Blessed Pius IX on change in the Church August 19, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, error, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, paganism, Papa, scandals, secularism, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
Frequent commenter DotDO sent me a link to Fr. Carota’s blog over the weekend. Good Father Carota qoutes Blessed Pope Pius IX as below, considering doctrinal “change” and ideas, very prevalent in the mid 19th century as they were in the mid-20th, that the Church should open Herself up to the world and all its “marvels” and “progress.” Blessed Pius IX, a truly titanic Pope, would have none of that (emphasis in original, my comments):
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.
The great Carmelite practice of charity…… August 12, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, disconcerting, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, Papa, sanctity, Tradition, Virtue.
Jesus has said “He that loveth father or mother more than Me, is not worthy of Me” (Matt X:27); hence, the precept of charity commands us to love God above all things. However, this precept can be interpreted in two ways. To love God more than any creature to the point of being ready to give up everything rather than offend God gravely is the first degree of charity. It is indispensable for all who desire to be friends of God and to possess His Grace, and therefore, it is required of all. But in a more profound sense, to love God above all things means to prefer Him to everything else, not only to what might be an occasion of mortal or venial sin, but even to all that does not fully correspond to His good pleasure. This is the degree of perfect charity toward which every soul aspiring to intimate friendship with God must tend. This degree requires absolute renouncement and absolute purity, that is, the total absence of every shadow of sin or attachment to creatures [now think about numbers 1,4,6, and 9 from yesterday's list]. The exercise of perfect charity requires, therefore, a work of total purification, a work that is accomplished only by charity; “Charity causes emptiness in the will with respect to all things, since it obliges us to love God above them all.” (Saint Juan de la Cruz, Ascent of Mount Carmel, II, 6,4).
We should be convinced that here on earth the practice of charity is closely united with that of renouncement, each being proportionate to the other; the more perfect and intense is charity, the more total is the renunciation required; but this is so precisely that the soul may attain to loving God with all its strength: “The strength of the soul,” says the mystical doctor, “consists in its faculties, passions, and desires, all of which are governed by the will. Now when these faculties, passions, and desires are directed by the will toward God, and turned away from all that is not God, then the strength of the soul is kept for God, and thus the soul is able to love God with all its strength” (Saint Juan de la Cruz, Ascent of Mount Carmel, 16,2). This is the great function of renouncement in respect to charity: to free the powers of the soul so entirely that they can be wholly employed in loving and serving God alone. If we really want to love God with our whole heart, we must be very generous in renunciation and detachment. This in itself is an exercise of love because it disposes the soul for perfect charity.
I don’t want to dwell on this excessively. Jesuit and Carmelite spirituality have always been quite different. That is fine in and of itself, in Our Lord’s house, there are many rooms. But Jesuit spirituality went very much off the rails starting in the early 20th century and has never recovered. All religious orders are infected with modernism to one degree or another, and most all of them have drifted in varying degrees of severity from their founding charism, including the Carmelites. That has been a continual trend in the Church since there have been religious orders, there have been cycles of growth, decay, reform, renewal, decay, etc, for centuries. But I don’t know if there has ever been quite so sudden and total collapse as that which has afflicted the Jesuit order, literal bulwark of the Church for over 3 centuries, over the past 100 years.
Jesuit were always an order very much in the world, if certainly not of it. But I have to wonder the degree to which the highly disordered spirituality which is embraced by almost all Jesuits didn’t play a role in that “10 steps to happiness” or whatever it was. Such a list would be dismaying from a sandal wearing overripe hippie religious…….but from a pope! It seems very, very difficult to reconcile that list with the Carmelite, but also broadly Catholic, understanding of charity, how to advance in the interior life, drawing closer to God, etc, expressed above. It is almost as if speaking of two very different religions.
I’ll leave it at that for now. I’m probably in enough trouble as it is!
Pope Francis’ very own 10 step program August 11, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Papa, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, shocking, the return.
