that sentiment line up with reason and Catholic belief? That would have been an interesting avenue to explore. And what of the role in the media in stoking this unrest, repeatedly referring to a fully grown, 6’5″ 300 lb 18 year old giant as a boy or teen? Yes, technically he was, but he was a teen fully capable of doing grave harm to others.
I’m not sure what the takeaway is supposed to be. Don’t judge, have empathy for others? So, we should just stand by when people riot and loot? Or feel the pain of “anxiety” of the militarized police when they conduct an erroneous no-knock raid on my house at 3 am on a bogus warrant, because some unfireable civil servant typed in the wrong address?
I’m getting excited, I could go on for quite some time, but some final questions- have we, as a Church lost the capacity for bishops to guide us in necessary moral distinctions and to give reasonably clear and vigorous responses to ongoing moral questions in the Church and world? Or are we as a Church now in a place where the best we can possibly expect is a muddy call to “understanding” and having empathy for all, no matter how egregious their behavior? And, of course, never, never, never judge! Of course, Christ was referring to the state of someone’s soul, and not the evil of individual or group actions, but He did say “judge not,” ergo, irrespective of the context, and contrary to 2000 years of Catholic understanding, you better not judge!
A document was released by the Diocese of Fort Worth several days ago that had to do with the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei’s “ruling” regarding Bishop Olson’s abrogating Fisher-More College’s ability to offer the Traditional Latin Mass. That matter certainly caused enormous sturm and drang early this year, but since the college no longer exists as a place where students would physically go to live and matriculate, and thus desire regular access to the Mass, PCED considered the matter now moot and resolved of its own accord. The entire sad affair played out exactly as many of us locals predicted it would.
But that’s not the interesting part. The interesting part, to me, is that Bishop Olson has confirmed something that has been rumored for a while, which is that he is considering standing up a TLM parish in the Diocese of Fort Worth, one that will probably be administered by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter:
On July 24, 2014 I received a letter dated July 17, 2014 from Archbishop Pozzo informing me that the Pontifical Council Ecclesia Dei considers the matter involving the celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass at Fisher More College to be closed. It is my sincere hope hat all of us in the Diocese of Fort Worth might now be able to move past this recent unpleasantness for the sake of the mission of the Church. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Diocese of Fort Worth is considering, as part of the development of an overall pastoral plan, the establishment of an independent parish devoted to the Extraordinary From and entrusted to capable priests.
I think that’s great and something very much in our prayers. The FSSP monthly newsletter for August covered Bishop Olson’s presiding at Mass last month in great detail. I believe, and have been told, Bishop Olson was very impressed with the Mass, the priests, and the laity. From what I understand (possibly mixed in with a bit of pious hope), whether to have a regular TLM parish in Fort Worth is less a matter of will or desire, and more one of logistics at this point. The Fraternity has more requests for parishes than it can meet, so it may be some time before the request could be met.
As I said, that last bit is perhaps exaggerated, all we know for certain is that Bishop Olson enjoyed the Mass at St. Mary of the Assumption last month and is “considering” the establishment of a TLM parish.
Here is one Catholic praying this consideration becomes reality, and soon!
I am dreadfully short on time this week, being virtually forced to devote essentially all my time towards improving the speed and reliability of the internet I have a much better claim to inventing than Al Gore, but wouldn’t you know Eliot Bougis would come through with a great post on VII for me. It’s more than just a discussion on Vatican II, EB asks some very trenchant questions regarding famous hermeneutics and inexplicable conspiracy theories. I add a lot of emphasis (because of the general awesomeness) and a few comments:
When the spirit of a council dictates, almost from day one, how the documents of a council are to be read and applied, then that spirit is the true fruit of the council, regardless what the documents may say. Luckily, the Church has never fallen into this trap, so keep calm and party on, right? [heh]
This is the conservative paradox: the same people who are blamed for “hijacking The Council” are those to whom pious submission must be given in the implementation of The Council. [Can it be said Paul VI hijacked Vatican II? But if you read some actual history, rather than opinion of the same, it becomes clear very quickly that Paul VI was a major proponent of that "spirit."] Conspiracy theories are generally taboo among conservatives, but The Tale of Those Nasty Liberals Who Hijacked Poor Ol’ Vatican Two is one conspiracy theory still very much in vogue. The documents have borne the fruits we see (and will probably keep seeing, for a long time to come) because the seeds of said fruit are embedded in the documents themselves. This is why, as Bp. Schneider reminds us, the documents must be subjected to a thorough magisterial pruning, so that the vigor of the Pastoral Mandate can be matched by the tradition of doctrinal security.
