I could almost have titled this post instead, “There is a great disturbance in the Force.” Because that is a pretty good analogy for what is going on.
Irrespective of concerns that some blogs or news sites may have a tendency towards hyperbole, just going with statements from the hierarchy of late is extremely troubling regarding defense and proclamation of the orthodox faith. To put it in blunt, political terms, it is as if there is recognition that there has been a sea change in opinion at the highest level of the Church from conservative to progressive, and ambitious men in positions of extreme import are falling all over themselves to correspond with the new ideological paradigm. To wit:
- We will never get over the “Who Am I to Judge” line famously spoken on a flight last summer
- Cardinal Dolan now says bravo to a self-reported same-sex attracted college football player
- An Italian archbishop now claims that it is time for the Church to “open up” to sodomite “diversity”
- A German bishop – and a young one, at that, declares that fornication is not a sin
- A “retired” cardinal that the Pope has repeatedly endorsed writes a book undermining Catholic Dogma on marriage and chastity. A speech based on this book is read to a preparatory group of bishops in the run up to the “Synod on marriage and the family.”
- Almost half the Germanic hierarchy is openly proclaiming heresy regarding matters related to marriage and sexuality
- The UN over a month ago released a violently anti-Catholic report that basically derided the Church as one of the most evil institutions on the planet for its opposition to sexual immorality. To date, there has been no formal Vatican response of any substance.
- There has been an increase in hostile rhetoric towards the traditional, or even orthodox, practice of the Faith from numerous elements in the hierarchy, starting with the highest level. The TLM is now derided as a “fashion.”
Those are just a few items that jumped to mind immediately. There are many more, and I glossed over some already.
I am at this point flummoxed as to where all this leads. In many respects, I fear this rhetoric and the upcoming Synod, because it all seems to point in a disastrous direction. While I remain supremely confident that no formal Doctrine/Dogma will be (or can be) changed at any Synod, I do fear “pastoral approaches” that, in a similar vein to some of the more problematically worded aspects of Vatican II, will have the effect of obliterating the doctrines in question.
I guess I’ve said much of this before, sorry to be a broken record, but even in the past few weeks it seems as if the abandonment of defense of Dogma – the supreme job of every bishop in the Church – has changed from a moderate stream into a violent torrent.
No, there is no panic button being pressed, but I have to ask, where is all this headed? And, even more, what is the appropriate response? Mario Palmaro, God rest his soul, called for Catholics to protest loudly and vigorously in defense of the true understanding/practice of the Faith. But many are uncomfortable doing so (aside from reading fretful bloggers), it seems. I see no kernel of support for a lay Catholic organization demanding defense of Dogma. I am not certain how one would even go about such.
Prayer is certainly vital and called for, but is it time for a more concrete response? If not now, when? Under what conditions? A priest related to me that if Catholic men were not willing to go to the barricades, so to speak, over the redefinition of marriage, there is nothing they would defend. Is there anything we will truly defend, collectively? Or do we wait for the few remaining bastions to be torn down and then try to pick up the pieces? And if we do engage in protest, what does that look like? Thousands flying to Rome and engaging in a march, or sending letters, or?
I don’t pretend to have firm answers to any of the above. Certainly, such a protest could be viewed as a chastisement of our episcopal authorities – but are there times when such is allowable, even appropriate? Could we even be successful?
Thoughtful suggestions welcome.
I guess the question I am really trying to ask is, do “we” (I wasn’t there) really suffer through the ringer of the 70s-80s again, and watch all the very small gains made in the past 25 years be pretty much wiped out, or do we stand athwart the tide of elite opinion and shout “no!,” as so many French Catholics have done of late?
And if so, what issue do we galvanize around? Is sodo-marriage that issue, or something else?
So the notorious Deacon Sandy, pastoral administrator of the priest-less Good Shepherd parish of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee (and a man apparently desperate to continue the disastrous legacy of his intellectually bankrupt and immoral lodestar, Rembert Weakland), is back, this time with an effort to publicly insult Pope Benedict for being a crass materialist.
Pope Benedict may have been many things, but implying he was a wannabe richy rich who just lusted after material gain is not one of them.
My problem, however, is not so much with Deacon Sandy’s stupid use of a projector screen, nor his little attempt to garner favor with his aging and tiny Katholyc audience (for Mass at Good Shepherd is much less a Sacrifice than it is a performance).
No, my problem is that Sandy is a passive-aggressive wimp who constantly tries to hide under pathetically thin excuses and special pleading every time he is caught out.
When he was caught out proclaiming how proud he was to abuse the Liturgy in all manner of ways, he tried to pretend that he was somehow misunderstood and that their parish intends to change their approach. Well, a month or so on, and no change.