So when I first saw the below at Fr. Ray Blake’s site last week, I took it Fr. Blake had developed his own “10 step” program of life according to Pope Francis, based on Fr. Blake’s interpretation of some of Pope Francis’ statements. So, he posted this:
So, like I said, I thought this was just Fr. Blake riffing on some of Pope Francis’ more, ummm…..worldly statements. That is to say, I did not think this was a real list from Pope Francis himself, nor a shorthand compendium of some ideas he expressed in an interview, but just someone extrapolating from some of Pope Francis less edifying moments. Coupled with the fact I am extremely busy and have nary a chance to cover much of any news,I sort of let the matter go.
But then I saw some other coverage just today, and realized……ay caramba, these are for realz?!!? And it seems save for a little bit of squabbling over some of the translations, they are.
This is really how the Great Fisherman, Sweet Christ on earth, the occupant of the most exalted office in the history of mankind, and the spiritual leader of at least a billion souls, thinks? When did Dale Carnegie get promoted to the See of Peter.
And as a member of a 12 step program, I can say Pope Francis missed step 3 rather badly, which is the foundation of all the rest: acknowledge the Higher Power. He also excluded step 8, make amends for one’s sins.
And it’s having more than just a slight effect. This very worldly, in some cases nearly new age, conception of “happiness,” with nary a mention of Jesus Christ, is having an immediate and strong impact.
Aside from a mention of Sunday being a
holy day holiday day off from work, the entire list is completely secular. That’s not right, even the mention of Sunday is completely secular, and there is no mention of reserving a day to honor God, which 90+% of the people in the world would accept at least as a sort of nice intention. What is all this bending over backwards to please atheists? There is even a denouncement, at least in the Catholic News Service article, of proselytizing, something I think many early Church fathers and great Saints might take a bit of exception to:
9. Don’t proselytize; respect others’ beliefs. “We can inspire others through witness so that one grows together in communicating. But the worst thing of all is religious proselytism, which paralyzes: ‘I am talking with you in order to persuade you,’ No. Each person dialogues, starting with his and her own identity. The church grows by attraction, not proselytizing,” the pope said.
Poor Saint Francis de Sales, poor Saint Francis Xavier, and thousands of other Saints……they did it all wrong! Saint Paul, too, apparently, and the entire early Church, which existed in a perpetual state of condemnation of the dominant pagan culture. That living rebuke of paganism drove the non-Christians nuts, and provided much fire for the ongoing persecutions. But now we are told to be a proselytizer is the very worst thing one can be.
What can one say? Ten steps to happiness, and Jesus Christ not even in the mix.
I really wish I could meet the Pope, and ask him (in Spanish, since he doesn’t speak English), whether I made a horrible mistake in converting to the Faith.
I know the answer……I have absolutely no doubt……but I have to openly wonder what his answer would be.
Is it either unfair or inappropriate to state that the viewpoint expressed above is unequivocally one of secular humanism? A belief system that says all religions are basically the same, we should throw away any ideology that “divides,” and come together with a mushy, totally ineffectual spirit of nebulous good will (that denies sacrifice and rarely produces any good works), without a thought for the afterlife?
US begins airstrikes against ISIS devils, most of Assyrian Christian lands already lost August 8, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Christendom, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, Papa, persecution, sadness, scandals, self-serving, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
I do not know if most readers have been following Rorate Caeli’s excellent coverage of the ongoing nightmare in northern Iraq. The devilish new caliphate, well armed and well financed, has managed to roll up almost the entire Nineveh Plain, ancient home to almost entirely Assyrian Catholic Christians for nearly 2000 years. Hundreds of thousands have been displaced. Lord knows how many thousands have died. Cities like Qaraqosh, home to predominately Christian populations since the 1st or 2nd century, are now ghost towns patrolled by these islamist tools of satan. There are also reportedly tens of thousands of members of another non-muslim religion dying on a mountaintop in the same vicinity, chased there by ISIS and left to die. Some airdrops of supplies have now been made, perhaps some may be saved.
While the Western world gnashes its teeth and strikes its breast over the death of one child in Gaza, it has basically turned a great big yawn towards these far more disastrous developments in Iraq and Syria. Christians, increasingly, do not count, especially among the post-Christian power elites in Europe and North America.
One would think the Pope would be doing something, something very dramatic! He hates suffering, he loves everyone! But he has only thus far released one rather weak press release and made no public speech on this topic himself. Perhaps the subject is a bit too inconvenient for the “far more important” work of interreligious dialogue to bear.
