Coup against Franciscans of the Immaculate because “crypto-Lefebvrian, always traditional” December 9, 2013Posted by tantamergo in disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Holy suffering, horror, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Papa, persecution, religious, scandals, secularism, self-serving, shocking, the return.
add a comment
Tancred at Eponymous Flower has posted some recent Italian articles dealing with the Franciscans of the Immaculate, including a response for the Vatican-installed apostolic commissioner, Fidenzio Volpi OFM Cap. In Father Volpi’s own words, the FFIs leadership of the FFIs was sacked for being “crypto-Lefebvrian, always traditional.” Even more details have been revealed about the moves against the order, which has included removal of almost all heads of seminaries, numerous priors, the entire top leadership of the order, and the more or less blanket refusal to allow the TLM or the prayer of the Breviary according to the traditional Liturgy. The few progressive elements in the order have been given all the positions of influence.
The progressive Vaticanist Mario Tosatti had published a few days ago in the daily newspaper La Stampa a letter from a member of the Third Order of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, in which the radical approach of the Commissioner has been criticized (see separate report “Unrestricted War” against the Franciscans of the Immaculate Conception? The Unspeakable “Blemish” ). [You must read this link. It details all the actions against the FFIs. Very uncharitable actions, which seem totally counter to Pope Francis' interest in being always loving and never dogmatic. Some of the former FFI leadership are essentially being held incommunicado under what amounts to house arrest. Incredible.] The interventions affect not only the male religious branch, but also the Third Order, which was completely paralyzed by Father Volpi.
Could this be where the Synod on the Family is headed? December 9, 2013Posted by tantamergo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, family, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Sacraments, sadness, scandals, self-serving.
Most readers will know that Pope Francis has scheduled a special episcopal Synod on the Family and married life next October. Surveys of the world’s bishops are apparently underway to gather views for problems affecting family life and marriage in particular. Some of these surveys have come to light. Some of the survey questions seem to point in a certain direction, that of somehow changing how the Church views issues like whether the divorced and remarried (w/o annulment) can receive the Blessed Sacrament. There has been a new Secretary General for this synod appointed.
Regarding that, this new Secretary General, Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri, made some comments recently on the subject of admitting the divorced and remarried (w/o annulment) to Communion. Dr. Ed Peters, who normally strives to sing the corporate line, took exception to Baldisseri’s comments recently, via Bishop Rene Gracida. What did Baldiserri say? Well, among other things, this:
A new approach needs to be taken with respect to the administration of the sacraments to remarried divorcees. The Church needs to apply Church doctrine taking the circumstances of each specific case into account. This approach does not mean making general conclusions and rules for everyone….
It’s a simple, short statement, but say so much. As Dr. Ed Peters notes, there is no middle ground between admitting someone to the Blessed Sacrament, or not. And let me say, I am sick of hearing that these people are “denied the SacramentS.” No, they are denied ONE Sacrament, the Most Blessed Sacrament. They can go to Confession. They can receive Baptism.
But irrespective, what this “new approach” would seem to point to is just admitting these divorced and bigamist Catholics to receive. This is a blatant violation of Christ’s own condemnation of people who divorce and remarry, because the Church does not recognize – and nor did Christ – divorce as a severance of marriage. These people are adulterers, according to Our Blessed Lord. Calling the Church’s belief regarding the sinfulness of divorce and remarriage (adultery) a “discipline,” as Peters does, is a profound disservice. If this is not a Doctrine, straight from our Lord’s lips and 2000 years old, nothing is. We may as well close us shop.
The way I see the progressives trying to nuance this is with some claptrap about not changing “the general conclusions and rules for everyone,” but admitting the divorced and remarried “on a case by case basis.” This is laughable, we all know what will happen, the “exception,” like Extraordinary Ministers of Communion or Latin in the Mass, will become the certain, unalterable rule in about 5 seconds. It will make a mockery of the Church’s moral law.
As Peters does note, there seems a strong whiff of antnomianism (which says the Church has no moral law, “faith alone” is all that matters) about all this. I think we see in this where the progressive, primarily European elements want to take this Synod. It is very disconcerting that the Secretary General seems to be on board with their ideas. I pray the more faithful bishops will be able to derail this monstrosity. If passed, it will mark only the beginning of the progressive/modernist attempts to completely deconstruct the Church’s moral law.
“The government reserves a special hatred for the family……..” December 9, 2013Posted by tantamergo in Basics, Christendom, episcopate, error, family, foolishness, General Catholic, persecution, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society.
I stumbled across the following at a secular site but I thought it eminently worth sharing. Whether this extremely apparent trend is part of the great apostasy and persecution which will occur prior to the parousia, or whether it is just a sign of how sick our culture has become, it is a reality nevertheless.