The man claims they don’t have kneelers (but they do have big, plush comfy chairs, much more expensive that a plain bench) because they are a poor parish and don’t have the money. He didn’t include that his congregation – I am all but sure – feels it beneath themselves to kneel to their Lord and Savior in the flesh.
Now, he’s trying to claim that wasn’t a photo of Pope Benedict, but just a guy in white cassock and red shoes. It could be JPII, or Paul VI, or even Pius XII, I suppose, but the point is that he’s attacking what he sees as the materialism of the papacy. He’s wrong, the Pope wears red shoes because he is walking in the footsteps of martyrs, and signals his own willingness to be martyred for the Faith by wearing them. I have no way of knowing, but I doubt many of Deacon Sandy’s flock have a faith that would stand the test of a bad hangnail.
But the point is, he keeps getting caught, and keeps coming up with these bad, see-through excuses. This is how progressives have behaved in the Church for decades, undermining doctrine and authority, promoting heresy, abusing the Liturgy, bullying lay people under their authority, but then scurrying like roaches for corners when the light of publicity or a Church investigation is turned on them. ”Oh, we’re faithful!,” “Oh, we’re misunderstood!” they cry.
What kind of person leeches off an institution he secretly despises? What kind of person constantly tries to weaken, undermine, or overturn that institution from within?
For locals, this Deacon Sandy is so much like disgraced “Father” John Stack it isn’t funny. Same boring, worldly, unchallenging homilies. Same tired old progressive liturgical shtick. Like so many progressive priests before him, Stack left the Church to marry, but still claims to be “Catholic”. He continues to minister to a steadily declining flock of almost entirely elderly Katholycs. He would have been laicized years ago if the Jesuits didn’t keep dragging their feet. If the school districts ever cut him off, he’ll be in real trouble.
Odds are, Archbishop Listecki will terminate this little
ego trip video apostolate at Good Shepherd. Or maybe we’ll see Deacon Sandy continue to flame out.
Glorious sermon on the TLM by Archbishop Sample March 10, 2014Posted by tantamergo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, Liturgy, manhood, Papa, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
Archbishop Alexander Sample has long been known as one of the most orthodox and tradition-friendly bishops in the United States. Here he gives a sermon during a Pontifical High Mass offered as the crowning event of a 3-day conference on Gregorian Chant and the role of sacred music in the liturgy at a Brigittine Monastery in Oregon.
“Young people who experience this Liturgy are amazed.” Indeed! I was blown away repeatedly when I first experienced the TLM. I still get goosebumps – and have even had a transport or two – when I assist at Mass, at least on occasion. It is beyond doubt in my mind that the way forward for true liturgical reform is to re-adopt the TLM on a mass scale (heh), and, almost as importantly, to properly form souls in the true nature of the Mass as Holy Sacrifice and the highest form of worship it is humanly possible to offer to God. The reductive tendency inherit in the Novus Ordo towards community aspects and the numerous overt protestant characteristics which have been incorporated into it are a liturgical – and pastoral – blind alley.
“You’re looking at this beautiful Liturgy tonight with all of its beauty, all of its solemnity, all of its precision, and even its pageantry……..how did we get to some of the abuses that we have experienced since the Second Vatican Council?” Indeed……I think more and more liturgical experts, if they are orthodox and honest, are coming to understand that the Novus Ordo is inherently problematic, even disordered, to a degree that true liturgical reform must be based on the Mass of All Ages.
Archbishop Sample all but agrees with me @12:30-13:00, claiming that the TLM, esp. the Pontifical High Mass, with all its sublime, supernatural glory, should serve as the exemplar or touchstone for all future liturgical developments. Deo Gratias!
Archbishop Sample’s enormous love for the traditional Mass shines brightly through this entire sermon.
A rather pointed comment about the paramount need to have love as Catholic Christians attached to the TLM. That is an exceedingly valuable and powerful reminder of the basis for all Catholic life, which should be especially obvious among adherents to the Traditional Mass. In all the mountains of scandal we are exposed to on a constant basis, it is easy to become jaded or cynical. I have probably, far too many times, given witness to that sad propensity. Of course, true charity doesn’t mean accepting the world’s sick and twisted understanding of same, nor does it imply that we gloss over hard truths. But it’s a good Lenten reminder to me to never allow fervor for the Faith to become a mask for being uncharitable.
Pray for Archbishop Sample! Let us have more bishops like him! And pray for the restoration of the glorious order of the Brigittines, there is a brand-new Brigittine monastery in Tyler which could really use your support. The Brigittines were once a very large order, but it was severely wounded by the protestant revolution against the Church.