Last night, the US did begin air strikes against ISIS. CVN-77 is in the Persian Gulf. I’m sure the Air Force will be hustling to get involved, too – they always have to (can’t let the Navy claim the spotlight). I’m not really excited about this, Our Blessed Lord said those who lived by the sword would die by the sword (and I know I am the last person who should ever use that quote) so while I am hopeful that the bombings will stop ISIS, how long will we stay around? Can this really be a long term solution? But then again, this is a crisis that is most definitely one of America’s making. Or Obama’s making. His precipitous abandonment of Iraq, leaving not even a token force behind, when that fake nation made up by two colonial civil servants was still embroiled in ethnic hatreds and ready to come apart at the seams. Well, come apart it has, and the Christians of Iraq, as usual, have been caught in the middle. So we appear to owe them quite a bit of effort for the state we left them in, as this Iraqi Christian notes below:
Here in the US, the reply of the USCCB and individual bishops seems also quite far from robust. Our own Bishop Kevin Farrell addressed the topic of Christian suffering in the Mideast in a general way back on June 27, but has been pretty preoccupied, at least on his blog, with the Hispanic immigration “crisis” since then. I haven’t seen too many statements from other bishops or the USCCB that just blew me away for their clarity, forcefulness, and concern. And the beat roles on. Hopefully JDAMs and LGBs can stop the ISIS guys, because it seems little else is being done (well, the Kurds are being armed, they apparently ran out of ammunition a few days ago).
How about our bishops call – with the same or even greater intensity as they do for the Central Americans – for an open immigration policy for these suffering Catholics of Iraq? That would at least be ethically and intellectually consistent. As I pointed out above, this nation “owes” the Chaldean/Assyrian Catholics a heckuva a lot, certainly more than those who are just busting over the southern border because they think they’l get an amnesty out of the deal. We left the Chaldean’s homeland a shambles, then walked away. Doesn’t this nation bear some moral culpability to set that situation right.
Anyone know of good relief funds, preferably not USCCB administered, that go to directly aid these people? I have not seen much mention of such. Many aid agencies may be afraid to go into such a violently unstable situation.
Pray for these folks! They are our brethren and are truly abandoned and suffering.
Such a disaster. Satan has such a free hand right now…….I just don’t understand. There must be so few praying, pious souls, for that to be the case. It’s really scary.
And how about ending this nation’s cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia? SA is becoming a sick, twisted wahabbist culture. Most of the 911 hijackers were Saudi. They fund terror around the world, just like Iran, but we treat Iran like a pariah. We don’t need their oil very much. We import almost nothing from SA. We have better sources closer to home. I think it’s time to tell Saudi Arabia we’re not going to put up with their “covert” attempts to build a new caliphate. And we should also shut off any Saudi funding coming into the US to put in more radical mosques.
What could he be thinking? Pope Apologizes to evangelicals for the Church not collapsing enough August 1, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, the return.
I have avoided over the past week or more the incredibly damaging and scandalous actions and statements by Pope Francis with regard to his evangelical buddies in the hopes these scandals might go away. But eventually it became too much to avoid. Apparently, TFG has been meeting and cavorting with these hucksters all summer. Scandal has piled on scandal. This is not a matter of translations, or spin. The statements are too cohesive, too similar, and repetitious to be mere accidents of one kind or another. And the worst of all just occurred.
For example, Bergoglio has spent weeks behind the scenes cultivating relationships with the heads of the powerful “Evangelical” communities of the United States. He has spent hour after hour in their company at his residence in Santa Marta. He has invited them for lunch. He immortalized one of these convivial moments by giving a high five, amid raucous laughter, to Pastor James Robinson, one of the most successful American televangelists.
When no one knew anything about it yet, it was Francis who alerted them about his intention to go visit their Italian colleague in Caserta, and explained the reason: “To extend the apologies of the Catholic Church for the damage that has been done to them by obstructing the growth of their communities.”
Bear in mind, these are the very sects that are absolutely GUTTING the Church in Central and South America! These are the sects that have seen explosive growth in exclusively Catholic areas over the past several decades of liberal heresy. And we are to apologize to them? How about they apologize for all the false lies they spread about the Church and what She believes, for all the souls they have lured away under false pretenses, for all the immense damage they have done to the Body of Christ?