One caveat to the below – only left-wing, enlightenment-informed, “liberty-oriented” governments of the type that came out of the English, American and French revolutions (that is, the near-universal form of national government today) are fundamentally oriented towards attacking the family, because the enlightened, “liberal” government can ultimately brook no competition. While the US form of enlightenment atheist government is more conservative than most, and has taken longer to manifest the more negative tendencies of all “liberal” governments, it is still, irreversibly, of the same mold. This is not a popular statement to make, but observing the trends in the US in comparison to many other, especially European, nations, the correlation seems clear. The US is on the same path, simply 30-60 years behind its European contemporaries:
The long-term goal of the government’s social policies are to flatten society out into one atomized mass. There will be only the state and the individual, and the individual will have no protection, no mediating institutions, between itself and the state.
Antipathy towards a wide variety of actors–the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, “special interests” of all types, political parties, private universities–can all be understood in light of this fact. [And all the examples listed (save for the generic special interests) are currently the target of ongoing campaigns of persecution and intimidation by the "liberal" government and its authoritarian allies in the culture, the entire lot of which are left wing to different degrees.]
The government reserves special hatred for the family, because the family is older than the state and, unless steps are taken, will outlast it. It gives the individual a locus of attention besides the state, and therefore, must be crushed. The ongoing destruction of the concepts of both marriage and family by the left is intended to remove permanently the transcendent family from the political sphere, leaving only mere biological relationships, which are not enough to inspire resistance to the state.
I think that’s a very astute comment, with the corollary that we are talking about governments steeped in the rhetoric and thinking of the endarkenment, the latter movement founded almost entirely on the premise of removing the influence of the Catholic Church upon society.
It is amazing how illiberal and oppressive our supposedly “free” societies are. Yes, we may have the right to vote and elect our leaders (to the extent the elections are really free and fair, a very open question), but those leaders then have a power over our lives that a medieval “tyrannical” king would have found shocking, even repulsive.
It is only in the modern “liberal” society that government has arrogated to itself the right to delve deeply into the family, to assign “rights” and benefits, pick winners and losers, which have totally upended familial life in this country and many others. From declaring marriage something that can be dissolved at the whim of one partner, to massively subsidizing and encouraging forms of birth control to limit family size, to redefining the very meaning of marriage, the ostensibly “liberal” state has waged a non-stop and open war on the family since its inception. I should note here that American divorce laws, shortly after the Republic formed, were a scandal to many European countries that had not yet embraced “liberty.” They were incredibly liberal even then, over 200 years ago. So was the atheist/agnostic orientation of the US government, the first openly agnostic government in the West in around 1000 years. This latter factor had huge implications for family life.
Someone asked me once what could possibly replace the liberal “democratic” nation state. I really don’t know. But I also don’t think we will ever arrive at a solution so long as we continue to pretend that the United States as originally conceived, or as it is now, is the bestest friend the Church has ever had. I think we need to seriously examine whether liberal democracy is conducive to the practice of the Faith, the virtuous ordering of the family life and human person, and the orientation of the entire culture towards the primary goal, the salvation of souls.
I believe it is not. I believe more and more that this nation, and so many founded in its image and likeness, is inherently hostile towards the Christian religion and the Catholic Faith in particular. The Catholic Faith is a totality that must exist and if not predominate, at least profoundly influence, all sectors of a society – political, economic, cultural, social, and of course religious. But the liberal state says NO, the Church must confine Herself to religious matters only, otherwise She is an interloper in affairs not Her own and will be punished. The fact that so many Catholics, including our leadership, in essence accept the liberal state’s claims is one of the prime sources for the schizophrenia so rampant in the Church today.
I think as time goes forward, and the state, particular the US, becomes more and more openly hostile to the Faith, more people will begin to recognize the root problem. It’s not violations of the 1st Amendment or liberal demonrat over-reach, it is part and parcel of the ideals upon which this nation were founded. It might be possible to organize a democratic republic around the right practice of the Faith. But this one is not it.
Do fewer men assist at Mass because the Mass is so feminized? December 9, 2013Posted by tantamergo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the return.
I had written a long post around this picture, but WordPress ate it. In a nutshell, there is a great deal of evidence that the Novus Ordo Mass is far more appealing to feminine perspectives than masculine ones. There are numerous reasons for this, but the changes were very intentional and their impact was not unforeseen. Men used to be the predominate leaders in the Church both clergy and lay, but now the lay side is dominated by women. Daily and Sunday Mass attendance often sees huge imbalances between men and women.
Are men turned off by the Novus Ordo, or is men’s lack of involvement in the Church due more to cultural factors, or bad catechesis? I would say yes, and I feel there is clear evidence (lost in my original attempt to post) that the Novus Ordo – in and of itself, absent the many permitted abuses like girl altar servers – is much less masculine in its orientation, prayers, the sense it conveys, etc.