Meanwhile, the unrelenting cry for MOAR COUNCIL has a bizarre way of leading to the very abuses which The Council is supposed to have saved us. [Like, for instance, an insidious and deep-seeded tendency towards clericalism, shut up and do as your told, etc. Certainly, some avenues have opened for more lay involvement, but either question those or step outside the new boundaries, and one finds a clericalism that its seems hard to imagine could have been much worse in the bad old pre-conciliar days] The Council cannot be a final harbor. It was a milestone, but the Church keeps moving, and I think the Church needs to either enforce the documents with a zeal that any “rad trad” would admire, or needs to admit that The V2 Experiment has failed. The Church will–and must–go on, but, pragmatically speaking, The Spirit of The Council is the clear winner these days. It is heroic of laymen to hold the magisterial line, but it is properly the duty of the episcopal college to get the led out and get our house in order. No “pastoral” strategy is guaranteed infallible immunity. [It's frankly a sad joke for laymen to try to "uphold" Doctrine. How can we? We can cajole, scream, embarrass, shame, but we have no power whatsoever. We are a flea on an elephant's butt. But I do wonder, somewhat in disagreement to the above, whether it might not be better to shun this non-dogmatic, pastoral Council?]
At the same time, I’m floored that unflinching defenders of Vatican II at least admit that the V2 documents shouldn’t but in fact can be read in a discontinuous, heterodox way. Can the same be said of any prior council? [Yes, yes, YES! That's the other million dollar quote. I can't think of any other Council that is full of texts so ambiguous, open to interpretation, and available to be abused as so many of the documents of Vatican II, even - or perhaps especially - the more "official" ones like Apostolic Constitutions, etc. In fact, the texts from other Councils from Trent to Nicaea are remarkable for their clarity, and precision. Compare Trent or the Syllabus to significant parts of Vatican II, and it's like night and day. That fact alone makes Vatican II an entirely novel departure from the preceding Magisterium. ] And even if it could be, it was the purpose of a later council authoritatively to rectify such problems. No one in the hierarchy is seriously calling for such a correction. Everything Is Awesome. Except, darn it, this time we need to really implement The Council. There’s that creeping conspiracy theory again. [Yes, it certainly does seem that Vatican II, for all its awesomeness, is the most difficult to implement Council in the history of the Church. One main problem being, there remains massive disagreement over what such an implementation would even look like, due to the vagaries of the texts themselves. Modernists thrive on ambiguity and lack of clarity, they detest precision and hard definitions.]
[I really shouldn't steal so much, but it's just so darned good......] I don’t see how we can have it both ways. If V2 is to be judged not as a dogmatic intervention but as a pastoral endeavor, and should therefore not be held to such rigorous intellectual standards as prior councils, then the manifest deterioration and disorientation of the Church in certain ways should suffice to show how the pastoral endeavor has been derailed on its own terms. [Indeed.] Rather than being read in an orthodox sense, the conciliar ambiguity in question reverses the entire hermeneutic by subjecting past teaching to endless debate and doubt in the superdogma event horizon that V2 has, despite its intended “humility”, become. [Everything is read through the prism of Vatican II or anything post-conciliar. Therefore, Casti Connubbi gets frequently cast aside in favor of Humanae Vitae. The Mass of Ages replaced by a manufactured (and clumsily, at that) product. Everything that existed prior to VII, from vestments to the role of laity to Dogma (in practice) to music to the Liturgy, etc., ad nauseum, had to be re-examined, "renewed," and generally reshaped, often from the ground up, in light of the Vatican II supercouncil. Just a brilliant summation.] To cite prior councils is to be labeled a rad trad, which is pretty astounding a charge. As Brunero Gherardini had persuasively argued, what is need is not a declamation of continuity, but a demonstration of it, and the only possible resources for such a demonstration reside in the very things that get one labeled a rad trad. [That is, reference to all the other ecumenical Councils and everything "pre-conciliar"] V2 is the most self-referential council in the Church’s history, which is why, like any spiraling mass, it sucks everything else into its gravitational pull, and contorts it all into a shape of its own making.
