Does tyranny reign in the Church? October 1, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Papa, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the return.
I read this brief quote below the other night, and felt very strongly that it very succinctly but accurately defined so much of what is going wrong in the Church today. The Church has been on a long, slow slide ever since the French Revolution. There have been ups and downs since then, but the overall trend has been very negative. Western Civilization took a disastrous turn towards the end of the 18th century, and while the Church fought that turn steadfastly for a century and a half, for the past half century the Church has more and more mirrored the disordered, destructive, fallen culture of which it is both a part, and ordained to stand aloof from. As authoritarianism under the guise of a false liberty has spread in the culture, so has it in the Church. See what you think:
When the Faith is fully lived, Truth and freedom to profess the Truth are the right of every man. When the Faith goes down, authority, bereft of the Truth it exists to sustain, alone is left. And this authority then becomes an absolute; authority without substance; authority without purpose; authority for its own sake. Gradually freedom is replaced, under this regime, with tyranny.
Liberals make great hay out of their supposed open-mindedness and tolerance. That is, until they meet any opposition, and then they become the most totalitarian, heavy handed authoritarians the world has ever seen. This has been a constant feature of the political-cultural left since it came into being 200+ years ago. There are too many examples to list: the bloodbaths of the French Revolution, all for the “good” of the people, the rivers of blood and rigidly enforced conformity of the Paris Commune, the revolts of 1848, all the communist states, all the fascist states…….all of them use such high-minded and flowery language regarding rights, freedoms, the “good” of the people, all the while they impose repressive regimes that would shock the most authoritarian monarch of the “bad old” Middle Ages.
As I mentioned above, this mentality, long resisted, has crept more and more into the Church in the past century or so. Initially it was fought and suppressed, but it came roaring back not just to fight for authority in the Church, but to come to dominate that authority through co-option. The example quoted above had to do with an early example of such egregious abuse of authority, abuses which would have outraged Catholics throughout most of the history of the Church. That specific example had to do with the actions of an archbishop, and later cardinal, whose liberal bona fides were clearly proven when he stealthily sided with Planned Barrenhood to help legalize contraception in Massachusetts in the early 1960s. While there are many debatable matters in that specific case, what is not debatable is that the accused had their rights trampled and there was abuse of canon law, the virtue of justice, and even reason throughout that sad imbroglio.
And we see the same ongoing today. Religious orders are crushed on the flimsiest grounds of suspicion, with no ability to argue their case or right of appeal to the usual juridical structures in the Church. Authority not grounded in the Truth of Jesus Christ and the firmest faith will always tend towards absolutism and will crush the rights of opposing minorities. I am afraid we will likely see much more of this before things even begin to approve. It will take a couple more generations to purge the reigning left wing orthodoxy from the Church – if we are that lucky.
Great minds think alike? I just posted a little excerpt from Pope Leo XIII, whose comments are as relevant to the upcoming Synod as any I’ve seen from any prelate in the Church in the past 2 years. Lo and behold, I stroll over to FideCogitActio, and I find he’s also posted from a different encyclical by Pope Leo material which is also highly relevant to doctrinal issues being forced in the Church today. It does not redound to my charity, but I cannot help thinking that this sudden “crisis” regarding adultery, re-marriage, divorce, non-annulment, and all the rest, matters which have been addressed repeatedly in the past 50 years at the highest level, and which are the result of failures to proclaim many truths believed by the Church, is simply the work of a narrow and self-interested cabal – just as it was in Pope Leo’s day. As Ecclesiasticus says, there is nothing new under the sun (emphasis in original, I and comments):
“The Church … has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. … ‘There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition’ (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos). [Exactly. And the Church has suffered horrible wounds, historically, for that defense of Doctrine, because it was the defense of Divine Truth. But today, it seems fewer and fewer are concerned about things like divinely revealed Truth, and only care about getting along, palling around, cocktail soirees at 5-star resorts, endless ecumenical confabs, and all the other attractions the world holds out for those who will only turn their backs on Jesus Christ.]
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. … [As I said in the previous post, this is not complex stuff. It is only (OK, primarily) since the ill-wind of aggiornamento started blowing that doctrine suddenly became so convoluted, nuanced, and difficult to comprehend. Luther, Arius, and other arch-heretics also loved nuance and shades of grey.]