Men have a certain inherit desire to be both leaders and to sacrifice for a greater cause. But we are also fallen, and seek to escape our responsibilities as leaders of Church and family and to enjoy ease and comfort. The TLM appeals to men’s higher virtues more than the NO does. My own experience shows that the sexual imbalance so often seen at NO Masses is greatly reduced at TLMs. The ratio of attendance is much nearer 50-50 than the 75-25 or 60-40 seen in many new Masses.
The Mass is the primary mode of catechesis in the Church, and I don’t mean the sermon. Yes, the prayers are very important, and the TLM prayers focus so much more on sacrifice, our need for conversion, propitiation, etc, that the sacrificial nature is much more strongly highlighted. But it is even more in the unspoken aspects of the Mass, the postures, blessings, signs of the cross, orientation, etc., that a great deal is conveyed. This is a Sacrifice. It is a huge mystery. These things appeal to men. The TLM is overtly masculine. The NO, as outlined in the Missal, is much less so. The NO as most men experience it, with numerous abuses and indults that undermine even the character of the Novus Ordo as promulgated, is profoundly feminized.
Sorry I lost the original post! I spent a fair amount of time on it!
Bishop Gracida: “Chaos looms on the horizon if episcopal conferences are given doctrinal power” December 5, 2013Posted by tantamergo in abdication of duty, Basics, disconcerting, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, scandals, secularism, shocking, the return.
In the second of my posts examining the recent Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Guadium, I will look at another aspect where Pope Francis appears to be taking a rather radical turn away from the policies of even his immediate predecessors (let alone his distant ones) – so called “collegiality.” I will use a recent column by Sandro Magister as a starting point to introduce some of my own thoughts. The only thought Bishop Gracida had on this matter is what I included in the lede. Magister (I add comments, emphasis in original):
In the voluminous apostolic exhortation “Evangelii Gaudium” made public one week ago, Pope Francis has made it known that he wants to distinguish himself on at least two points from the popes who preceded him.
The first of these points is also the one that has had the greatest impact in the media. And it concerns both the exercise of the primacy of the pope and the powers of the episcopal conferences…….
1. ON THE PAPACY AND THE NATIONAL CHURCHES
On the role of the pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio credits John Paul II with having paved the way to a new form of the exercise of primacy. But he laments that “we have made little progress in this regard” and promises that he intends to proceed with greater vigor toward a form of papacy “more faithful to the meaning which Jesus Christ wished to give it and to the present needs of evangelization.” [This statement by Pope Francis is a strong - one might even say searing - indictment of his hundreds of predecessors. He is claiming they did not act with the Will of Christ in creating the papal-centric mode of governing the Church, something many early Church Fathers I think would find rather surprising.]
But more than on the role of the pope – where Francis remains vague and has so far operated by making most decisions himself – it is on the powers of the episcopal conferences that “Evangelii Gaudium” heralds a major transition.
The pope writes in paragraph 32 of the document:
“The Second Vatican Council stated that, like the ancient patriarchal Churches, episcopal conferences are in a position ‘to contribute in many and fruitful ways to the concrete realization of the collegial spirit.’ [That's odd, because the "ancient patriarchal churches" were made up of individual sees headed by individual bishops. Dozens or hundreds of bishops did not band together into pseudo-democratic highly bureaucratic organizations founded more on structures of modern government than any type of Church governance.] Yet this desire has not been fully realized, since a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated. Excessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach.” [Interesting. Your two immediate predecessors, Holiness, thought rather differently on the matter, as we will see below.]
In a footnote, Francis refers to a 1998 motu proprio of John Paul II, concerning precisely “the theological and juridical nature of the episcopal conferences”:
But if one reads that document, one discovers that it attributes to the national episcopal conferences a function that is exclusively practical, cooperative, of a simple intermediate auxiliary body between the college of all the world’s bishops together with the pope on the one hand – the only “collegiality” declared to have a theological foundation – and the individual bishop with authority over his diocese on the other. [And that's true. For 40 years, orthodox Catholics have been trying to explain the strange role played by episcopal conferences in just those terms, as being entirely unsupported by Tradition and Doctrine and being, essentially, novelties of a practical nature stood up by the Council. Heretofore, there has been absolutely NO doctrinal foundation for giving conferences run almost entirely by progressive bureaucrats (many of whom have spent time at Planned Barrenhood and other far left NGOs) any role in Doctrine. For reasons why, look to Blessed Pope John Paul II's words below]
Above all, the motu proprio “Apostolos Suos” strongly limits that “authentic doctrinal authority” which Pope Francis says he wants to grant to the episcopal conferences. It prescribes that if doctrinal declarations really need to be issued, this must be done with unanimous approval and in communion with the pope and the whole Church, or at least “by a substantial majority” after review and authorization by the Holy See. [I wish it did not have that caveat. In practice, the conferences have served often as bullies to prevent orthodox prelates from speaking out or taking action. But, in their defense, they have also checked a few of the excesses of progressive bishops.]