One must ask how any Catholic could even think to apologize for these aggressively hostile and even rapacious sects? But the Pope? How mammoth the indifference to say such………
At some point one has to ask in dismayed wonder, what could he possibly be thinking? He seems to have such an ideologically indifferentist understanding of Christianity and all the horribly erroneous sects that he feels they are fully equivalent to the Church – or maybe quite a bit better. This is, of course, the highly erroneous and incredibly damaging view the radical progressive wing of the Church (if they can be called part of the Church) has been advancing for the past several decades. But it also raises so many stark question as to beggar the imagination:
- What is the Holy Father’s view regarding the Blessed Sacrament? These sects don’t have it, Christ said it was necessary for salvation. Does the Holy Father believe such?
- Pope Francis claims to be very Marian. But the sects hate, attack, besmirch, and revile Our Blessed Mother. How Marian can you be if you so adore these false sects?
- What about Authority? These sects don’t have it, they are beyond the nice TV veneer a nest of frequently vicious squabbling and mutual loathing. They divide against each other daily into endlessly multiplying and exclusive groups. They are the entire opposite of the Church Christ founded. How can anyone pretend otherwise?
- What about virtue? Are all these millionaire evangelists like Copeland and Robinson virtuous, selling false “prosperity gospels” to desperate people in exchange for their donations, donations often wrangled from poor lost souls after extensive manipulation?
- What on earth does the Church have to gain from pretending these shysters are anything but what they are, enemies of the Faith growing rich by stealing deluded souls from the One True Church?
- How far divorced from reality does a South American prelate have to be to believe the Church has done anything but provide the richest feeding ground for the sects imaginable with all the liberal indifferentism and the trashing of our Ancient Rite and moral code? What opposition? My God, what does TFG want? Nothing left?
What can one say at this point? This is simply a period in the Church’s history that will have to be endured, praying and fasting as best we can to ameliorate this catastrophe. God must be sorely displeased with us to inflict us with TFG. I do not know what will be left in 4 or 5 years, but millions of souls will fall away absent one of the greatest miracles in Church history.
Let us forego, however, judgments of the Holy Father’s soul or claims of heresy. That is not for us to make. We can look at objective prudential and semi-official acts and express disagreement and dismay, but not go into formal claims. That is not for us to do.
Some messages for Cardinal Kasper July 29, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, Eucharist, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, Sacraments, sadness, scandals, secularism, shocking.
A few messages for Cardinal Kasper and his ideological allies, via Fr. Carota and Cardinal Muller. First, Fr. Carota had the following pics, one quoting a great priest and the other a great Saint, along with an emphatic statement in support for the inability of Doctrine to be contradicted:
We need to scream out a thousand million times: CATHOLIC DOCTRINE CAN NOT AND WILL NOT CHANGE. We can further develop our understanding of it, we can further define it, but if it changes, it is no longer Catholic or the immutable Deposit of Faith given to us by Jesus Christ. When people come up with “catholic doctrine” that has changed, it is absolutely no longer Catholic. It is absolutely and nothing more than heresy.
Today, if you even question the changes in Catholic Doctrines, you are automatically persecuted and ostracized by most bishops, priests, religious and people.
All of us have a responsibility to suffer for defending the purity of Catholic truth. TheArians, (Jesus is not equal to God the Father) were the majority of “catholics” for around 200 + years (300 – 500 A.D.). Many “catholics” were Iconoclasts, (condemned painting or sculpturing of Catholic religious art), for hundreds of years too (Late 600′s- Early 800′s). All those who resisted these heresies were exiled, punished, persecuted or put to death.
We might have such a glorious future to look forward to!