“Wherefore, from the very earliest times the fathers and doctors of the Church have been accustomed to follow and, with one accord to defend this rule. Origen writes: ‘As often as the heretics allege the possession of the canonical scriptures, to which all Christians give unanimous assent, they seem to say: “Behold the word of truth is in the houses.” But we should believe them not and abandon not the primary and ecclesiastical tradition. We should believe not otherwise than has been handed down by the tradition of the Church of God’ (Vetus Interpretatio Commentariorum in Matt. n. 46).”
I could not agree more. I post this as yet another reminder that timeless truths are being called into question, or swept under the rug in the name of “pastoral” sensitivity – but is it sensitive to admit individuals in a manifest state of public mortal sin to receive the Blessed Sacrament? This question can only be answered two ways, and it all comes down to the same narrow, exclusive claims the Church has always made, because it is the Truth: that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, that He revealed how we are to live, that we will be judged according to our lives, and that we will face an eternity of either Heaven or hell. I simply cannot comprehend how anyone can doubt, call into question, or seek to evade any of the Truths always held by the Church unless they reject one of those four core truths listed above. And I think anyone who is a thinking, praying Catholic knows that the excuses peddled for shucking Doctrine for the sake of pastoral expediency are just that, excuses, and they will not result in any great flood of souls into the Church, but will only result in more falling away, less respect for the Church and Her beliefs, less of that cherished “relevancy,” and more and more ruin.
Maybe this is getting tiresome. I don’t say the above just to complain, but in the fervent hope that someone, somewhere is listening. I know my many good readers listen, but, we laity don’t have a great deal of say. And I feel it necessary to counter all the error emanating from some very high places. I have heard it said, that it takes 15 words to utter some heresy, and 15,000 words to refute it. Well, there you go.
The core point is, there is a religion being pushed that is not that which was held by great popes like Leo XIII, and Blessed Pius IX, and Saint Pius X, and Gregory XVI, and so many others. I will not shut my big trap or pounding fingers until that false, erroneous religion is defeated.
Pope Leo XIII speaks to the Synod…… September 30, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, awesomeness, Basics, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, the return.
1 comment so far
……and, quite possibly, the current Bishop of Rome. Pope Leo XIII wrote in his 1899 encyclical to the American episcopate, Testem Benevolentiae, denouncing the heresy of Americanism, the following bit below. Reading it again last night, I was struck by how much the “new problems” afflicting the Church, of huge swaths of the world being lost in sin and demands to contradict Doctrine in practice if not directly in order to somehow “excuse” the inexcusable, are not new at all. They are in fact the same old temptations the Church has always faced to please men and not God. Pope Leo was countering a grave problem he saw in the late 19th century US episcopate, that of indifference and a tendency to reduce the Church to an inoffensive worldly do-good society. Unfortunately, Pope Leo’s denunciation of widespread problems in the US hierarchy were ignored then and more or less openly repudiated later on, so that by the mid-20th century many bishops in the US were proclaiming their indifferentist beliefs and tacit rejection of rather large swaths of Doctrine.
Fast forward 115 years from when it was written, I think we can plainly see that the warnings were not heeded, the errors not addressed, and now the errors, even the openly promoted heresy, has spread like a cancer to include vast swaths of timeless, constant Church belief, up to an including solemnly defined Dogmas. But I am poor and ineloquent, it is far better to let Pope Leo speak for himself (I add emphasis and comments):
…..For they [the Americanists, still very much with us today] contend that it is opportune, in order to work in a more attractive way upon the wills of those who are not in accord with us, to pass over certain heads of doctrines, as if of lesser moment, or to so soften them that they may not have the same meaning which the Church has invariably held. Now, Beloved Son, [This encyclical was addressed quite specifically, and pointedly, at Cardinal Gibbons, who, whatever his merits, had pushed the idea of national conferences and episcopal agitation for social concerns] few words are needed to show how reprehensible is the plan that is thus conceived, if we but consider the character and origin of the Doctrine which the Church hands down. On that point the Vatican Council says: “The doctrine of faith which God has revealed is not proposed like a theory of philosophy which is to be elaborated by the human understanding, but as a divine deposit delivered to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly declared [It is precisely this sense that is apparently very nearly extinct in the entire, worldwide episcopate today]………That sense of the sacred dogmas is to be faithfully kept which Holy Mother Church has once declared, and is not to be departed from under the specious pretext of a more profound understanding” (Constitution of Catholic Faith, C. IV). [That is, later "understandings" of dogmas cannot be contradicted by later "explanations" or even 'pastoral applications." REALLY, THIS STUFF IS NOT VERY HARD!]