One danger warned against in the motu proprio “Apostolos Suos” is that the episcopal conferences might release doctrinal declarations in contrast with each other and with the universal magisterium of the Church. [Gee, ya think?!? Anyone ever hear of the "Winnipeg Statement," which rejected constant Church Dogma on contraception? Individual conferences somehow get to pretend to define Doctrine (and I think their acts will never go beyond that, pretensions unsupported by the preconciliar Magisterium) and unleash potential doctrinal chaos.]
Another risk that it intends to prevent is the creation of separation and antagonism between individual national Churches and Rome, as happened in the past in France with “Gallicanism” and as takes place among the Orthodox with some of the autocephalous national Churches. [Precisely. As I said in a post some time ago, the Orthodox are more at war with themselves than with anyone else. They have been trying to arrange a "pan-Orthodox" council for nearly 1000 years, and are no closer to having one today than they were 200 years ago, largely due to issues of national precedence and which national Church would get to declare to itself the "primacy."]
That motu proprio bears the signature of John Paul II, but it owes its framework to the one who was his highly trusted prefect of doctrine, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
And Ratzinger – as was known – had long been very critical of the superpowers that some episcopal conferences had attributed to themselves, especially in certain countries, including his native Germany.
In his bombshell interview of 1985, published with the title “The Ratzinger Report,” he had resolutely opposed the idea that the Catholic Church should become “a kind of federation of national Churches.”
Instead of a “decisive new emphasis on the role of the bishops” as desired by Vatican Council II, the national episcopal conferences – he accused – have “smothered” the bishops with their weighty bureaucratic structures. [Well.......that's because they have. If you want to know why Nancy Pelosi gets to commit sacrilege daily receiving the Blessed Sacrament, look no further than the USCCB.]
“It seems wonderful always to decide together,” but “the truth cannot be created through ballots,” both because “the group spirit and perhaps even the wish for a quiet, peaceful life or conformism lead the majority to accept the positions of active minorities bent upon pursuing clear goals” and because “the search for agreement between the different tendencies and the effort at mediation often yield flattened documents in which decisive positions (where they might be necessary) are weakened.” [Great points. Even more, there is a tendency in such democratic and bureaucratic organizations to be completely dominated by worldly concerns, to seek to always placate and mollify the demands of the world (esp. the press), and to lose sight of the supernatural. Any one of which is a profound reason NOT to give them any supposed doctrinal authority, which I still think would be illusory, at best. JPII said in Apostolos Suos that national conferences could not decide Doctrine on a plane with the Holy See because they weren't constituted by God to do so! They don't have the charism of infallibility! This will lead to unprecedented chaos and, very shortly, disaster.]
John Paul II and Benedict XVI after him judged the average quality of the world’s bishops and of most episcopal conferences to be modest. [Boy, they were being generous! I would judge them as......something else!] And they acted accordingly. Making themselves the leader and model and in some cases – as in Italy – resolutely intervening to change the leadership and marching orders.
With Francis, the episcopal conferences could instead see a recognition of greater autonomy. With the foreseeable repercussions exemplified recently by Germany, where prominent bishops and cardinals have been clashing publicly over the most varied questions, from the criteria of diocesan administration to communion for the divorced and remarried, in this latter case anticipating and forcing solutions on which the double synod of bishops of 2014 and 2015 has been called to debate and decide.
The modernists, of course, love the idea of collegiality, the better to introduce still more chaos and confusion into the Doctrine of the Faith. Modernists are seeking a path to continue their revolution with a seal of episcopal doctrinal approbation. That is why they have been pushing for this collegiality for over a century. It has always been one of their prime goals to “democratize” the Church, because they know with people being as fallen and tending towards sin as they are, the majority will happily revel in sin and error and call it virtue and truth. Such would confirm the modernists in their positions of wealth and authority for decades to come, which is what I think much of this comes down to. Power. The Council unleashed a revolution that was all about grabbing power for what had before that time been a small, disaffected, and rightly persecuted clique.
Look, the matter is simple. Individual bishops, and even groups of bishops in conference, have NO special charism to define doctrine. They do not have the special protection of the Holy Spirit afforded the Pope when making definitions of a dogmatic nature. They can err with wild abandon. Almost ALL the major heresies came from bishops!
Lord, please deliver us from collegiality! Pray and fast like mad for the Pope, he hasn’t DONE anything yet, he can still change his mind! We have almost a year! Storm Heaven!