The awesome pics:
Next, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Cardinal Gerhard Muller has given a book length interview in which he once again forcefully restates Catholic Doctrine on marriage, adultery, divorce, reception of the Blessed Sacrament, etc., and really takes apart the Kasperite gambit (as so many have already done). At least Cardinal Muller appears much more orthodox on this topic than he is in some of his Marian theology and especially with regard to liberation theology:
Not even an ecumenical council can change the doctrine of the Church, because its founder, Jesus Christ, has entrusted the faithful custody of his teachings and his doctrine to the apostles and their successors. We have a well-developed and structured doctrine on marriage, based on the word of Jesus, which must be offered in its integrity. The absolute indissolubility of a valid marriage is not a mere doctrine, but rather a divine dogma that has been defined by the Church. In the face of the de facto rupture of a valid marriage, another civil “marriage” is not admissible. If it were, we would be facing a contradiction, because if the previous union, the “first” marriage – or rather, simply the marriage – is really a marriage, another subsequent union is not “marriage.” It is only by a play on words that one can speak of a first and second “marriage.” A second marriage is possible only when the legitimate spouse has died, or when the marriage has been declared invalid, because in these cases the previous bond has been dissolved. If this is not the case, we are in the presence of what is called the “impediment of the bond.”
…..“The image of the field hospital is very beautiful. Nonetheless we cannot manipulate the pope by reducing the whole reality of the Church to this image. The Church in itself is not a hospital: the Church is also the house of the Father.”……
……“A simple ‘adaptation’ of the reality of marriage to the expectations of the world does not bear any fruit, but rather turns out to be counterproductive: the Church cannot respond to the challenges of the modern world with a pragmatic adaptation. In opposing an easy pragmatic adaptation, we are called to choose the prophetic audacity of martyrdom. With this we can bear witness to the Gospel of the holiness of marriage. A lukewarm prophet, through an adjustment to the spirit of the time, would be seeking his own salvation, not the salvation that only God can give.”
There is much more from Cardinal Muller at the link. He goes on to some length refuting this latest attempt to, in effect, destroy the Sacrament of Marriage and blaspheme the Holy Spirit through mass, sacrilegious reception of the Blessed Sacrament. Cardinal Kasper, if he had any, should be ashamed for even bringing this up. His arguments, such as they are, have been completely refuted from Scripture, Tradition, and even the post-conciliar Magisterial statements of Pope Saint John Paul II. It is ludicrous this is even being discussed. Kasper has been strongly opposed by Cardinals Muller, Burke, Collins, Brandmuller, Sebastian, Caffarra, De Paolis, and others. But he has a lot of support from other corners, such as most of the very disordered Germanic episcopate.
But, in spite of all that, this Synod will likely come down to where the pope stands. If he strongly supports the Kasperite gambit, we shall have to pray much to the Holy Ghost.
Via the estimable Fr. Peter Carota. Pope Leo XIII (can a lay person start a cause of canonization?!?, because I sure think he needs one!), in response to a waking vision he had of the Church suffering mightily under the oppression of satan and internal dissent and strife, instituted not only the well-known prayer to St. Michael the Arcangel (which the good pope caused to be recited after every Mass), but also the following short form of exorcism against satan and his rebellious angels. Fr. Peter Carota prays this every day. In these times when the Church, and so many souls, are under such awful attack from satan and all his minions – human and demonic – perhaps we should consider offering this prayer from time to time, especially when we feel especially tempted or under duress of any form:
Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel
+ In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Most glorious Prince of the Celestial Host, Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in the conflict which we have to sustain against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places (Eph. 6.12). Come to the rescue of men whom God has created to His image and likeness, and whom He has redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the devil. It is thou whom Holy Church venerates as her guardian and protector; thou whom the Lord has charged to conduct redeemed souls into Heaven. Pray, therefore, the God of Peace to subdue Satan beneath our feet, that he may no longer retain men captive nor do injury to the Church. Present our prayers to the most High, that without delay they may draw His mercy down upon us. Seize the dragon, the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, bind him and cast him into the bottomless pit, that he may no more seduce the nations (Apoc. 20.2-3).
In the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, strengthened by the intercession of the Immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God, of Blessed Michael the Archangel, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and all the Saints, [and powerful in the holy authority of our ministry]*, we confidently undertake to repulse the attacks and deceits of the devil.
*Lay people omit this text
As smoke vanishes, so let them vanish away: as wax melts before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God.
V. Behold the Cross of the Lord! Flee, bands of enemies.
R. The Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Offspring of David has conquered.
V. May Thy mercy descend upon us.
R. As great as our hope in Thee.
(The crosses (+) below indicate a blessing to be given if a priest recites the Exorcism; if a lay person recites it, they indicate the Sign of the Cross to be made by that person.)