……Far be it, then, for any one to diminish or for any reason whatever to pass over anything of this divinely delivered doctrine; whosoever would do so, would rather wish to alienate Catholics from the Church than to bring over to the Church those who dissent from it. [And is this not precisely what has happened in the past 50 years, as millions of spiritually starved Catholics have fallen away, exhausted from a diet of progressive pablum?] Let them return; indeed, nothing is nearer to Our heart; let all those who are wandering far from the sheepfold of Christ return; but let it not be BY any road other than that which Christ has pointed out.
We have sadly had a chance to see, lo these past several decades, just how that kind of softer, “more attractive” presentation of “difficult” Doctrine works out. Most of the time, it is simply dealt with as mokusatsu, killed with silence, if not relativized into meaningless, innocuous nothingness. That’s been the case with contraception and fornication, and looks to be spreading to include fake marriage, divorce, blasphemy of the Blessed Sacrament, etc., etc. “Oh, it’s too hard to talk about X” our bishops living in multi-million dollar mansions say. “Oh, we will turn people away from the Church,” say the men who have overseen the greatest collapse in Church attendance, vocation rates, donations, you name it in recorded history. What an utter collapse in authority.
It would be unbelievable if we were not living through it. Catholic bishops being the prime agents of the destruction of Dogma. For the vast majority of the history of the Church, such would have been unthinkable, a few very notable exceptions aside.
On a lighthearted side note, I cannot tell how great is the temptation I feel to write “Pope Saint Leo XIII.” I know he hasn’t even a cause, but I have long felt this great pontiff has been ignored and overlooked to our collective shame. I do very much love and admire this pontiff. I am really enjoying his biography.
If only…….Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI demands reinstatement as pope September 26, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, silliness, Society, the return.
As only Eye of the Tiber could possibly report:
According to reports today, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is seeking the chair of his pontificate months after his resignation. The news has sent shock waves around the world.
Vatican spokesman Fr. Vitateli Devitiamani told EOTT that, “He came for a dinner as scheduled and then proceeded to return to his old living quarters. That wouldn’t be a problem, since His Holiness Pope Francis chose to live elsewhere, the room is open. However, once we asked him where he was going, he simply said, ‘I’m back,’ then proceeded to put his sunglasses on even though we were inside.”
Sources say that the next morning, he walked down the hall asking for his valet and his red
Pradashoes, and was overheard asking an adviser to “get Burke on the line.”
This comes 19 months after his official resignation from the Holy See.
Well…….stranger things have happened. And I strongly suspect there will be a book written on the events of early 2013 in the Vatican someday, and it will be a barn-burner.
A most pre-conciliar commentary on the idol of democracy September 25, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, disaster, Domestic Church, error, General Catholic, history, horror, paganism, Papa, persecution, reading, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
There is a great conceit held by many Americans and other Westerners; that democracy, whatever reality it has even in our own country, is the only acceptable form of government for not just advanced nations, but for peoples everywhere. A veritable cult has grown up regarding notions such as popular sovereignty, the will of the people, representative government, and all the rest. Surely, there are arguments to commend this very Anglo-American system, but there are also powerful arguments against. For one thing, what may be suited – but perhaps far form ideal – for some nations under certain favorable circumstances, may harbinge death for peoples in other places and times. Such was the commentary of Father Bernard O’Reilly in his biography of Pope Leo XIII, commenting on the foisting of democracy, often unwittingly, on Catholic peoples in Europe after the catastrophe of the French Revolution. I thought there were some edifying points below, perhaps you will agree:
The political quacks who think that the constitutional forms which suit the English race at home or in the United States ought also to suit Belgium, or France, or Spain, or Italy, forget that the institutions of of a country are the natural growth and outcome of a people’s habits and social life. Where, as in Great Britain and in the American Union., the form of government, with the laws and the judiciary, has ever been a part of the people’s existence, it needs no political education to train the masses to the knowledge and exercise of their political rights. They are matters of course, as familiar to the farmer in the country as his implements and methods of agriculture; as handy to the craftsman in the cities as the rules and practice of his trade. How different among the Latin nations of Continental Europe and their offshoots was the use of the suffrage, whether open or secret, in electing to municipal or national offices! What a farce the ballot was from the beginning, and is still in countries we might name! [And is, perhaps, becoming in this country? Or has already become?] And what oppression is practiced, in the name of liberty and under the sham of constitutional forms, by peoples among whom anti-Christian teachings destroy the religious and moral sense, with the elementary and essential ideas of individual right, making what they call free government the most hideous intolerance and the downright and unrestrained proscription of all opinions, convictions, and acts which differ from their own false and narrow notions! [So true, as I think we can see in our own country more and more today, where the rights of minorities, especially religious minorities, and even more, Catholic minorities, are dashed upon the altar of “tolerance” – except for us and our beliefs! Thus, every kink, every perversion, is held to trump the most dearly and deeply held Christian convictions. And never forget, the most repressive countries in history, like the Soviet Union, had constitutions full of flowery language about rights, the power of the people, and all the rest – as they crushed the people, and especially the Church, under an iron boot!