Some moving quotes from Martin Mosebach’s The Heresy of Formlessness December 5, 2013Posted by tantamergo in Basics, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the return.
I’ve been reading Martin Mosebach’s The Heresy of Formlessness. The Ignatius Press version, from which Fr. Fessio personally removed some of the more provocative bits. He didn’t want it to be “too controversial.” Whatever. There is still plenty of gold. I quote some random bits below, particularly pithy or effective quotes that I thought made important points. I hope you enjoy them. The book is a must read, even in its somewhat truncated and neutered Ignatius version. I do add some comments.
……the reformers of the Mass, preoccupied with their notion of early Christianity, were intent only on impoverishing and curtailing; they were actually pursuing a late Catholic puritanism rather than drawing on the wealth of forms of worship of the first millenium. [Indeed, if the reformers were so set on slavishly returning to early Christian practice, why aren't women and men segregated at the Mass, as they were for the first several hundred years of Church history? Why don't we have the severe penances and public Confession? For that matter, why is the Mass not in Latin? The Mass was never offered in Old English or one of the hundreds of Germanic languages. In point of fact, the "return to early Church practice" was simply an excuse to impose the revolution.]
…..a low Mass in the traditional Rite, read silently in a garage, is more solemn than the biggest Novus Ordo church-concert with spiritual trimmings…….if there is ever to be significant religious art again, this art will come from the “old” Liturgy, which expresses the sacred. [The first part might be debatable. I tend to agree, but it's an arguable point. I don't think any argument can be made against the latter.]
The Mass is not some basic core activity to which various decorations can be added [or taken away] , according to opportunity, in order to height the participant’s awareness. The rites “contain nothing unnecessary or superfluous.” [The Council of Trent solemnly declared that the Mass contained nothing unnecessary. But Vatican II called for the removal of pointless accretions and "useless repetitions.] Who would dare to pretend to find “unnecessary or superfluous things in a great fresco or a great poem?……..At all times there have been people who have made themselves ridiculous by trying to eliminate the “mistakes” in masterpieces, applying their half-baked scholarship to Michelangelo’s frescos and Shakespeare’s tragedies. Great works have a soul: we can feel it, alive and radiant, even where its body has been damaged.
The Liturgy must be regarded with at least as much respect as a profane masterpiece of this kind. Respect opens our eyes. Often enough, even in the case of a profane work of art, if we study conscientiously and ponder the detail, especially the apparently superfluous detail, we find that the offending element comes unexpectedly to life; in the end it sometimes happens that we come to see it as a special quality of the work. This is always the case of the rites of the Sacred Liturgy. There is nothing in them that, given intensive contemplation, does not show itself to be absolutely saturated with spiritual power. [I agree wholeheartedly, and would add, that those older folks who tell us how very, very glad they were when the Novus Ordo was put in place and they finally got rid of that terrible old Latin Mass never understood the Mass. They don't understand it now. Well prior to the Council, a sense had permeated many in the Church that the Mass was old fashioned and out of date. They didn't understand what was going on. This is a damning indictment of the priests and bishops of the pre-conciliar era, that so many people apparently never came to appreciate the Mass in all its glory. But then again, that bad catechesis and priestly formation was at least in part a result of the growing modernist influence in the Catholic seminary and university, thoroughly laced with a good deal of hostility towards the Mass. In the end, the modernists are at least partly responsible for everything, although there was a good deal of just plain ol' apathy around, too, I think.]
The [preconciliar] liturgy became a rich image with a welter of tiny details, greater than the sum of its parts; thus it must be contemplated and can never be entirely understood. [Yes! And in order to make the Mass "understandable," it had to be so dumbed down and stripped of content that it became a banality.]
Quote 5, on why the Consecration should take place “secretly,” obscured by the priest, or, in the Byzantine Liturgies, behind the ikonostasis:
The hermetic aspect, the aspect of rapture, that surrounds the Consecration in the “old” Latin Liturgy represents nothing other than the Holy Sepulcher, shut with a stone, in which the God-man awoke from death. This even had the whole cosmos for a witness, but no living man saw it. Something that, in the Liturgy, seems to be a later accretion, an accompaniment found in Byzantine basilicas and Gothic cathedrals, thus proves to be intimately connected with the core of salvation history. Christian liturgy is a withing beneath the Cross and outside the grave. This is another image the liturgical reform has tried to erase. [Why? Why can there be no mystery in the Mass? Why must everything be conducted like a crass commercial display? In fact, the hiding of the Consecration is about as ancient a liturgical act as one can find. Ever since the Christians built churches, the Consecration was especially set apart. But modernists didn't like that, because the vast majority of them DON'T BELIEVE IN THE REAL PRESENCE. To even hint at the Real Presence is hateful to them.]