We drive you from us, whoever you may be, unclean spirits, Satanic powers, infernal invaders, wicked legions, assemblies, and sects. In the name and by the virtue of Our Lord Jesus Christ +. May you be snatched away and driven from the Church of God and from the souls redeemed by the Precious Blood of the Divine Lamb +.
Cease by your audacity, cunning serpent, to deceive the human race, to persecute the Church, to torment God’s elect, and to sift them as wheat +. This is the command made to you by the Most High God +, with Whom in your haughty insolence you still pretend to be equal +. The God Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth (I Tim. 2.4). God the Father commands you +. God the Son commands you +. God the Holy Ghost commands you +. Christ, the Eternal Word of God made Flesh, commands you +. He Who to save our race, outdone through your malice, humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death (Phil. 2.8). He Who has built His Church on the firm rock and declared that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Her, because He dwells with Her all days, even to the consummation of the world (Matt. 28.20). The hidden virtue of the Cross requires it of you, as does the power of the mysteries of the Christian Faith +. The glorious Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, commands you +. She who by Her humility and from the first moment of Her Immaculate Conception crushed your proud head. The faith of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul and of the other Apostles commands you +. The blood of the Martyrs and the pious intercession of all the Saints command you +.
Thus, cursed dragon, and you, wicked legions, we adjure you by the living God +, by the true God +, by the holy God +, by the God Who so loved the world, as to give up His only-begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him may not perish but may have life everlasting (St. John 3.16). Cease deceiving human creatures and pouring out to them the poison of eternal perdition. Cease harming the Church and hindering her liberty. Retreat, Satan, inventor and master of all deceit, enemy of man’s salvation. Cede the place to Christ in Whom you have found none of your works. Cede the place to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church acquired by Christ at the price of His Blood. Stoop beneath the all-powerful Hand of God. Tremble and flee at the evocation of the Holy and terrible name of Jesus; this Name which causes hell to tremble; this Name to which the Virtues, Powers and Dominations of Heaven are humbly submissive; this Name which the Cherubim and Seraphim praise unceasingly, repeating: Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord, the God of Hosts.
Let us pray.
God of Heaven, God of earth, God of Angels, God of Archangels, God of Patriarchs, God of Prophets, God of Apostles, God of Martyrs, God of Confessors, God of Virgins, God who has power to give life after death and rest after work, because there is no other God than Thee and there can be no other, for Thou art the Creator of all things, visible and invisible, of Whose reign there shall be no end. We humbly prostrate ourselves before Thy glorious Majesty and we supplicate Thee to deliver us from all the tyranny of the infernal spirits, from their snares, their lies, and their furious wickedness. Deign, O Lord, to protect us by Thy power and to preserve us safe and sound. We beseech Thee through Jesus Christ Our Lord. Amen.
V. That Thy Church may serve Thee in peace and liberty,
R. We beseech Thee to hear us.
V. That Thou would crush down all enemies of Thy Church,
R. We beseech Thee to hear us.
(Holy water is sprinkled in the place where we may be.)
Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray and do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the Divine Power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who wander throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.
Are you an Ultramontanist? July 22, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the return, Tradition.
The good Boniface at Unam Sanctam Catholicam has a post asking a most pertinent question in the present environment in the Church – are you an ultramontanist? This does not mean you accept the Dogma of papal infallibility. That is not what the ultramontanism run amok in the present context means. I will let Boniface explain:
There is a lot of talk these days about a kind of pervasive Ultramontanism in the Neo-Catholic world; not Ultramontanism in the classical sense, for understood classically, Ultramontanism, like the term “Integralism“, was just a phrase denoting Catholicism affirming the infallibility of the pope.In current parlance, we are not talking about fidelity to the Holy Father, but rather a kind of crass, undiscriminating Ultramontanism that is best characterized by the embarrassing spectacle of Neo-Catholic apologists tripping all over themselves to affirm every single prudential decision of the pope as not only good, but the best possible decision. In the judgment of the modern Ultramontanists, every utterance of the pope, no matter how banal or off the cuff, is treated as a profound insight; every administrative act or symbolic gesture he makes are examples of brilliant leadership; every prudential judgment and non-authoritative teaching treated as infallible truth. [thus the incredible claims that some would accept a papal claim that black is actually white, or 2+2=5]No matter what they might say, there is a very easy test to see if the person you are talking with actually subscribes to the kind of crass Ultramontanism I have described above. Ask them to:First, cite one prudential action of the pope which you disagree with. [Kissing the koran]Second, cite one action or statement of the pope that you agree with, though you admit that good Catholics can be in disagreement about. [Pope Benedict's quoting of the Emperor Michael II Paleologos against the cruelties of islam was actually an act of charity, not a controversial interfaith blunder. But you can believe it was a blunder if you want. Heretic.]If you or your interlocutor cannot do either of these two things, they are Ultramontanists, no matter what they might say to the contrary.