I will pray for Fr. Charles Vreeland, noted by Archbishop Sample at the beginning of the sermon.
Thanks to reader TC for the link.
Matthew VIII and ecumenism with Jews March 7, 2014Posted by tantamergo in abdication of duty, Basics, Bible, catachesis, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
The Gospel for the Thursday after Ash Wednesday in the 1962 Missal (actually, mine is 1945, but the reading is the same) is from Chapter VIII of St. Matthew’s Gospel (verses 5-13). Towards the end, Our Blessed Lord says some things that would appear, to me, to contradict much of the modern “ecumenical” attitude in the Church, especially with regard to the Jews:
At that time, when Jesus had entered into Capharnaum, there came to Him a centurion, beseeching Him, and saying: Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy and is grievously tormented. And Jesus saith to him: I will come and heal him. And the centurion making answer, said: Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof: but only say the word and my servant shall be healed. For I also am a man subject to authority, having under me soldiers, and I say to this: Go, and he goeth; and to another: Come, and he cometh; and to my servant: Do this, and he doeth it.
And Jesus hearing this, marveled, and said to them that followed Him: Amen I say to you, I have not found so great faith in Israel. And I say to you that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven: but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said to the centurion: Go and as thou hast believed, so be it done to thee. And the servant was healed at the same hour.
While this Gospel is normally taken as a glorious exegesis on faith, which it is of course is, this second half is also most significant. In it, Christ refers to the Gentiles being the prime recipients of the New Covenant, and prophesies the Jewish rejection of the same. There were certainly many Jewish converts to the early faith, and the Apostles were entirely Jewish in origin, but we also know from 2000 years of history that many Jews, and especially the Jewish religious establishment, rejected Christ’s Sacrifice, the life of Grace, and the entire New Covenant.
And, Our Blessed Lord seems to make clear that this rejection will result in their damnation. He refers specifically to the children of the present kingdom – the Old Covenant, the Jewish religious state, then under Roman domination, but formerly with their own kings – as being cast out for their refusal to accept Christ.
Unfortunately, the post-conciliar ecumenical movement, extending even to the very highest level of the Church in the form of the past several popes, routinely not just implies, but directly states, that the Old Covenant is somehow still operative and that Jews have their own “path to salvation” even while deliberately rejecting Christ – which many modern-day Jews make it a point to do. It is not true charity to leave people in error, to tell them their religious heritage, which they certainly hold dear, is somehow salvific. It reeks of universal salvation and indifferentism of a kind that would have shocked Catholics just a few decades ago.
Beyond this one quite, there are of course numerous portions of Sacred Scripture which would seem to directly contradict the underlying rationale for the entire ecumenical movement, especially that portion of the movement directed at non-Christians. This is just one small reference point. There are dozens of others.
But as we see abroad in the Church today, more and more, there are efforts to undermine if not obliterate Dogmas founded on an incredibly sure foundations of direct references from Scripture as well as 2000 years of Tradition. The Church in Germanic speaking countries is just about totally run amok, with bishops claiming fornication is no longer a sin, that contraception use is morally acceptable (in spite of direct statements claiming this use is mortally sinful going back to the very, very earliest Church – and before), and of course that maybe bigamy is OK, and go ahead and present for the Blessed Sacrament while you remain married to two people, at least in God’s eyes.
To the extent that the Holy Father seems to be at least toying with some of these notions, as well, it is certainly scandalous and profoundly unnerving to faithful Catholics. I don’t have a big point with this post, other than to relate that I was struck by this seeming condemnation in advance of the modern ecumenical movement by Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ. Christ was always very direct and plain with regard to salvation: either you accept Him as Son of God, observe the commandments, and practice virtue in cooperation with Grace, or you will not be saved. You will suffer eternal torments in hell.
It is amazing that there are people in the Church – uneducated or educated to the point of imbecility, I know not – that appear to have utterly forgotten their Scripture. Or, they are simply so overwhelmingly influenced by the world and its errors that they have grown cold in the Faith.
Difficult times, to be certain. I can only advise more prayer and penance, for ourselves and our Holy Mother Church.
So, I shouldn’t have converted, then? – UPDATED February 24, 2014Posted by tantamergo in abdication of duty, Basics, disconcerting, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Lent, Papa, sadness, scandals, secularism, shocking, the return.
The other major story – or perhaps scandal – that broke over the weekend was Louis Verricchio’s revealing to the orthodox Catholic world, anyway, that Pope Francis had sent a greeting to an American evangelical protestant confab wherein he called some guy named Tony Palmer- who has gotten many, many Catholics to reject their faith and apostasize – his “brother bishop.”