……….Belgium, Catholic Belgium, became especially the paradise of the occult force, not of the purely or professed benevolent and kindly associations which go by different names wherever the English language prevails, but of those bodies of conspirators against Church and State, against the entire social order inherited from the Christendom of the past, who are the legal and legitimate descendants of the masons and their illuminism. English and American societies long and blindly refused to acknowledge the evidence offered them that this occult force on the Continent of Europe, as well as in Spanish and Portuguese America, was a vast and mighty conspiracy against God. [This paragraph compares the differences between the relatively benign practice of mason in the Anglosphere, and the dark, even occult, conspiracies of the Lodge in the Latin countries, always directed at usurping the Church and seeing Her demise. Of course, the masons in the Anglosphere did not have to trouble themselves to achieve the idol of "religious liberty" in England, the US, and other countries, as the triumph of protestantism in those lands, from long ago, made such efforts unnecessary. But they gave much willing help to radical masonic elements in Mexico and other countries struggling to destroy the Church. They have been all too successful.]
……..the battle…..has been fought from the beginning, between the supporters of Christianity, the advocates of a thorough religious education, on the one hand, and the conspirators against religion, who wanted to get possession of the youth and extinguish in their souls all knowledge or all love of the ancient faith of Christendom.
…...we in America are beginning to see that the public school system was from the first open to two serious and unanswerable objections. It levied a heavy tax on those who objected conscientiously to schools where no religion whatever was taught, [Aye, and I must pay handsomely to see others taught dread errors and be led down the wide path of destruction] and refused to grant any share of the school fund to denominations who insisted on a religious teaching in their schools; [No longer entirely true, at least at the federal level. And how was that achieved? Some very cogent criticisms argue that Church schools were only judged acceptable for federal funding when they became so thoroughly secularized and indifferent to our Faith that they were no longer seen as problematic from the reigning secular point of view. The refusal to teach Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus figures prominently in such arguments] and it tended practically (as it has now, confessedly, ended in doing) to turn out young men and women indifferent to all religious principle and practice – men and women all the more dangerous to the community that their trained intellect and acquired knowledge are a terrible agency in the service of their passions, whereas no fear of God is there to restrain them from evil courses or to encourage them to well-doing.
Besides, in a country like the United States, where so many sects exist side by side, with equal rights before the law, [a foundational error in its own right] if the majority must decide the school question like all others of public importance, the minority must perforce submit. Still, that minority will deem it oppression to be taxed for an institution which they cannot approve of or profit by without violating their conscience…….. [Sadly, the vast majority of Catholics no longer deem it a violation of conscience to have their children taught, or they themselves, the dreadest of errors. And for all the world, it appears our leadership has simply exited the struggle, proclaiming the world and its errors right all along, does it not?]
……..Yet the English-speaking world, through its organ, the public press, has invariably sided with the tyrannical majority, and h eld up the struggles of Catholics to educate their children according to the Faith as the battle of the ignorant and intolerant fanaticism against the enlightenment, intellectual progress, and modern civilization.
And the struggle still goes on……in the year 1887. It is still the contest between two antagonistic and diametrically opposed forces, that of religion on the one hand and that of irreligion on the other, for the possession of education, the mightiest means ever devised for the moral elevation or the utter destruction of the human race.