I think it’s a pretty good test. And I feel very strongly that unchecked ultra-ultramontanism is seriously unbalancing the Church. But it is a favorite pastime of many prominent American Catholics, including most of the top Catholic bloggers. The danger we have seen is when obedience and fealty to the papacy as an institution and understanding of the narrow limits of papal infallibility morphs into ultra-ultramontanism, we tend to see very wild swings in emphasis, and even belief and practice, from one papacy to the next. And that only exacerbates the already existing crisis in the Church, spreads confusion and scandal, and leads more souls to fall away – or at least increases the risk of some falling away.
And the even larger problem is that, in spite of all the canonizations, recent popes have taken a number of prudential actions, and even some actions or more import than mere prudence, that are very difficult to reconcile with Tradition and in fact represent great novelties in the life of the Church. Those novelties have tended entirely in one direction, towards progressivism/modernism/indifferentism. And thus we have the crisis. So it is not a far reach to say that ultra-ultramontanism is playing a big role in precipitating the crisis in the Faith, and preventing effective action to promote the timeless Truth Christ has revealed through His Church in opposition to the crisis.
And then we have TFG. That’s the problem taken to a whole different level.
UPDATE: There is also a reverse corollary, regarding sede vacantism. One could just sort of flip the questions around.
Cardinal Brandmuller shreds error that priestly celibacy “established” in 10th century July 21, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Bible, catachesis, Christendom, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, history, Papa, sadness, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, the return.
Cardinal Walter Brandmuller, eminent historian and great friend of the TLM, has responded to a very famous claim made recently from a most notable personage in the Church, that the discipline of priestly celibacy was “established” in the 10th century. As I already noted, that is an extremely misleading statement, celibacy for clerics was a feature of the Church from day one, was endorsed by Christ in the Gospels, spoken of by St. Paul, and required to hold a bishopric from very early on. It only became the universal discipline in the West somewhat later, for various reasons, and was instituted as a formal discipline for all clergy, even if throughout history fallen men serving in the priesthood have fallen to temptation.
Cardinal Brandmuller makes some very good points on all of the above, plus more:
……In particular, it must be emphasized in the first place that celibacy by no means dates back to a law invented 900 years after the death of Christ. It is instead the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke that report the words of Jesus in this regard.
Matthew writes (19:29): “And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.”
What Mark writes (10:29) is very similar: “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold.”
Luke (18:29ff.) is even more precise: “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.” [These are impressive verses in support of priestly celibacy. I would say, however, that Saint Matthew XIX:11-12 is even better: “Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. He that can take it, let him take it.”
Jesus does not address these words to the masses, but rather to those whom he sends out to spread his Gospel and proclaim the coming of the kingdom of God. [The same applies to Matt XIX:11-12, too]
In order to fulfill this mission it is necessary to free oneself from any earthly and human attachment. And seeing that this separation signifies the loss of what is taken for granted, Jesus promises a “recompense” that is more than appropriate.
……Attention must also be called to the stirring appeal for celibacy or conjugal abstinence made by the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 7:29ff.): ” I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none.” And again: “The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided.” It is clear that Paul is addressing these words in the first place to bishops and priests. And he himself would have adhered to this ideal…….
….The original form of celibacy therefore allowed the priest or bishop to continue his family life, but not his conjugal life. For this reason as well the preference was to ordain men who had reached an advanced age. [And this was vitally necessary in the early Church, where most people in the Church were not born into Christianity, but converted as adults. They thus often had wives, children, etc. But for those called to the priesthood, even very early on, it became essentially mandatory that they be chaste, even if married. As time went on and more and more Catholics were born into the Faith, there grew a larger pool of men who were raised in the Catholic ethic and who would choose the Kingdom of God for life, eschewing a spouse and devoting themselves totally to God.]