That’s enough for one day. If you like, maybe some more, later.
If the liturgical reform failed totally, is it time to revisit Sacrosanctum Concilium? December 4, 2013Posted by tantamergo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, sadness, scandals, secularism.
I saw a post at Louis Verricchio’s blog that discusses the more radical aspects of Sacrosanctum Concilium. For those that don’t know, Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) is the Vatican II document on the reform of the Sacred Liturgy. It was the first document promulgated at Vatican II, and set the tone for the rest with its either/or or “declaration followed by obfuscation” format. While Verricchio raised a number of valid concerns in making his point (which is that while many conservative Catholics try to point to SC as a “conservative” document of VII, there are many problematic statements in it that have been used to make very destructive changes to the Mass), I was struck by how much the reform of – or revolution against – the Liturgy has failed according to the goals set out in SC itself.
The entire reform of the Liturgy proposed at Vatican II was sold as being one that would dramatically improve the practice of the Faith in the lives of all the faithful. It was also supposed to make the Liturgy irresistibly attractive to protestants and those in other schismatic/heretical sects. In short, the “reform” was sold as being the main harbinger of that great new springtime that was so hoped for back in the days of the Council. This is apparent from the opening paragraph of SC, which states:
1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.
While the reform (or destruction, according to many experts) of the Roman Rite was supposed to instill “increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful,” what we have seen, from any metric one could care to choose, is the exact opposite! We have seen a deeper, faster and more universal collapse in the practice of the Faith – especially in Mass attendance! – than in ANY other period in the entire history of the Church!
Whatever changes were made to the Mass, which were intended to “adapt it more suitably to the needs of our own times,” (and what hubris in THAT statement!), that adaptation has apparently failed spectacularly. Not only has Mass attendance collapsed, but so has participation in almost all other aspects of the life of the Faith, from Confession to Adoration (which, in many places, is still actively debased as “medieval superstition”) to material support for the Church to personal prayer life to…….I could go on and on, but they have all fallen precipitously.
Furthermore, the reformed Liturgy has failed to attain the union it set out to achieve, either through attracting more converts or – and this was incredibly dubious from the start – resulting in a single, universal “mass” used by mainline protestant sects and the Church. In fact, this dream was impossible from the start, because only the Lutherans and Anglicans had retained enough semblance of the Mass to make such a union possible. But so very, very much was lost in the futile attempt. Things have gotten so bad, now, that at ecumenical confabs with orthodox Lutherans and Catholics present, the Lutherans are frequently scandalized by the impious handling of the Blessed Sacrament and casual disregard for the sacred! If anything, the Novus Ordo has turned off more of the separated sects than it has attracted!
Again, I could keep going on and on, showing how each individual aim of the reform of the Liturgy, as outlined in Sacrosanctum Concilium, has apparently failed, and massively. I could quote statistic after statistic showing the collapse in the practice of the Faith in this country and around the world.
But instead of beating this dead horse, I’ll simply ask a question – if the reform has so manifestly failed in ALL its stated objectives, perhaps it is time to end the experiment and return to the timeless Liturgy of the Church? Or, I’ll ask another way – why do converts make up a hugely disproportionate number of those who find their way to the Traditional Latin Mass?
Could it be the Mass the starry-eyed reformers were looking for, dreaming of a single Liturgy to unite all the “separated brethren,” is the one they had all along?
Defend Our Lady’s Honor from horrific lesbian blasphemy! December 4, 2013Posted by tantamergo in asshatery, Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, Our Lady, persecution, pr stunts, scandals, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
A radical homosexualist play on the Passion of Our Most Blessed Lord Jesus Christ is coming to Dallas. Called “The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told,” this nightmare of blasphemy and indecency features the Blessed Virgin as a lesbian and a full cohort of other homosexual characters in a play that mocks and belittles Christian belief.
A protest is being organized for Sunday, December 8 (The Feast of the Immaculate Conception) outside the Kalita Humpries Theater on tony Turtle Creek Blvd. All details below. The vigil starts at 1pm and goes to 2p. This will be a peaceful prayer vigil featuring the Rosary and other Marian devotions.
DATE: Sunday, Dec. 8, 2013
TIME: 1:00PM – 2:30PM
PLACE: Kalita Humphreys Theater, 3636 Turtle Creek Blvd Dallas, TX 75219 (Meet at intersection of Turtle Creek Road and Lemmon Ave. East)
BRING FRIENDS. BRING FAMILY. BRING A BUS!
You may call America Needs Fatima’s member services with
any questions: 888-317-5571.
I will point out, this vigil is being organized by Tradition, Family, and Property/America Needs Fatima. But don’t let that stop you from showing up, if you have a problem with that group. This is about defending the honor of Our Blessed Mother. If we want the culture to change, we’re going to have to step up and make it change. At the very least, I think Our Lady’s immaculate virtue demands redress of this assault.