Just fantastic, Mr. Bougis. Have mercy on me for going well beyond fair use.
I cannot help but note but it was the dawning realization of so much of the above, especially as evident in their willingness to honestly examine the work of Monsignor Brunero Gherardini, that led to the sacking of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. Apparently, the ultimate super-dogma of the day, the new first and highest commandment, is: “Thou shalt not question, doubt, or cast umbrage on any sacred jot and tittle of Vatican II.” And viewing Vatican II as the super-dogmatic prism through which all else must be viewed is the fundamental assumption of those who defend that sacking and insist that the founder and previous leadership were deadly threats not just to the “poor, deluded souls” who made up the vast majority of the the membership of the FIs, but the entire Church Herself.
Which gets back to a theme I’ve been pressing of late, which is that the “new” Church, the “post-conciliar Church,” gives every indication of being something radically different from, and irrepressibly hostile towards, the “old” or “pre-conciliar” Church. This is evidenced in 100,000 different ways and is something, I have said, that must simply be acknowledged, accepted, and then dealt with as best as we can in our individual states in life.
I’m not saying I have an answer or a solution, other than to pray that someday (soon!) we have a Pope that is “beyond” the Council, if you will, that was not directly involved in it or predominately shaped by that “spirit,” and who is willing to examine and clarify its many, many claims against the great guide God has given us in the Magisterial Tradition of the Church. That’s the only way doctrinal orthodoxy and catechetical clarity can ever really be restored in the Church.
Pope Francis supports intervention to stop ISIS….. August 18, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disconcerting, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Holy suffering, martyrdom, Papa, persecution, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare.
…….but believes any such intervention should proceed through the UN, which……..Ah pbmit mah ton owff
I would just say the United Nations, as a venue for achieving conflict resolution, has, over its 7 decade history, shown itself to be amazingly ineffective and generally ordered to just accepting whatever the new status quo is after some people gets devastated by another. They are then happy to sit down with the victors and perhaps admit them to the Security Council within a few years.
I exaggerate, but not much.
The first paragraph is good, helpful Catholic just war theory. It’s wonderful to stop an unjust aggression without using force, but often that is simply not possible. The kinds of groups/nations/whatever that would resort to an unjust aggression are not the kind that tend to listen to verbal reason. They only know one language, force. The United States could fit into that category in many minds.
Second paragraph, perhaps, but I don’t think there have been too many colonial wars of conquest in the past century or so, at least with first world powers as the aggressors. I think appealing to the US invasion of Iraq in 20033 as a war of conquest would be a pretty far reach, but I have no clear idea if that is what is being referred to.
Para 3 is a bit muddled and seems more like personal opinion – one could even interpret from the language that the nation or group suffering unjust attack must wait a judgment from the UN that such attack is indeed unjust before responding! There is nothing in Catholic just war doctrine that a nation under attack must achieve some kind of balance of world opinion or a majority vote declaring the depredations being committed against it unjust. In the time it can take to achieve such a consensus many nations have been wiped out, so I find this more than just slightly strange. But it is very consistent with a progressive world view. I would agree the arguments seem directed against the US acting alone, but, once again, history has shown that by the time one can get the bloated, almost inevitably corrupt UN to act, it is very often far too late to do anything but evacuate the few survivors and pick up bodies from the rubble.