The fact that all of this can be traced back to ancient and sacred apostolic traditions is testified to by the works of ecclesiastical writers like Clement of Alexandria and the north African Tertullian, who lived in the 2nd-3rd century after Christ. Another witness of the high consideration bestowed on abstinence among Christians is a series of edifying tales of the apostles, the apocryphal ‘Acts of the Apostles’ composed in the 2nd century and widely read.
In the 3rd century the literary documentation on the abstinence of the clergy multiplied and became increasingly explicit, especially in the East. For example, here is a passage from the Syrian ‘Didascalia’: “The bishop, before he is ordained, must be put to the test to establish if he is chaste and has raised his children in the fear of God.” The great theologian Origen of Alexandria (3rd century) also recognized the celibacy of abstinence as binding; a celibacy that he explains and explores theologically in various works. And obviously there are other documents that could be brought forward in support, something that obviously is not possible here…….
…... [Now some good history.....] It was the Council of Elvira in 305-306 that put this practice of apostolic origin into the form of a law. With canon 33, the Council prohibited bishops, priests, deacons, and all other clergy from having conjugal relations with their wives, and likewise prohibited them from having children. At the time it was therefore thought that conjugal abstinence was compatible with family life. Thus even the sainted pope Leo I, called Leo the Great, wrote around 450 that ordained men did not have to repudiate their wives. They were to remain together with them, but as if “they did not have them,” as Paul writes in the first letter to the Corinthians (7:29). [But it was also recognized that this situation posed a temptation that was disordered as a normative, or disciplinary, basis. That is to say, having married priests led to all kinds of problems, unchastity being only one of them. The tendency to fail to focus exclusively on the needs of the flock and be available all the time was even more significant]
With the passing of time there was an increasing tendency to ordain only celibate men. The codification would come in the Middle Ages, an era in which it was taken for granted that the priest and bishop would be celibate. It was another matter that the canonical discipline was not always followed to the letter, but this should not come as a surprise. And, as is in the nature of things, the observance of celibacy has seen highs and lows over the course of the centuries.
There is, for example, the famous and fiery dispute in the 11th century, at the time of what is called the Gregorian reform. [And which was probably alluded to by that famous personage, failing to get the date quite right.] At that juncture one witnessed a split that was so stark – especially in the German and French churches – as to lead the German prelates who were contrary to celibacy to forcibly expel from his diocese the bishop Altmann of Passau. In France, the pope’s emissaries who were charged with insisting on the discipline of celibacy were threatened with death, and at a synod held in Paris the sainted abbot Walter of Pontoise was beaten by bishops opposed to celibacy and was thrown in prison. In spite of this the reform succeeded and a renewed religious springtime took place.
It is interesting to note that the contestation of the precept of celibacy has always coincided with signs of decadence in the Church, while in times of renewed faith and cultural blossoming one has noted a strengthened observance of celibacy.
And that is precisely right. The Church in the period ~850-~1050 was decadent and weak. The popes were largely political creatures dominated by secular interests of the Roman elite, and were more often than not profoundly immoral men. Most of the very worst popes in history come from this period. The entire Church, however, was at a low ebb during this time, and it was only in a few islands like Cluny that the orthodox Faith really held on. We should keep that in mind as events move forward in our own time.
Of course, we certainly seem to be at one of the lowest ebbs in the history of the Church today. Top to bottom, prince to peasant, adherence to the Faith is weak. People’s “god” is most often their loins, and their doctrine is self-serving sexular liberalism. So it perhaps should not be such a surprise that under these conditions, the errors and abuses of the past should resurface again today. The only question is whether the conditions exist today – as they have not for the past 17 centuries or so – for these abuses or even errors to be reinstated as formal discipline or “pastoral” applications of doctrine that have the effect of obliterating said doctrine. That is the thought that tortures many pious souls at present.
Pray for Cardinals Brandmuller, Burke, Cipriani, etc! Pray for them to be strong and decisive at the upcoming Synod on the family!