One a final note, these boneheads can’t even get basic theology right, the play – as so often happens in popular culture – confuses the Incarnation and Birth of Christ with the Immaculate Conception of Our Blessed Mother.
How about it, Mater Dei-ers? Shouldn’t we get a group together and go over after Mass?
The most anti-Catholic president in US history December 3, 2013Posted by tantamergo in abdication of duty, Abortion, Basics, contraception, disaster, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
Barack Hussein Obama, our first communist-raised president, has displayed an antipathy towards the Church that is just startling throughout his administration. Two recent episodes just highlight this very disdainful attitude towards the Church. The first is the closure of the US Embassy at the Vatican, allegedly on security grounds. This, according to former US Ambassador to the Vatican James Nicholson, was driven equally by Obama’s disregard for the Church, and the increasingly anti-Christian views of the deeply embedded – and dominant – progressive elements in the State Department:
“It’s another manifestation of the antipathy of this administration both to Catholics and to the Vatican – and to Christians in the Middle East. This is a key post for intermediation in so many sovereignties but particularly in the Middle East. This is anything but a good time to diminish the stature of this post. To diminish the stature of this post is to diminish its influence.
“The State Department has for a long time wanted to do this. It came up when I was an ambassador. I explained the folly of this and it went away. But now they seem determined to do this. The perception is [with this action] that the United States is showing a lack of appreciation for the relevance of its diplomatic partner in the Vatican.”
But coupled with this latent Church bias in the State Department is the Obama administration’s own internal biases against the Church. These biases are most evident in Obama’s incredibly strident support for abortion and the forced dissemination of contraceptives around the world, all at US taxpayer expense. This ties in the other repressive, anti-Catholic action taken by the Obama administration I wanted to mention – the HHS Mandate. In an extremely revealing article at the Washington Examiner, Timothy Carney reveals that the HHS contraceptive mandate is largely a kick-back to huge drug companies like Merck and Phizer for their massive lobbying efforts in favor of Obamacare:
The audacity and mendacity with which the Obama administration defends its illegal contraception mandate is standard fare for politics. What’s distinctively Obamian in this fight is the insidious corporatism underlying it all.
Look at the contraception mandate from almost any angle, and you see the corporatism. Sometimes it’s on the surface, and sometimes it’s implicit in the arguments.
The contraception mandate is nakedly a huge subsidy to the industry that most firmly supported Obamacare: the drugmakers.
The drug industry has spent more on lobbying under Obama than any other industry. Top lobbyists at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) in 2009 met behind closed doors with the White House and Senate Democrats, promising political support for Democrats in exchange for friendly provisions in Obamacare.
Top Obama bundler Sally Susman oversees the lobbying shop at drug giant Pfizer, which sells $7.6 million a year in name-brand birth control pills, while also selling contraceptive injections and generic drugs. Pfizer’s CEO during the Obamacare debate was Obama donor Jeffrey Kindler. In a corporate filing, the company justified his salary increase by pointing to his Obamacare lobbying.
Obama’s contraception mandate requires all employer-sponsored health care plans to cover 100 percent of the cost of all FDA-approved contraception. [And this, of course, includes the coverage offered by the Catholic Church to its myriad employees and agencies in this country] That gives customers incentives to choose Pfizer’s name-brand pills, because the entire cost is passed onto employers and thus onto customers and colleagues. And of course, this means more profit for Pfizer.
Hey, Obama wants his “signature health care law” passed, no matter what. If a few million Catholic consciences have to get hurt in the process, that’s a small price to pay for the advance of socialism, right?
I would also be remiss if I did not mention Obama’s reflexive, almost obeisant support for the pro-abort lobby, which is also the pro-contracept lobby. Tie all these things together, and we have the most anti-Catholic president in US history, and even the most anti-Catholic major politician in about a century. All is done stealthily, under the cover of corporatist socialist wealth transfer schemes and concerns over alleged security failings – concerns which came far too late for several Americans in Benghazi in 2011. Which concerns are just ludicrous political cover for an anti-Catholic bias, anyway – can you imagine the US closing its embassy in Switzerland and relocating it to Germany? It would never happen. The Swiss (or whomever) are “valued partners in X, Y, and Z.” There would never be even an intimation of doing so. But when it comes to the Church and the sovereign Vatican City state, that’s entirely different. Who cares about the Vatican, anyway?
That latent anti-Catholicism built into the fabric of this protestant-founded nation is never very far from the surface.
One of the biggest crises afflicting the culture, and the Church, is the utter collapse of male responsibility and leadership. Too often, men simply fail to perform the duties their vocations require. In fact, it seems as each generation comes around, this problem only grows worse and worse. We all know the scandal that almost half of all babies born in the United States are born to women without husbands. This is simply one example of the crisis. There are myriad more.