This is another transcript of a famous airplane interview, so who knows. I think it important to note this is not a doctrinal document. I’ll admit to being torn on this matter of US intervention, I am scandalized and sorrowful by the ongoing atrocities in the Mideast against Christians (and others) and want it to end now, and I know there is not really another nation that can do any intervening with the level of effect the US can achieve, even alone, but I am pretty reticent to see another Mideast conflict involving the US, especially with the current leadership. I do not have much confidence any real long term results can be achieved; at most, I can see perhaps a temporary reduction if not elimination of the suffering.
I do get the sense from the statement above, with the usual caveats for “translation errors” and all that, that Pope Francis is torn himself. There is reality, and then there is the great ecumenical/interreligious project, and the two don’t always align very nicely.
Nevertheless, I pray these words hearten the suffering Iraqi and Syrian Catholics and encourage them to resist this horrific onslaught with whatever means they can find, and with whatever help is given them. I pray this ISIS nightmare be utterly crushed and returned to the pit from whence it came.
I wrote a rather strongly worded post last week in which I stated my rather firm belief that the postconciliar Church is a radical new construct implacably hostile to the “bad, old church.” Another data point in that direction emerged recently from Pittsburgh, where, via CMR, the diocese appears ready to sell a parish it can no longer afford to anyone so long as they are not those damnable schismatics in the SSPX:
By fall of 2013, as the diocese was laying off employees due to a $2.3M deficit in their budget, the price of St. Michael’s had dropped down to $150,000 despite the readiness of our checkbook. At that time a local reporter contacted the diocese about the sale of St. Michael’s and asked why the diocese had previously sold churches to the Lutherans and Baptists while they would not sell to the SSPX. The response that was posted in the newspaper was, “those groups [Lutherans and Baptists] are not schismatic in the eyes of the Church.” What a losing battle this was! There was no use trying to reason with the diocese. It became clear that they might sell this church for Protestant “worship” or to a developer for making apartments, but not to a group that would use it according the purpose for which it was built—the Mass of All Time and the perennial teaching and sacraments of the Church.
Patrick Archbold notes that the SSPX agrees with far more of the sainted Council than does any lutheran or baptist. That may or may not be true, as there are heretic baptists and lutherans as much as their are Catholics, the lutherans in particular having gone pretty heavy into sexular pagan indifferentism, but I get the point. There is a special enmity reserved for the Society, as they are the living embodiment of what newchurch absolutely cannot countenance, which is the way things were. It is interesting to note how much tolerance there is in the postconciliar Church for every kind of error, novelty, destructive trend, etc., imaginable, save for that most hated of enemies, the pre-conciliar religion.
None of the above is to say that there are not legitimate concerns over the SSPX and their conduct in given locales at times, but the same could be said of any organ within the Church. Jesuits used to be known as heavy-handed and possessed of a superiority complex, too. It might seem difficult for diocesan administration to consider allowing such a transfer of Church property, but the willingness to sell to destructive heretics over alleged schismatics (the schism being far from clear, especially officially, and even more especially since 2007) is, I think, more than just a bit revealing.
So is the willingness to turn down good money when it comes from just one particular organization, but should an even more problematic organization from within the Church, like some group of heretic female religious offer to buy the place, I would imagine the diocese would find a way to make it happen. And what if the Orthodox desired to buy the parish? Are they not schismatic “in the eyes of the Church?” But do you think a very public row would be allowed to play out against our “ecumenical partners?”
So we see, once again, that there is an unfathomable animosity against the terrible old pre-conciliar Church and its supporters, once again. Yes there are legitimate problems with the SSPX, but the above smacks more than just a little bit of a huge double standard.
Bishops treat Traditional Mass worse than child rape August 14, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Latin Mass, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, the return, Tradition.
Wowzer, that’s a pretty clear and evocative way to put things. But for the most part, I don’t think it’s false. Prior to Summorum Pontificum, and even to some degree since, priests who raped boys (and abused a few girls) were given far, far more gentle treatment than those who had the temerity to offer the Traditional Latin Mass. So says Michael Brendan Dougherty (I wonder if he is related to the family I know), via Rod Dreher, via Pertinacious Papist:
Summorum came too late to save that community in Poughkeepsie. In the New York Archdiocese as then ruled by Cardinal Edward Egan, the offense of saying this Mass and publishing tracts in its favor was treated as a far more serious crime and scandal than clerical pederasty. Cardinal Egan suspended my Poughkeepsie priest, and effectively exiled him from the life of the church. Priests who knew about the situation observed darkly that if he had raped children instead of saying this Mass, his career would have been better off.