So, one hundred and twenty seven years long, who, does it appear, won that battle, at least to this point? It might also be asked, which side has decided to entirely give up the fight and surrender to the dominant culture, with its conceits of “enlightenment” and “reason,” which are really darker, and more ignorant, than any ideology since Christianity gained ascendancy 1700 years ago?
Something, perhaps, to ponder this weekend.
An awesome story regarding Cardinal Burke September 23, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Christendom, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Holy suffering, Latin Mass, martyrdom, Papa, persecution, sadness, sanctity, scandals, the return, Tradition, Virtue.
Reader GM sent this to me and I thought it was well worth sharing. From Vox Cantoris, a story regarding Cardinal Burke’s virtue and concern for souls:
A few years ago, I read a story on the Internet, which I can no longer find; it was written by a man that once suffered from same-sex attraction.
He wrote that he was outraged that then Bishop Burke of LaCrosse in Wisconsin would speak out firmly against sodomy. This man sent letters to the Bishop, hateful and spiteful letters. A few years later, he had a conversion to Christ and His Church. By then, Raymond Leo Burke was the Archbishop of St. Louis, in Missouri. The man that harassed him so many times sought him out in St. Louis and was surprised when the Archbishop accepted his request for a meeting. He came to the Archbishop and apologised. Archbishop Burke then went to a closet to retrieve a shoebox. Inside the shoebox were all the letters of harassment and hate that the man had sent to him. Archbishop Burke explained that he would regularly pray over the letters for the man and gave him back his letters with his blessing.
I have a personal friend that knows Cardinal Burke personally, I told him this story and his reply was, “I don’t know that I’ve ever heard that but I believe it because that is exactly the kind of thing that Cardinal Burke would do.”
I pray this story is true, if for no other reason than the benefit of the soul in question.
I don’t know if any of the current prelates in the Church have the kind of heroic sanctity that has been demonstrated by so many Saint-bishops of the past. But among them all, at least insofar as we in the Anglosphere with our tendency to focus entirely on English-speaking prelates see things, I would have to say Cardinal Burke would be one of only a few I could imagine as being in that exalted class. I’m certain he has his warts and has made many mistakes, but he has also been about as strong a defender of the Faith as we’ve seen in recent years. But, I do have to say, for all his forthrightness and clarity with regard to Doctrine, he is probably only average or slightly above compared to the historical conduct of bishops going back centuries in the Church with regard to doctrinal defense. Reading defenses of Doctrine or exhortations to observe it from great Saint bishops of the past is generally mind-blowing in its depth, clarity, and force of reason. Cardinal Burke is strong, but perhaps not quite to that level. To his credit, however, he does seem to have grown into the role over the past decade or so, and Cardinal Burke has emerged as perhaps the strongest friend of the TLM in high Church office. I have no real idea of his personal practice of virtue, this anecdote aside, although it is reputed to be very strong.
At any rate, it appears Cardinal Burke and many more defenders of the Faith are going to be made to suffer real persecution for their beliefs. May God bless and strengthen him and all those in high positions in the Church who cooperate with Grace by being true shepherds and not one of the large number of wolves in sheep’s clothing, or the even larger number of empty clerical suits.
Some background on the dismaying appointment of Bishop Blase Cupich to the Archdiocese of Chicago September 22, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return.
So by now many readers will have heard that Bishop Blase Cupich of Spokane, WA, has been named by Pope Francis to replace the somewhat orthodox Cardinal Francis George as Archbishop of Chicago. Since this is such an important see, it is virtually assured Cupich will get a red hat before too long.
Who is Blase Cupich? He is one of the most reliably, and extremely, progressive members of the American episcopate. He is also extremely close to the current papal nuncio, Archbishop Vigano, a confirmed anti-Ratzingerian. I was looking through old posts wherein I might have spoken of Cupich, and found two, both of which had some very revealing insights. In the first, dating from 2011, we see Bishop Cupich banning Adoration throughout the Diocese of Spokane and implementing a complete and total ban on priests in the Diocese from taking part in public pro-life activities:
Bishop Cupich has informed all of his priests and seminarians that they cannot:
– pray outside of Planned Parenthood
– promote or organize peaceful protest outside Planned Parenthood in their parishes (naming 40 Days for Life specifically)
– or allow pro-life material to be distributed in their parishes unless it is published by the Washington State Conference of Catholic Bishops or the USCCB–who, ironically, support 40 DFL.