It seems Tony Palmer has known the pope since his days in Argentina and that they are great buds. Palmer was due to speak at one of Kenneth Copeland’s protestant hootenannys and wanted Pope Francis to send a greeting to the evangelicals. Pope Francis, who has had a long history of eager cooperation with evangelicals, went so far, on video, as calling Palmer his “brother bishop” (see 1:20):
Verricchio has many videos from the confab at his site, if you want a flavor for that kind of false-emotion, overly produced, and highly staged event. I’ve been watching and observing evangelicals for over 30 years, and it’s always the same: the twisting of bits of Scripture to their own destruction, orchestrated events to fire emotions, and always money, money, money. You don’t love Jesus if you don’t keep me in $5000 suits.
So, one of these types – wearing a pretend Roman collar, no less – is a “brother bishop?” Speaking from the heart? So then why did I convert? Why should anyone convert? And when Pope Francis says @1:55 that Jesus Christ is “the only Lord,” how does he reconcile that with telling muslims they don’t need to convert and can be saved by their faith in “Allah?” You can include the Jews, who specifically repudiate Jesus Christ and frequently harbor a great animosity towards Christians and Christianity. But Pope Francis, echoing nebulous conciliar statements, claim they have their own path to salvation.
Yes, what happened to “let your yes mean yes and your no mean no?” Is this a different message for a different audience? When speaking to muslims, islam is fine, but when speaking to evangelicals, Jesus Christ is the Only Lord?! Que paso, Jorge?
From the standpoint of one who very deliberately, after much suffering, converted to the Faith, I have to say, all these excessive efforts at ecumenical outreach are very painful for me to see. It seems to trivialize all I went through for the sake of conversion (and I am far from alone), which painful process I have never once seen Pope Francis mention as being noble, or even worthy.
Instead, what we have seen repeatedly is that all these false sects, with their erroneous beliefs which actually lead people away from Christ, in so many cases, are saintly “brothers” who are just perfectly fine where they are at. Again, this is not limited to separated Christians, it seems to apply to EVERY religion out there. This is self-contradictory thinking, as I pointed out above, for by embracing evangelical protestants who love them some Jesus, Pope Francis is telling the same muslims he embraced a few months ago that they are, in fact, in thrall of an idolatrous false religion. This is the fundamental flaw in all ecumenism, aside from the massive indifferentism it perpetuates: any “advance” with one sect or group means a setback with another, because they believe contradictory things. That is one major reason why ecumenism, as such, is doomed to fail.
Unless, of course, we reduce our Faith to just a worldly feel-good society where the lowest religious common denominator predominates. That would result in Catholic churches inescapably being Good Shepherds, with 20 or 30 old women in attendance and no one else (essentially, like France). Which error Pope Francis again and again claims to oppose, but then we see this very “heartfelt” message. What are we to believe? It’s just confusion piled on confusion – the favorite tool of modernists.
Well, now we have more fodder for our Septuagesima and Lenten sufferings. Louis Verricchio also notes that Pope Francis appears to have a kind word, even a heart felt love, for everyone, save orthodox/traditional Catholics. There’s a phrase for that, but I’ll keep it to myself.
To give you an idea of what kind of creature Copeland, Palmer, and their fellow televangelists, see this report from an admittedly hostile secular pagan tabloid. Nonetheless, as Verricchio notes, how does Pope Francis square his denouncing of the rich and love of the poor, and his encouragement to pursue a simple, Christian lifestyle, with this man’s fabulous wealth? And almost every other major televangelist enjoys a similar lifestyle:
UPDATE: Just another thought, for those who may express scandal at this post. If I made a post where I referred to Anglican/evangelical orders as valid (there is massive question as to the lineage of this “Bishop” Tony Palmer, and whether he is even truly Anglican), and called Episcopal head Catherine Jefferts Schori a true bishop in Christ’s Church, would there not be scandal? Would I not rightly lose the attention of many readers? Even if I claimed differently, later, would my claim, if I had originally had doubts, at least be a grave sin against prudence?
I cannot judge the actions of a pope, but I can recognize scandal when I see it.
UPDATE II: So, I guess I should not have been surprised. Nevertheless, I have been dismayed at the outpouring of ecstatic, uncritical support for this little ecumenical gesture on the part of Pope Francis. A few mix in a word or two of caution regarding the doctrinal gulf between protestants, especially evangelical protestants, and Catholics. But even those are pretty muted. Most reactions have stated just how unreservedly pleased Our Blessed Lord must be at this turn of events, because apparently what Jesus craves more than anything is “unity.” Whatever that means. Of course, any unity that failed to proclaim Christ’s sovereign Reign and which would be founded at least in part on error would be totally false.