The modus operandi then was that these Latin Mass people — “the crazies,” as they were called in the archbishop’s office [and often still are] — should be contained in Saint Agnes in midtown Manhattan or in a few obscure parishes along the Hudson River. Egan was all too happy to see that Poughkeepsie parish closed and the building sold. He smudged us out like a penciled mistake. [And that was certainly the dominant treatment most priests and laity could expect prior to SP, and even since then. It is generally better today, the hostility is less open, the closures less frequent - but it remains. El Paso and New York have both experienced this heavy hand of official opprobrium towards the TLM in recent years. And "containment," or "ghettoizing," is likely operative even where the TLM is tolerated relatively......relatively.....well.]
Dreher goes on to add:
This is a provocatively stated point, but nevertheless a sound one. The current cardinal archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, had a South African priest sent packing after he had the temerity to defend the Latin mass community in a homily (partial transcript here), and now threatens to shut down Holy Innocents, the parish where NYC has its only daily Latin mass. Meanwhile, Cardinal Dolan tolerates things like the “Pre-Pride mass”.
Why does Cardinal Dolan consider the Latin mass a greater threat than a mass said as part of a Gay Pride festival? It’s mind-boggling. As you know, I’m no longer Catholic, and never was a Traditionalist Catholic, but for the entire time I was a Catholic communicant, I never understood the fear and loathing so many within the Catholic institution had for the Latin mass. [Dreher's falling away was precipitated by knowing a little too much about too many bishops and priests in the boy rape scandal. It shattered his faith, whatever it was]
By the way, under the plan Cardinal Dolan is considering, Holy Innocents parish will be merged with nearby St. Francis of Assisi parish — which hosts the Pre-Pride Mass. Priorities, I suppose. [If that comes to pass, it would seem a particularly nasty, thuggish way of flipping the bird at traditional Catholics]
That the disparity in treatment is true is simply indisputable….under a former bishop, a priest was almost cashiered in this Diocese for having the temerity to offer even the Novus Ordo in Latin. That same bishop was deeply implicated in a number of sex abuse cases, but had the good fortune to have the cases in Dallas break early in the scandal, before public outrage had really grown to stratospheric heights.
Dreher tries to contemplate why this disparity exists. He thinks it has something to do with the fact that the Mass is a rebuke to the excessive “optimism” of the post-conciliar religion. I think it’s a little more substantive than that: there are many priests, prelates, chancery staff, religious, etc., who recognize the plain difference between the pre- and post-conciliar Church – these two things are not the same. They reject the former as something strange, alien, and incompatible with the new religion. They also view the Mass as the greatest single threat to the coup that was executed against the Church from within and which installed the new, much more worldly, accommodating, and indifferent religion stood up in place of the old.
Yes yes, hermeneutics and all that. Balderdash. I mean, that was a nice, rather desperate attempt by one of the early architects of the revolution, who later recoiled from it, to mute its effects and reconcile the irreconcilable. Sorry. Mirus and all the neo-cats aside, you can’t paper over these differences. It’s like Evel Knievel trying to jump the Grand Canyon – nice try, not gonna happen. Old is old, and new is new, and ne’er the twain shall meet.
I think it simply something that has to be acknowledged, kept in mind, and then moved on from. The TLM is punished by bishops and others because they are members of an inveterately hostile, competing religion. And that new religion doesn’t have “hang ups” about child rape and all the rest that the old does. So you get what we got. We should probably be thankful it wasn’t worse.
And yes I realize that much abuse occurred before the Council, but that was hardly accomplished by the defenders of orthodoxy. Vatican II did not materialize out of nowhere, there was a large underground movement in the Church that sought a revolution, and executed it when it had a chance (I have described it before as a seething cauldron of heresy). It was members of that movement, by and large, especially in wayward religious orders, that performed most of that early (and later) abuse.