Of course, none of this is to say that men are solely responsible - women have certainly, in a collective sense, done a tremendous amount to help destroy the family as an institution, to erode male leadership, to attack the traditional family model, etc. But even with that being the case, it is STILL men’s duty to lead, to overcome all that, and keep sacrificing for the greater good. By and large, men have just stopped doing so.
I don’t want to turn this into a diatribe against men – part of the reason for my railing is simply awareness of my own inadequacies – but I do it to highlight a very valuable resource that was forwarded me by occasional reader TB, who sent me Fr. Chad Ripperger’s paper on Parental Roles and Responsibilities. This is a great piece for all parents, but especially fathers. Some excerpts highlighted by TB:
“Whenever a father fails to pray, suffer and do good works in order to merit graces for his wife and family, he fails in the most important task of husband and father. …When a father sees a moral or spiritual fault in his wife or child, he fails to provide for them if he merely temporarily admonishes them. Rather, he must spiritually do what he can to merit grace as well as direct his children and wife through his commands to lead them to virtue. (You can see the priesthood of the father in this respect.)
The father, by virtue of the office of fatherhood, has rights over his wife and children, and so when the wife and children submit to the father, they enjoy the fruits of those rights, i.e. spiritual providence and protection. The wife should not view her subjection to her husband as a loss of freedom or control, but as a form of protection and providence, i.e. by means to her own holiness and spiritual safety.” [This is a great and important point. We all receive great graces from faithfully submitting to those in authority over us, painful as it may be at times. This fact reveals a fundamental problem with our current cultural model of liberty and the exultation of the individual, which constantly carps against authority and tries (successfully) to subvert it. I'm sure this statement will be unpopular with some, however, but we must remember that the father was instituted by God as not just the head of the family, but a figurative priest in charge of the domestic flock. This is a deadly serious responsibility. ]
“The merits of a father to ward off the demonic are more powerful by virtue of his office as husband than of his wife’s. Since the demons must respect the order of authority, the father enters more efficaciously into the spiritual warfare with the demonic since ultimately they must submit to the order of authority established by God.”
“He (father) must protect his authority in order to protect his wife and it is here that we can see the massive failure that has led to our feminized culture. The collapse of fatherhood is NOT due to women, it is due to men. Men have not been men, women have been allowed to take positions God never intended them. Men are responsible for the feminist movement” [I would say, yes, this is true. But it is the culture of "enlightenment" with corrosive rhetoric of unlimited individual rights (without concomitant duties) that undergirds men's failure to perform their duties. In short, enlightenment "liberal" thinking eventually became so pervasive that answers to feminist demands were lacking and men eventually retreated from their roles as natural leaders of families instituted by God. I think there is plenty of blame to go around for this most invasive development.]
“Men lose their authority by (a) not observing their proper authority of the wife over the children as mother; (b) by not consulting her when prudence dictates and (c) not treating her with the dignity that is due her, either as a human or according her to office as wife. …Men often experience a certain rebellion from their wives because of mistreatment or a lack of legitimate concern for their wives.” He lists examples of when it’s prudent to consult the wife on Page 10.
“If the husband without good reason contravenes the mother’s governance of her children, he weakens his own governance.” (It’s crucial to be on the same page in regards to raising children.)
“In respect to the office of wife…when the wife takes care of the home and makes the meals, in justice the husband owes her gratitude and not ridicule or disrespect. Each time he fails to act in a manner that shows gratitude, he demeans the office of wife and thereby, disrespects the office which God himself has established; in a phrase, he sins.”
“If the husband is incapable in fulfilling some aspect of the leadership of the home, the wife may take over if necessary. (Father says it must be a grave and serious matter for the wife to assume authority.)
“If he fails in his responsibility, he will pay a greater price than his wife. In this respect, it is easier for a woman to save her soul than a man, because original sin has left men with a wound of not wanting to take responsibility, at time, for his family because the task is arduous. (It’s much easier to spend the weekends on the lay-z-boy watching football then tending to the spiritual and temporal needs of one’s family.)
And what we see today is a vicious circle of men checking out, seeking escape in video games, TV, “man-caves,” drugs, illicit sex, and many other avenues. This feeds a vicious circle, where the man gives up his duties and responsibilities, which many times women then take up, which further alienates the man, leading to further withdrawal, followed by more feminine involvement, etc, until we have about half the men out there running around acting like rutting bucks, very happy to enjoy female pleasure (which they are all too willing to give away), while taking no responsibility for the children that result. Thus, the collapse of the family, the collapse of morality, the advance of decadence and perversion, and eventually – if this continues, civilizational collapse.
Your cheery thought for the day.