One common defense of the greeting I’ve seen is that we have to meet people on their terms, that Catholics must “try to at least find some common ground to bring us together and start a conversation must be the first step.”
Maybe. It certainly sounds good to worldly, secular ears today. But is that how the early Church dealt with heretics? Aren’t protestants heretics? How many great Saints and early Church Fathers can I quote that absolutely excoriated heretics in the most savage of terms, casting them literally and figuratively out of the Church and referring to them as children of satan – or even satans themselves. So un-ecumenical! But such was the faith that conquered an empire, and endured 2000+ years.
How did St. Paul react to the erroneous judaizers in Galatians and other letters? Did he tell them how awesome they were, but they just had one or two errors to tweak? NO! He completely obliterated them, knowing that one error mixed in with thousands of truths leads to the corruption of all. He even “withstood Peter to his face,” showing that the pope can, indeed, be wrong, even on matters of doctrine.
But my biggest problem with Francis’ comments is that they just obliterate Catholic efforts at evangelization. Now when Catholics try to convert protestants, what will they hear? ”Even your pope thinks we’re fine, leave me alone!” How much harder will it be to promote the Church’s already moribund efforts at evangelization? Just as it has become harder to defend the Church’s Doctrine on marriage and abortion, since Pope Francis’ previous unfortunate comments. There have been full-blown heretic demonstrations at nominally Catholic colleges and schools, with the students claiming Pope Francis doesn’t “judge,” so let that “married” sodomite teach theology, or let that woman have an abortion.
And so it goes.
REPOST: The Church has been condeming abortion since its inception February 19, 2014Posted by tantamergo in Abortion, awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, contraception, General Catholic, Grace, horror, Papa, self-serving, sexual depravity, true leadership, unadulterated evil.
REPOST. I wrote the post below just over a year ago. In it, I demonstrate that the Church has been vehemently opposed to abortion since its inception. One of the earliest non-Gospel documents in Church history lists both abortion and sodomy as horrific sins. However, at catechism class last night, the priest explained how the Didache also opposed contraception. That is the “you shall not….use potions” below, because many of those “potions” were meant to render women sterile for the purposes of fornication.
In spite of the fact that the Church has always been opposed to abortion, contraception, and all these other sins of concupiscence, in spite of the constant and repeated exhortations against these very sins, today, the vast majority of self-described Catholics have allowed themselves to be fooled by satan into thinking these sins really aren’t sins at all. As the priest said last night, they think when it comes to Dogma, God is saying “Let’s make a deal,” when God is really saying “This IS the deal.”
There have always been heretics in the Church. The word “heretic” derives from a Greek root meaning “I choose.” I choose not to obey. That is exactly what satan said those many years ago. For the first time in the history of the Church, not just the hierarchy has gone loopy, not just the priests, not just the people, but virtually everyone. That is how his modernist heresy is different from every other heresy that’s come before, because it is so universal. It’s everywhere. Even in sub-Saharan Africa and the Philippines, those supposed bedrocks of the Faith, they are embracing contraception, divorce, and other sins against the Faith.
We are in a crisis unlike any the Church has ever experienced. But the Church will come through it, She always has. We simply must remain faithful. And pray.
BEGIN OLD POST. My fellow parishioner Taylor Marshall has a post up that reminds us that, like all Dogmatic beliefs, the Church’s vehement opposition to abortion has been the constant belief of the Church for 2000 years. In fact, one of the very earliest non-biblical documents of the earliest Church, the Didache, includes this condemnation of abortion (and certain other sins which have suddenly become culturally approved. I note that the Didache was written between AD 70 and 90, it’s one of the very earliest Church documents, and is believed to be a repository of the belief of the Apostles):
The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic or use potions. You shall not procure abortion, nor destroy a new-born child. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods. You shall not perjure yourself. You shall not bear false witness. You shall not speak evil. You shall not bear malice….
It is fascinating to me, that in this list, which obviously contains much from the Decalogue, there are a few specific additions to that most basic code of moral living God has given to us. The first is that one shall not seduce boys, which, in the context where this was written, was a command to men not to engage in homosexual acts. Then there are the comdenmnations of black magic, potions and spells – something that sadly is making a comeback in our pagan culture. Then there is the condemnation of abortion. In the same league as murder and all the other worst sins. Not a right. Not a choice. A grave immorality, the gravest of sins. Abortion and infanticide were both widely practiced in the Empire at this point. Rather like our own empire……
Similarly, Taylor Marshall’s post quotes Pope Sixtus V, in the first Papal Bull specifically condemning abortion (Effraenatam, 1588):
The Holy Father lists the dreadful means for procuring an abortion in his day. He describes the methods as “blows, poisons, medicines, potions, weights, burdens, work and labor imposed on a pregnant woman, and even other unknown and extremely researched means.” He also speaks of contraception as potions used to prevent conception.Here’s a quote against abortionists found in Effraenatam:“Noticing that frequently by various Apostolic Constitutions the audacity and daring of most profligate men, who know no restraint, of sinning with license against the commandment “do not kill” was repressed; We who are placed by the Lord in the supreme throne of justice, being counseled by a most just reason, are in part renewing old laws and in part extending them in order to restrain with just punishment the monstrous and atrocious brutality of those who have no fear to kill most cruelly fetuses still hiding in the maternal viscera. Who will not detest such an abhorrent and evil act, by which are lost not only the bodies but also the souls?”