Eponymous Flower reports that this Bishop Cupich also discontinued Eucharistic Adoration on a Diocese-wide basis at some point in the past
Then I found this editorial I posted by Patrick Buchanan from last year, which turned out to be amazingly prescient and insightful. Get all this:
“Pope Francis doesn’t want cultural warriors; he doesn’t want ideologues,” said Bishop Blase Cupich of Spokane, Wash.
“The nuncio said the Holy Father wants bishops with pastoral sensitivity, shepherds who know the smell of the sheep.” [Is it a smell, or a stench?]
Bishop Cupich was conveying instructions the papal nuncio had delivered from Rome to guide U.S. bishops in choosing a new leader……[of the USelessCCB]
…Yet here is further confirmation His Holiness seeks to move the Catholic Church to a stance of non-belligerence, if not neutrality, in the culture war for the soul of the West.
There is a small problem with neutrality. As Trotsky observed, “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”
If you couple the above with the below, from an unnamed priest-insider to Vatican politics, you can see the whole picture start to come together:
Cupich’s promotion to this particularly important position, that usually entails the elevation to the cardinalatial red, was a personal decision of Pope Francis himself. More precisely, the Pope imposed his candidate on Cardinal Ouellet and the Congregation for Bishops, under the desperate suggestion of the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò. We know well that those men who are particularly authoritarian, such as Francis, also are, in many cases, easily manipulated by those who learn how to read them. Moreover, it is enough to waggle before the eyes of the Pope the scarecrow called Cardinal Burke to lead him in one direction or another, because he has kept against the Prefect of the Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura an extremely strong rancor after the 2013 conclave, in which the American Cardinal was one of those who tried to thwart his path to the pontificate.
There is more somewhat cryptic and difficult to follow inside baseball at Rorate. But I did find it fascinating that Cupich was stressing his relationship with the nuncio last year, when trying to influence the selection of the next head of the USCCB, and now, according to this inside source, he has been rewarded with an immensely visible see (and almost certainly a cardinal’s hat) for his efforts (I am certain there is much more to it than that, but it’s interesting to see the relationship).
Some other data points from his time in Spokane:
- Opposes Mass Ad Orientem
- Is a huge liturgical liberal – he is in favor of all the Novus Ordo “reforms” and desires more that has not been implemented.
- Holds the laughably literal view of “active participation” to mean lay people running around the sanctuary during Mass
- gave a highly conflicted exhortation when the state of Washington voted to destroy marriage
- Had his local Catholic Charities sign people up for Obamacare, which of course means helping at least some obtain contraception and abortion
- On the plus side, he has made occasional pro-life statements. So, yay.
This guy is clearly in the mode of the Bernadin boys and, as I said, almost eye-wateringly left wing. As for his “smelling of the sheep,” like the vast majority of bishops, he spent less than three years actually serving in a parish. They are all groomed from an early age.
Someone said to me on Saturday – the beatings are commencing, and they will not let up for a long time. They are going to get more and more severe. I agree. I will say, more and more do I lament that unthinking, erroneous, un-traditional ultramontanism that causes the Church to swing wildly from one pontificate to the next. This is no way to run an eternal Church, founded by Christ – heck, it wouldn’t be a way to run a Jack in the Box, or anything else.
But enjoy your beating, all the same. Seriously, we must not let this get to us, make us angry (which is why I try to keep some wry humor at all times), or take our peace away. If it does any of the above, it is vital to pull back and just focus on our own sanctity. Don’t let the pope or anyone else ruin your day, or, God forbid, sin! I know it’s hard and we feel heart-broken and angry, but at this point I think we know what we’re dealing with and it may be best just to go into a shell and ignore all this stuff – if it is really bothering you. However, to offer up these sufferings for the good of the Church and our souls would be a glorious response, which I strongly encourage.
Something fun for a change September 18, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Christendom, fun, General Catholic, Holy suffering, manhood, mortification, Papa, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the return, true leadership.
I don’t know if Patrick Archbold at CMR created this or not, but I do thank him for posting it:
I’d certainly like to believe that it’s true.
I am certain Cardinal Burke will take this debasement with the same good grace and faithfulness in which he accepted previous roles in the Church. I pray he will use the suffering this embarrassing demotion will cause for the good of his soul and that of the entire Church. I imagine, like Cardinal Canizares Llovera, Cardinal Burke learned of this development in the press. What a shoddy way to treat people who have, in good faith, dedicated their lives to the Church. Such treatment says something very revealing about those doling it out.
Just a rumor, or? Italian daily reports bishops who accept former FI priests being blacklisted by Pope Francis September 18, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, horror, martyrdom, Papa, religious, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the return.
Tags: deliberate cruelty
The news, every day, just becomes more and more ominous. What we have experienced in the past few weeks is almost surreal in its display of hard-hearted vindictiveness and lock-step authoritarian demands for compliance with the new order, or else. Whatever that new order is.
If the below is true, the animus that is being displayed towards the Franciscans of the Immaculate truly knows no bounds. It seems very difficult to find a reason for such extreme measures, which, as Rorate notes, are unprecedented in the past several CENTURIES of Church history, if true. I have a very difficult time comprehending what possible threat could be posed by these men, dispersed in ones or twos or even in small groups in various dioceses of the world, that could make this kind of action necessary, or anything but a cruel and naked exercise of power – IF TRUE:
Because of the harsh intervention that has brought about the near-destruction of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, many priests of that institute have tried to find refuge by asking to leave the order and be incardinated as secular priests of regular dioceses. Marco Tosatti, the senior religious correspondent for ancient Italian daily La Stampa reports the following:
The transferral of Cañizares to Spain had appeared in the Iberian press – with no small irritation to the interested party – some months before the decision had been made official. And the same thing happens with Burke. [The author of the original Italian piece upon which the Rorate post is based is saying the leak regarding Burke may have been made months before it was intended to take effect. There is a great deal of gossip in the Francis papacy] It is astonishing because no pope before this one – to my knowledge – has anathematized gossip and rumor-mongering, repeatedly and often, as much as the current one; and yet, clearly, his close entourage is not without sin.
And we hope that the unconfirmed report, according to which the Pope is said to have asked for the list of bishops who incardinate in their dioceses the friars of the Franciscans of the Immaculate who wish to abandon the order after its intervention and compulsory re-education, is not true. But unfortunately, we fear the opposite.
Just to be clear, this report is unconfirmed. Even if true, it is possible a report like this could lead to a backlash that could result in an opposite course being taken. But from what we have seen in the past year or so, I fear it is true. My gut tells me it’s true. And if so, it is shocking how much the public rhetoric departs from the behind the scenes acts, is it not? It would seem all that rhetoric about mercy is just to advance a certain ideology, and is not to be practiced, especially not with one’s perceived “enemies” – even if those “enemies” have never harmed you in the slightest. What did our Blessed Lord have to say about that?
Again, just what have these men done that is so absolutely forbidden and evil that they must be so utterly, completely crushed?
I have to wonder if the author(s) of all this destruction will ever lament what he has , what they have, done – will he ever admit it has gone way, way too far? Or are they too ideological, too committed to the process, to ever do so?
I do wonder.
On the plus side, there may be many Saints being formed in this crucible of unending suffering. May God have mercy on them, and on their order.
Too bad they prayed too much, fasted too much, contemplated Our Lord too much, and weren’t “Vatican II” enough. Which latter bit means whatever the progressive overlords want it to mean, from one second to the next.
It’s not easy to stay faithful to a constantly moving target.
This is all so Orwellian it is incredible, but I guess I have to say it one more time – if true.
I think we all know it is.
UPDATE: Dear Readers, sorry for the video problem. It played for me – which I don’t understand, it’s like Google somehow “knew” I was the same person who uploaded it, even through the blog software, and it would play for me on the blog. Can you tell me if it plays, now? It was really a bear getting that thing activated, because it’s longer than the 15 minute limit. Again, excuse the picture, although, in some respects, it does seem apropos.
OK, maybe I highlighted the leaders. I have often wondered what it must have been like, as a Catholic, to have lived through the revolution that was inflicted upon the Church between 1962 and, say, 1972. I know there was much other insanity going on at the time, so it was only a signficant part of a larger picture, but, nevertheless, I have wondered why there wasn’t more opposition, more “thus far and no farther.” Well, it seems there is a determined effort to relive those halcyon days (for the progressives) again. It is odd seeing geriatric men thinking their decades old ideas are “hip” and “with it.”
But the broader question is, if there is a revolution, and it is obvious, what are we going to do about it?
I really like this sermon below. Thanks to reader D for sending it. I am sure it comes from Audio Sancto. There is a real zinger in the last minute, quoting, it is said, Paul VI, in response to a question posed to him, as to why he was so severely against the Traditional Latin Mass, and kept pretending it was “abrogated:”
“He would never permit the “Old Mass” to remain, for to allow the TLM a home within the Church, would mean that many of the other changes made by the ‘modern church’ might be brought into question, and it might, even, bring some elements of the recent Council, perhaps, into doubt.”
The priest then concludes by asking whether many of the destructive changes of the past 50 years ought to be brought into question. A year a go, that question could still be fairly asked, now, I think the question is, what will be left even of that rump of Catholicism that existed, say, in 2012.
The sermon——Oh, you don’t know what a battle I had to get this uploaded. I am sorry for the picture but I am out of time for the day. Just disregard the pic and listen. I do not have time to figure out the movie making software, upload umpteen pics, and do all the rest. Suffice it to say, I will not be providing much competition to Video Sancto anytime soon.
This gets me back to a post I mentioned earlier, another post from Rorate, regarding how the Novus Ordo, or new Mass, was developed. I sometimes feel bad picking on the Novus Ordo, because I know there are many people who simply do not have the TLM as an alternative. I pray every day for that to change. But I think the below is so key in describing what a false, fabricated, underdone, poorly thought out a product the Novus Ordo is. It also reveals how the arch-modernist Bugnini used a weak Paul VI and the still incredibly strong unquestioning, almost unthinking obedience to the Holy See to achieve his most nefarious end:
It was Bouyer who had to remedy in extremis a horrible formulation of the new Eucharistic Prayer II, from which Bugnini even wanted to delete the “Sanctus”. [Knowing how truly awful EPII was and is, can imagine what this must have been like, if what we got was an improvement?] And it was he who had to rewrite the text of the new Canon that is read in the Masses today, one evening, on the table of a trattoria in Trastevere, together with the Benedictine liturgist, Bernard Botte, with the tormenting thought that everything had to be consigned the following morning. [And for this, the Roman Canon, 1700 to maybe 1900 years old, was thrown over]But the worst part is when Bouyer recalls the peremptory “the Pope wants it” that Bugnini used to shut up the members of the commission every time they opposed him; for example, in the dismantling of the liturgy for the dead and in purging the “imprecatory” verses from the psalms in the Divine Office.Paul VI, discussing with Bouyer afterwards about these reforms “that the Pope found himself approving, not being satisfied about them any more than I was,”asked him. “Why did you all get mired in this reform?” And Bouyer [replied], “Because Bugnini kept assuring us that you absolutely wanted it.” To which Paul VI [responded]: “But how is this possible? He told me that you were all unanimous in approving it…” [But Bouyer was far from innocent. One of the original agitators demanding they had the right to change the immortal Mass, to "improve" it, he did recoil when the revolution quickly got out of hand. But see how Bugnini skillfully played one side off the other to keep the revolution always moving forward. This is the dominant view of how the liturgical aspect of the revolution - the driving force for the whole revolution - was carried out. Fr. Cekada argues in his book, however, that Paul VI was far from a hapless dupe in this process, and that he got exactly the "reform" he wanted. Not too many have argued that point as strongly as Cekada, who claims to have seen Paul VI's handwritten notes all over developmental copies of the Novus Ordo. The quote from the sermon above seems to indicate Paul VI had a certain motive for the liturgical deform, doesn't it? But who am I to judge?]Bouyer recalls in his “Mémoires” that Paul VI exiled the “despicable” Bugnini to Teheran as Nuncio, but by then the damage had already been done. [Of course, many reports attribute that sacking to the irrefutable evidence found of Bugnini's masonic membership. It did take place in 1975, after Bugnini had been given over a decade to wreckovate the Mass and entire Church, and over 5 years after the grave deficiencies of the Novus Ordo were well known] For the record, Bugnini’s personal secretary, Piero Marini, would then go on to become the director of pontifical ceremonies from 1983 to 2007, and even today there are voices circulating about him as the future Prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship. …