Invoke Saint Clare for the defense of Christians! August 13, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Christendom, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, martyrdom, persecution, religious, Saints, sanctity, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, Virtue.
As good Father Peter Carota notes, on two separate occasions St. Clare of Assisi, foundress of the feminine branch of the Franciscans, stopped armies through her intervention. What Fr. Carota does not note, is that in the first case, the army of Frederick II seeking to sack Assisi was made up largely of muslim, or saracen, mercenaries. Such a great affront against Christendom, to use the infidel dogs against his religious brethren. But then again, Frederick II was always a haughty atheist apostate (a prototype of the modern sexular pagan left, which is why he is so beloved by them) and was excommunicate at the time:
One of the greatest miracles know about St. Clare was when the army of Frederick II, in 1234, began to invade Assisi and even had ladders up to the windows of the sisters convent. The whole community was in great fear. But St. Clare, calmly rose from her sick bed, took the ciborium from the chapel, and proceeded to face the invaders through an open window. As she raised up the Blessed Sacrament, the soldiers, who were about to enter their monastery, became confused like and left the sisters and Assisi alone.
Again, later on, General Vitale di Aversa began another offensive against Assisi. St.Clare gathered her community around her and they knelt in prayer that Assisi might be spared. Instantly, a powerful storm arose that tore up and scattered all the soldiers tents. They began to panic and quickly departed in great fear. The people of Assisi knew that it was St. Clare, and her sisters prayers, that had saved them again.
As St. Francis had the joy of seeing his order spread all over Europe, St. Clare also was able to see many Poor Clare convents open up all over Europe in her own lifetime…..
Father Carota also notes some similarities between Saint Clare and traditional Catholics:
St. Clare had two very important goals in her life. It “was to bring about a restoration of discipline in the Church, and of morals and civilization in the peoples of Western Europe” These two goals are also what we traditional Catholics have in common with her. We want to see:
1) The restoring of the Catholic Church back to Jesus’ Biblical teachings.
2) Return to the 2000 year old Catholic Traditions.
3) Return of the sacred Catholic Rites, like the Latin Mass and all other Latin Sacraments.
4) The use of the traditional blessings of Holy Water and other sacred objects.
5) Society subjected to Jesus’ Rule and Laws.
6) The restitution of the indissolubility of the Sacrament of Marriage, (only between a man and a woman).
Yesterday was of course that great Saint’s Feast day. Speaking of lost ars traditionis, check out how Bishop Hugolin of Ostia addressed her in a letter:
To his very dear Sister in Jesus Christ , to his mother the Lady Clare, handmaid of Christ, Hugolin of Ostia, unworthy bishop and sinner. Ever since the hour when I had to deprive myself of your holy conversation, to snatch myself from that heavenly joy, such bitterness of heart causes my tears to flow, that if I did not find at the feet of Jesus the consolation which His love never refuses, my mind would fail and my soul would melt away. Where is the glorious joy of that Easter spent in your company and that of the other handmaids of Christ? I knoew that i was a sinner; but at the remembrance of your supereminent virtue, my misery overpowers me, and I believe myself unworthy ever to enjoy again that converation of the Saints, unless your tears and prayers obtain pardon for my sins. I put my souls, then, into your hands; to you I entrust my mind, that you may answer for me on the day of judgment……..
Would that we had frequent witness to such holy and edifying correspondence from our bishops today! What complete focus on Christ, what acknowledgement of our unworthiness, what great example of humility and piety! Oh Lord, give us such men as Hugolin of Ostia again! And we pray raise up great Saints like Clare of Assisi to give us great example of purity, holiness, piety, strength, and succor in these times of trial! May Saint Clare intercede for persecuted Catholics everywhere, but especially in the Mideast, and use her great intercessory power to stop the terrible sufferings, and make those sufferings endured thus efficacious of great Grace!
May all the souls lost in this horrible persecution be saved through their martyrdom and Saint Clare’s intercession!