Taylor asks a most prescient question – why do we not see the same kind of language used to condemn abortionists today? Or do we? If you’re Randall Terry, this doesn’t apply! But for the rest of us, I think terms like “abhorrent and evil act” are most apropos and should be in general use regarding baby murderers. I also think we should spend much more time focusing on how much damage is done to the souls of the abortionists, and how much they risk eternal damnation if they do not repent and desist from their wanton blood lust.
But in today’s world and Church, such damning language, once a staple of Papal denouncements of immorality, are almost totally forbidden. In fact, making such pronouncements can quickly have one condemned more vociferously than the abortionists themselves. And that’s pretty messed up. Sometimes, it takes a hard slap across the face to shake people lost in sin from their demonic stupor. I, for one, would welcome much more of the harsh old language – even if directed at myself.
Slap me around and tell me what a prideful prig I am! Or whatever….you get the point.
Who knew? We traddies are just fashion hounds. February 17, 2014Posted by tantamergo in Basics, disconcerting, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, manhood, Papa, persecution, pr stunts, Sacraments, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society, the return.
This is a few days old, so perhaps I’ve missed the boat, but I returned to the internet this morning, after my usual weekend respite, to find that the Holy Father Pope Francis has proclaimed that preference for the Traditional Mass is simply a matter of fashion, like Nehru jackets and leisure suits. Mind you, this is coming second hand, from a Czech bishop who swears he heard the Pope say this, but it’s been two-plus days now and no retraction or clarification from the Vatican, so…….
[Abp. Jan Graubner speaks:] When we were discussing those who are fond of the ancient liturgy and wish to return to it, it was evident that the Pope speaks with great affection, attention, and sensitivity for all in order not to hurt anyone. However, he made a quite strong statement when he said that he understands when the old generation returns to what it experienced, but that he cannot understand the younger generation wishing to return to it. “When I search more thoroughly – the Pope said – I find that it is rather a kind of fashion [in Czech: 'móda', Italian 'moda']. And if it is a fashion, therefore it is a matter that does not need that much attention. It is just necessary to show some patience and kindness to people who are addicted to a certain fashion. But I consider greatly important to go deep into things, because if we do not go deep, no liturgical form, this or that one, can save us.”
I would say, in the greatest charity to the Holy Father, that if he wants Catholics who go “deep into things,” he ought to spend more time with Catholics attracted to the Traditional Mass.
Reaction to this description has been swift and highly critical. The very reasonable Pat Archbold at CMR was rather incensed:
Besides being completely wrong, that the Pope is so disrespectful of the reasonable desires of so many good and faithful Catholics it is staggering in its coarseness and dismissiveness.
Not to mention, such an attitude is diametrically opposed to the attitudes and pronouncement of his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.
The devotion of the younger generation to the traditional Mass has nothing whatsoever to do with fashion; it has to do with a deep seated desire for authentic Catholic worship, unencumbered by anthropocentrism, protestantism and modernism.
As a matter of fact, Pope Francis has it exactly backwards.
The less-than-fifty year old rite invented by the Consilium and mercilessly inflicted upon the Church by Pope Paul VI, that is merely a fashion, and a passing one at that.
If the witness of the last eleven months tells us anything at all about this pope, it’s that he has no interest whatsoever in taking on the “smell of traditional Catholic sheep.”
Pat Archbold and a few others seem most concerned at the perceived huge shift between Benedict XVI’s appreciation of the TLM, and Francis’ apparently disregard for it. That perception may or may not be completely valid, as Codgitator notes, but I also don’t think it matters very much.
As for Pope Francis’ comment – look, does he have to put up a billboard? He’s been very clear in his feelings on those attached to the TLM. So, I dont’ get too surprised when I see something like this. I think his description of the attachment to the TLM as being an adolescent fashion says far more about the Pope than it does about anything else. It says he doesn’t know us, and isn’t particularly interested in getting to know us.
OK, duly noted. Let’s move along sharing the great benefits of the TLM and Tradition with others, and strive not to get too bogged down in these little slights. Yes, it might hurt coming from the pope, but we’re going to have to get used to it. Francis is the first pope of the post-conciliar generation, and that generation lasted at least 20 years. We’ll probably have another pope or two of almost the exact same mindset, unless we are extraordinarily blessed. So just pray for him, go about your business, and do your best not to get upset about these little digs and slights. They are meaningless.
Just pray none of the truly important things are affected or messed around with. Doctrinal things. Like this upcoming Synod. Or the revisions to canon law.
Meanwhile, 15 new subdeacons were ordained by the FSSP. Long live the revolution!
Pray for the persecuted Christians worldwide! February 14, 2014Posted by tantamergo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, Papa, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
When others are suffering, especially other Christians, it is a great spiritual work of mercy to pray for their aid, their strength in faith, and the end to their oppression.
The last 100 years have seen more violence and oppression against Christians than the previous 1900 years combined. By actual count, far more Christians have perished in persecution in the past century than they did in the previous 19.
Persecutions continue to heat up around the world, especially wherever Christianity comes into contact with islam. From the Philippines to Indonesia to the entire Mideast – the ancient home of Christianity, far, far older than islam – muslims are persecuting Christians in massive numbers.
Of course, some of the worst persecution continues in Iraq and Syria, where radical muslim (but I repeat myself) Al Qaeda type insurgents continue to slaughter Christians in scores and hundreds, while hundreds of thousands have fled one of Christianity’s most ancient homes. Christianity used to be prevalent across the North African littoral, but now, outside Egypt (where the pressure had been growing to great heights, until the last few months), very few communities remain. Even in Egypt, Christianity’s second oldest home, there are still frequent attacks on ancient desert monasteries, churches, and individual souls.
Here I am going to depart from our Holy Father a bit, whose exceedingly (some might say excessively) generous ”ecumenism” towards muslims has repeatedly stressed that they need not convert, that they are fine where they are at and have their own path to salvation.
Balderdash. Leaving aside the constantly defined Dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, muslims are descendants of a wicked melange of heretical Arian Christianity and some of the more bizarre Jewish sects that existed after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 (including the sodomite infested “zealots”). Mohammad was an itinerant desert trader who initially tried to be Christian, then was convinced by a sister (or wife, she may have been both) that starting a new religion would be much more profitable. There is not a single miracle in the history of Mohammad to testify to any special commission from God. There are no miracles in the history of islam, unless you consider its initial wave of conquest miraculous. I consider it diabolical.
Islam is the only world religion that has only ever been spread solely by the sword. Aside from rare individual exceptions, mostly among deeply troubled individuals (such as incarcerated populations), islam only makes “converts” due to horrific persecution of other religions and constant threats of violence, enforced poverty, secondary status, etc. Those attuned to spiritual warfare might surmise that many characteristics of islam – its backwardness, its rejection of the God-given faculty of reason, its inherent violence, its constant repression of women and minorities – would imply a far darker origin for this religion than some revelation from the Lord.
Below is a video of the depredations of muslim fanatics against Christians – many Catholic – in Syria. This is just a very mild example there has been far worse destruction and murder reported:
Of course, Christians are not only persecuted by muslims. In India, hindus persecute Christians with grim abandon. There are regular tales from there of raping of nuns, destruction of churches, waves of murder, and even worse.
But in the post-Christian West, the gravest threat to Christianity comes not from factional religious violence, but from the growing hatred for the Faith and all it represents in the minds of millions of sexular paganists. Many of those pagans are former, at least nominal, Christians themselves. They are thus almost impossible to convert, absent a miracle of Grace, as they feel they already “know” Christianity and have consciously rejected it.
The steadily increasing secularization of our governments, the growth in leftist ideologies carefully indoctrinated into public school children, and the increasing collaboration between the government and those who seek to advance a wickedly sexularist agenda all point towards an increasing likelihood of not only white persecution, but even red. I am increasingly convinced I will see blood martyrdoms of Christians in this country in my lifetime.
So we have much to pray for. We must pray for those suffering now, pray for the conversion of our culture, and pray that we may remain steadfast in the Faith should the persecution – already extant in many low-key ways – should get really amped up in this country.
If we don’t pray for the mercy of God and the amelioration of the suffering of those Christians persecuted now, who will pray for us when our turn comes?
Pope Francis’ interesting take on why we go to Mass February 13, 2014Posted by tantamergo in Basics, catachesis, episcopate, Eucharist, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Papa, scandals, secularism, Society, the return.
Pope Francis, in one of his numerous off the cuff commentaries on the Faith, said yesterday that those who don’t feel a need for God’s Mercy should not go to Mass. This is an interesting statement, and I wonder if it could have some bearing on the upcoming Synod on the Family:
Pope Francis has said that if you no do feel that you are in need of God’s mercy then it is better not to go to Mass.
Speaking at his general audience today, Pope Francis said: “Sometimes someone asks: ‘Why bother going to church, the people who always go to Mass are sinners like the others’. If you do not feel in need of God’s mercy, if you do not feel you are a sinner, then it’s better not go to Mass, because we go to Mass because we are sinners and we want to receive the forgiveness of Jesus, to participate in His redemption, His forgiveness.
“That ‘I confess’ we say at the beginning is not a ‘pro forma’, is a true act of penance, ‘I am a sinner and I confess’. We have to go to Mass humbly, as sinners, and the Lord reconciles us.”
Pope Francis went on to say: “We celebrate the Eucharist not because we are worthy, but because we recognise our need for God’s mercy, incarnate in Jesus Christ… I wish to reflect on how we live the Eucharist in our daily lives.”
I think, overall, that is quite true. The article is short, so perhaps in his audience the Holy Father made the distinction between venial and mortal sin in an unreported section. The fact is, the Mass and reception of the Eucharist are not means of reconciling us to Jesus Christ if we have committed a mortal sin. That can only be ameliorated by Sacramental Confession.
But I do think it is foundational to look at the Mass as a Sacrifice we take part in for the purpose of giving adoration, thanksgiving, exhibiting contrition, and begging propitiation for our sins. The Traditional Latin Mass makes these four ends of the Mass much more explicit in its common and proper parts. Having said that, I don’t think it makes participation invalid if one assists at a particular Mass without feeling, that one day, some particular need for forgiveness. The worldly minded could take this statement, in an abusive way, to mean that if they feel they have no sin, they don’t need to go to Mass. One could also say that the statement might detract a bit for the other reasons for going to Mass, such as rendering honor and glory to God, imploring God for some particular need, etc.
But we who strive to be faithful must always bear in mind we are completely unworthy of the immense, infinite, august Gift we receive in the Blessed Sacrament. And I think, again, the TLM tends to highlight to a stronger degree both the need for the Gift and its awesomeness.
Thinking in light of current trends in the Church, however, and other statements Pope Francis has made, I wonder if this statement has any bearing on the upcoming Synod on the Family and attempts define away the sin of bigamy? Pope Francis has already spoken of the Blessed Sacrament not as a reward for the “perfect” (none are perfect, save the Lord) but as medicine for the gravely ill. That comment was taken at the time – fairly or not – as being supportive of the idea of admitting bigamists to the Blessed Sacrament. It also ties in with the whole “field hospital of the world” imagery the Pope has used on several occasions. Many progressives have taken from these statements support for their efforts to undermine, if not totally destroy, Church Dogma in a number of areas, the most pressing of the moment being, again, the desire by Germanic bishops to extend the right to receive the Blessed Sacrament to public bigamists.
But aside from constant progressive machinations against the Faith, I think the Holy Father has highlighted a really important aspect of going to Mass, one a huge swath of even Mass-going Catholics have forgotten. I’m really glad he brought it up, because Catholics need to be much, much more aware of their sin. Progressives/modernists have tried for decades to dispel the notion of actual sin, and they have had a huge amount of success. The vast majority of Catholics around the world, as the recent poll indicated, regularly commit the sin of apostasy in rejecting Church Dogma, apparently convinced they can do so with impunity. I applaud any effort to remind people that ALL have sinned, ALL do sin, and we have constant need of Christ’s saving Grace to be reconciled to Our Lord. We need to hear much more of this, at all levels.
Pope Francis is on another magazine cover February 4, 2014Posted by tantamergo in disconcerting, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, Papa, pr stunts, sadness, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return.
I have a tiny bit of Jewish blood in me, it is thought, from some distant forebear on my mom’s side, so I can say to this, Oy Vey!
That is no joke. Check it out here. Radical Italian masons (very different from what we typically see in the US, where 99% of masons hold no animus towards the Catholic Church, even if their organization does spread disastrous indifferentism) are hoping Pope Francis will mean an end to any lingering animus between the Church and the lodge. To which I say, what animus? Good grief, the architect of the new Mass was a mason, and Brazilian bishops make an annual habit of processing with lodge members in ecu-maniacal events.
It’s not like Pope Francis volunteered for the cover photo. But still…….it seems like every pandering agitprop radical wannabe or otherwise organization out there is trying to glom onto him to advance their agenda.
A note to the masons, also courtesy the same blog where I found the above: