jump to navigation

Your Annual Reminder Not to Give a Dime to CCHD or CRS November 22, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
15 comments

A nice video from Taylor Marshall below, interviewing the long-laboring Michael Hitchborn of the Lepanto Institute, summarizing all the ongoing scandals with the US bishop’s so-called Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), which also ties in with Catholic Relief Services (CRS).  Of course, if you’ve been reading this blog for a few years, you know I’ve covered the scandals and moral atrocities of both organizations repeatedly, and have constantly advised readers not to give to either organization.  However, I go much further than that, and advise that faithful Catholics do all they can to “hide” their money from the bishops in every respect – meaning trying to be very careful about what you donate to your parish, because parishes are taxed (“assessed”) by the dioceses, and the dioceses are taxed by the USCCB, to the extent that the Archdiocese of Philadelphia was forced to kick up a quarter of a million dollars to the USCCB in one recent fiscal year alone.  All charitable organs of the USCCB and its affiliates are, at the very least, extremely dependent on government money, and as such, they drift ever leftwards in their cultural and moral outlook as time goes by, as the Left is seen at being more generous with the taxpayers dollars, and because the large majority of the bureaucrats who staff the various organs of the USCCB are leftists themselves (leaving aside the large and, under Francis, growing number of bishops who are also socially, morally, and religiously left-leaning).

In the 2nd video below, at about 18 minutes in, Michelle Malkin notes the connection between the US “episcopate’s” leftward drift (I put episcopate in quotes, because the vast majority of actions taken by the USCCB and its many subsidiary organizations are actually taken by lay staffers, with minimal if any actual episcopal oversight) and its growing dependence on government money.  Of course, the direction in which Francis is taking the Church is only accelerating this trend.

This is only part of the reason why (other reasons – rampant sodomy in their ranks that bishops refuse to police, the extremely dubious nature of national episcopal conferences with regard to the Tradition/Doctrine of the Faith, the deleterious effects of national conferences on right moral and doctrinal government by local bishops, mass-scale embezzlement and financial abuse, etc., etc.) I have long advised souls to do all they can to donate to their local Catholic parishes in ways that prevent their money from being assessed by the bishops and used for immoral purposes.  Once souls become aware of the constant, ongoing, and massive scale of the abuses of virtually all dioceses and the national episcopal conferences, it is arguable that they have a moral duty to do just what I am recommending.  That being said, diverting money to areas of parish finances that are not assessed is not easy, and bishops will react violently if lay Catholics do things like starting up lay-administered funds with which they pay for various parish needs.  The bishops really, really, REALLY do not like that, because  they know if the laity were to ever, en masse, start to make serious efforts to shield their money from assessment, the party would be over, and that right quick, in spite of the billions flowing into their coffers from the US taxpayer.

Fortunately, there do remain certain means to divert funds from sources that will be assessed by diocese.  Building funds are often a convenient location, that if assessed, are assessed at a much lower rate than the general parish income.  Saving money and making direct purchases for items such as objects of art, large capital equipment expenses, etc., are another means.  You might speak with your good, traditional pastor about other means of support.  If these steps are taken, they must be done individually, and not in an organized fashion.  Organization by lay people to fund their parish in ways that deny the dioceses ability to assess that money will bring down the wrath of iniquitous men upon you.  This has been tried, more than once, and the response by the bishops was always severe.

Cuck-Fil-A Chooses Mammon Over God November 19, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, paganism, Revolution, sadness, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
comments closed

Not entirely surprising, but still disappointing.  The news has been all over, that popular but (stupidly) controversial restaurant chain Chick-Fil-A will stop supporting Christian charities, as it always has in the past, and now start supporting different, not explicitly Christian, if not avowedly leftist charitable organizations. They are doing this, of their own admission, in order to try to appeal to leftists generally, and specifically to get the rabid, deranged, amoral, but almost always successful sodomite lobby off their backs. I don’t think this will help Chick-Fil-A in its goal to expand into much more liberal areas of the US, and, especially, to Canada and overseas, unless they completely and totally become an active enemy of Christianity and avowedly take up a radical leftist agenda. Which, they may well do.  I, for one, am willing to bet that their policy of being closed on Sunday will be gone before the end of 2020.

Not many people may know that Chick-Fil-A attempted to expand into England over the summer, and had to shut down their restaurant there after only 5 weeks due to heavy protests and low sales.  Recent expansions into Toronto, Ontario have been met by very heavy protests, which I can’t show you, because they are unbelievably disgusting and immoral.

So, self-avowed Christian and Chick-Fil-A chairman Dan Cathy looked deep into his soul, as every good protestant does at one point or another, and realized he had a choice to make. He could choose God, or Mammon.  And, like the vast majority of protestants before him, he knew the decision was a no-brainer.  Mammon wins, every time. This ease of pretending Christianity while cuddling up to Mammon has always been one of the least appealing characteristics of protestantism, and this goes back to the first princes that backed Luther and the very convenient “more wealth means I’m saved” doctrines of Calvin and Zwinglii in Switzerland (yes, I’m bending things a bit, but not too much, in their essence). I guess we couldn’t expect much more from sects and entities built on foundations of sand, but it’s still disappointing to see.

Especially after the massive outpourings of love and support Christians gave to Chick-Fil-A in 2012, 2014, and ever since, this latest move does feel very much like a betrayal.  I can see why a number of folks are incensed.

Yes, it’s only a chicken shop, and one that always caused me some stomach upset when I ate there (I have no idea why), so my new boycott won’t cost me much.  I hadn’t eaten there for some time.  My wife and kids like it but I don’t know if they’ll be going there anymore.  Hopefully not. I’m curious what readers think.  Is it time to add Chick-Fil-A to your already extensive list of companies you won’t support?   Do you think this will cause Chick-Fil-A to experience a significant “get woke, go broke” backlash to their bottom line?  Are Christians and other conservatives right to feel outraged and betrayed?

The reactions online from conservatives were quick, vociferous, and essentially unanimous.  I think Chick-Fil-A screwed up badly and seriously misjudged the situation.  We’ll see how committed they are to serving moloch and his leftist minions over the coming months.  I imagine they expected a backlash, but possibly not this severe.

Eat more beef.  It tastes infinitely better, anyway. “My” farmer raises anywhere from 400 to 1200 head of Herefords at a time, so I’m covered.

Today’s Leftist Extremism and ‘Cancel Culture’ Was Baked Into ‘Liberal Democracy’ From the Outset November 15, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, cultural marxism, different religion, disaster, error, General Catholic, history, Revolution, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

One of the most disturbing trends in American, and broader Western, culture today, is the fact that any deviation from leftist orthodoxy, from ‘woke politics,’ can get one’s life destroyed in a matter of minutes.  An offhand joke made waiting on the tarmac for a flight can lead to a reaction that means no job, no friends, and no home by the time one lands at their destination.  Holding to beliefs that were completely unremarkable and widespread a mere 5 or 8 years ago can do the same.  Merely standing in a public space waiting for a bus and minding your own business can, with the right kind of propaganda, lead to a nearly life-destroying episode before one’s life has even begun.

Most people wonder what in the heck has happened.  How have we gone from the free speech extremism of the 1960s to the totalitarian speech policing of today?  I might argue that all have been part of the same overarching movement, a movement intended to destroy Christendom, that uses different tools at different points of its long march through the institutions, and which has no problem at all in contradicting itself, or spouting literal double-think almost constantly.

Still, most would conclude that there was a sunny, happy time in liberal democracy, a golden age we’ve somehow lost.  Many people believe the closer one gets to the roots of today’s liberal free market state’s founding, the closer one is to an ostensible ideal.

But this may not be the case.  In fact, many of the intellectual framers of today’s liberal state, from back in the time of the endarkenment, realized some of the tragic implications of the godless, at-war-with-the-Church system they were proposing.  In fact, several of the most key “enlightenment” thinkers realized that what they were doing was proposing a contrary religious-cultural system to the then-existent Christendom, and that they looked forward to war with Christendom, and that to the hilt. Some of these thinkers were very explicit about this, as you will see below.

From Rousseau’s The Social Contract, an exegesis on how those who rebuffed the new order would have to be treated, and that quite savagely:

While the civil profession of faith (in the civil authority) can compel no one to believe them, it can banish him, nor for impiety, but as an anti-social being, incapable of truly loving the laws and justice, and of sacrificing at need his life to his duty.  If anyone, after publicly recognizing these dogmas, behaves as if he does nto believe them, let him be punished by death: he has committed the worst of all crimes, that of lying before the law. [These same liberals supposedly hated blasphemy laws, and yet here is one of their leading lights publicly calling for death for blasphemy against the “sacred” state’s “sacred” laws!]

The dogmas of civil religion ought to be few, simple, and exactly worded, without explanation or commentary……..Its negative dogmas I confine to one, intolerance, which is a part of the cults we have rejected……Now that there can be no longer an exclusive national religion, tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothign contrary to the duties of citizenship. But wheover dares to say: “Outside the Church there is no slavation,” ought to be driven from the State,  uless the State is teh Church, and the prince the pontiff.

So much for the tolerance of the new religion!  Let no one think to be joined to Christ who is not prepared to be crucified under Pontius Pilate, for the godless state is ever satan’s arm.  

And the revolution made clear from the beginning that any deviation from it’s orthodoxy, no matter how slight, would eventually be brutally punished, even with death.  It was politic for the revolution, for a time, to pretend otherwise, to pretend open-mindedness and magnanimity, but no longer.  As it nears its Omega point, the revolution drops the mask, and even schoolchildren can be crushed and destroyed – and that, for doing nothing at all wrong – solely for the ease of the revolution.

It was the same, of course, in the Soviet Union, and Maoist China, and Ortega’s Nicaraugua, Venezuela, etc., etc.

The only force capable of resisting this always advancing secularist onslaught is Catholicism – traditional Catholicism, since there are so many fake varieties today.

The Episcopate of the United States Catholic Church Has Always Been Americanist, Indifferentist, and even Heretical November 15, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Dallas Diocese, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, history, Immigration, priests, Revolution, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I mentioned recently I have been reading books by Solange Hertz.  They are very valuable and enlightening reading, providing great insight into how the almost universally rock-solid Church of the 18th century became the structurally modernist, indifferentist, and leftist body that it is today.

Reading Hertz has been part of a broader study I’ve been blessed to make over the course of much of 2019, reading histories of the Church over the period 1800-1950, principally in the  United States but also Europe.  This is history that is almost entirely forgotten, and deliberately so, as it reveals the means and methods by which the Church was first penetrated, and then overtaken, by revolutionary forces.  While many faithful Catholics today point to AA-1025 and communist penetration of the Church in the first half of the 20th century, to be frank, that analysis misses the mark.  In point of fact, most of the damage was done in the 19th century, and came not from European revolutionaries (they more or less took advantage of an already existing situation), but from American ones.

American, ahem, Catholics, were responsible for much of the most destructive beliefs that burst into open view, with apparent approbation of the institutional hierarchy, at Vatican II.  Indifferentism (rejection of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus), almost a maniacal focus on both materialism and ecumenism, the exaltation, if not practical worship of, democratic forms of government and the free market, tacit endorsement of blasphemy and sacrilege under the guise of “freedom of speech” and “freedom of expression”………..all these ideas came primarily from the United States and, it must be said, mostly Irish-lineage bishops and priests, though they did find fertile ground for these ideas throughout much of Europe.

A few datapoints to illustrate.  The first American bishop, John Carroll, was a thoroughgoing Americanist, practically seeking to create an Americanist Gallist Church (a national church free from Rome’s influence).  He practically worshipped the US Constitution and the American state and was influenced, to an almost unbelievable degree for a man who called himself Catholic, by the liberal wing of the protestant sects in the United States. He was also extremely close with the freemasons who dominated the American elite.  He insisted, for instance, on the election of bishops, and even wanted election of priests, to go along with a vernacular liturgy and many other items protestants/masons would like to see changed regarding Church Doctrine.  He was only just prevented from doing this by intervention from Rome, and his death.

Carroll also did all he could to upset and frustrate attempts by the constant waves of immigrants to maintain their traditional Church structures and parish lives within their own communities.  Carroll and his disciples waged constant war against German, Polish, Italian, and other priests and lay people who sought to maintain the traditions of the Faith from Europe. They insisted all immigrants should be swiftly and thoroughly “Americanized,” bowing to the unique genius of the Constitution and the American(ist) way of life.

Thus, the tragic situation we see today, where the US episcopate demands unconstrained immigration in order to make up for the falling away of tens of millions of Catholics, has persisted throughout the Church’s history in this country.  In the latter half of the 19th century, 25-30% of recent Catholic immigrants fell away from the Faith within 25  years of arriving in the US.  Most became some flavor of protestant.  This has been the regular reality of Catholic life in these United States, save perhaps for the brief period of the 1920s to the 1950s when the Catholic Church appeared much more orthodox, reliable, and robust compared to its rapidly collapsing mainline protestant counterparts.  This was about the only period in US history when, subtracting immigration, there was a net inflow of converts into the Church, as against Catholics falling away.

The following quote sums up the situation in Amchurch circa 1900 rather nicely, from The Star-Spangled Heresy: Americanism, pp. 186-188 (I add comments):

…[D]efenders of the Faith had little difficulty linking Americanism to communism, not to mention Semitism, Protestantism, Masonry, and outright Satanism. A Catholic paper in Paris accused Cardinal Gibbons [I haven’t even touched on Gibbons, but he is perhaps the principal villain in the Americanist story] of partiality to masonry on the basis of his persistent defense of such organizations as the Odd Fellows, Knights of Pythias……….all condemned by Rome, and of secret societies generally in the States. The French Canadian Jules Tardivel dubbed America “the eldest daughter of the sect,” and Leo XIII’s Belgian biographer stated its true center was located here.

In 1899  Leo XIII was finally forced to write Testem Benevolentiae condemning Americanism specifically as a heresy.  In the face of the threatened withdrawal of American support for Peter’s Pence, however, [the American Church, like the German Church today, routinely used its massive financial resources to threaten Rome with denial of funds – and this, at a particularly critical time when the Papal States had been stolen by Garibaldi and the Church was in desperate financial straits] none of the heretics was designated by name, although everyone knew who they were and had expected them to be formally excommunicated. Robert Cross relates that one Roman periodical, referring to the “satanic spirit” of America, exclaimed: “Put the mask aside, O Monsignor Ireland: bow down before the Vicar of Jesus Christ, Cardinal Gibbons, and deny the blasphemous theories of the heretical sect which are embodied in you!” Civilta Cattolica dubbed the heresy:

…….purely American…….employed at first to indicate in general the ‘new idea’ which was to rejuvenate the Church, and in particular the ‘new crusade’ against the uncompromising position of Catholics of the ‘old creed.’

All the heresiarchs loudly disclaimed being tainted by what they termed a ‘phantom heresy’ existing largely in the minds of the Curia or at best in a few French dioceses, and they continued on as before. [Indeed – an encyclical sent to the lead American cardinal, talking only about the United States, only applied to a few foreign dioceses, and those strangely French.  But do we not see the exact same kinds of dissembling tactics today, especially in the US episcopate?] The American flag was displayed ever more prominently at altar-side, as if also intended for worship, despite the frowns of Rome, which steadfastly refused approval for the tricolor within the sanctuary.  Episcopal progress in socialism was steady. At the close of the First World War the American bishops under the leadership of Msgr. John Ryan became so convinced that “so-called  ’socialistic’ measures were practically synonymous with Catholic moral principles” – to quote a popular Catholic history textbook – that they boldly embarked on their own social program. Advocated were minimum wage legislation, unemployment and old age insurance, prohibition of child labor, legal protection of unions, national employment service, public housing for workers, control of monopolies, curtailment of ‘excess’ profits, participation of labor in management and wider distribution of stock ownership.  Christ was now harnessed to the Revolution as to His Cross. [These efforts were through the “National Catholic War Council,” supposedly set up to help fight WWI, but then extended after the war as the National Catholic Welfare Conference. The first permanent episcopal conference in Church history, it was banned by Pius XI but later, of course, was given approval at Vatican II, where the Church awoke and groaned to find itself Americanist.  Of course, episcopal conferences have turned into  charnal houses of sex abuse, graft, larceny, and radicalization political agendas, along with constantly reducing the Faith to the lowest possible common denominator, in concert with ‘right democratic principles.’]

……[I]n 1928 indulgent America permitted a Catholic, Al Smith, to run for the Presidency for the first time in the nation’s history. Ten years later in Madrid the anti-Catholic writer George Seldes was able to say in The Catholic Crisis:

The future of Catholicism may lie in America because of the growing Catholic population, the large increase of bishoprics, the financial support of the Church which is said to be larger than that contributed by the rest of the world.  But it may lie in America because America is the stronghold of democracy. American Catholicism is the Catholicism of the famous credo of Al Smith……which states that the Syllabus of Pius IX which is anti-liberal, anti-democratic, and in a way anti-American, has ‘no dogmatic force’ as Cardinal Newman said long ago……..[I hope Cardinal Newman did not say that.  I don’t know]

By the Smithian system of dialectics no Catholic need fight Socialism, or Communism, or pay any attention to Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno, Casti Connubii, Lux Veritatis, or the late Pope’s utterances in favor of Franco’s Spain, if he individually disagrees.  The American Catholic, according to its most important spokesman, can take it or leave it. [The primacy of the individual conscience, circa 1930!] However, no Catholic outside the United States has ever expressed the same views and remained in the Church.

Thus, the Americanist heresy is at the root of the crisis in the Church, and contrary to the relatively conservative body most Americans are propagandized to believe it is, has been one of the key driving forces behind the revolution against the Church conducted principally by those given sacred trust to promote and defend the authentic Faith.  Unfortunately, Americanism is deeply rooted in the basic patriotism of the United States, and so constantly finds new adherents.  It’s a difficult and tragic thing to find one at odds with one’s country, but that is exactly the position thinking, informed, believing Catholics find themselves in.  That this nation has produced so precious few of that group only demonstrates how insidiously effective that propaganda is.

They have now. Apparently, As Bishop O’Gorman once wrote his friends from Rome, “Americanism, which was supposed to be our defeat, has been turned into a glorious victory. We are surely on top.” The lucrative waters of the Potomac were now flowing freely into the Tiber. Only a faithful few in the US today recall that their Lord “suffered under Pontius Pilate,” after Pilate and the “religious” Herod became friends. “If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you…….The servant is not greater than his master.” And “no man can serve two masters” (Jn xvi:20).

Mindful of this difficulty, Hilaire Belloc predicted the “necessary” conflict between the civil state and the Catholic Church in America. He said in so many words, of course, “the Catholic Church in America.” He was not referring to the star-spangled “American Catholic Church” which is after all only a modernist sect of long standing, with a large growing membership. No conflict with Pilate should arise there. [Since, after all, for Cardinal Gibbons and most current and historical American bishops, their greatest fear was and is that they might ever give offense to the protestant majority, and especially the formerly protestant but now thoroughly secularized and leftist political-cultural elite.]

————End Quote————-

This post is already very long, and I hope to get out one much shorter post today, but I’ll conclude with this: it is a profoundly unsettling realization to make, that one’s Faith, and one’s country and culture, are totally at odds.  It is even more discomfiting to realize that, in many ways, only one can ultimately survive.  It was, of course, fear of this realization that drove the thoroughly American bishops and priests (again, most all of them, strangely enough, Irish) to attempt to posit a typically American ‘new and improved’ church, one that fit in fine with the surrounding culture and political landscape, one that wouldn’t make any waves, and one that would rarely, if ever, expose its practitioners to persecution.

But Our Blessed Lord told us that if we love Him, the world will hate us, and that if we are faithful, it will persecute us like it persecuted Him.  This is the narrow path of salvation.  The Church in the US, by and large (there were numerous countervailing elements, especially German), chose the wide, soft, easy road.

We all know how those two stories end.

How Much Responsibility do the NeverTrump Rinos of the 2016-18 Congress Bear for this Impeachment Farce We are Enduring? November 14, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, Immigration, It's all about the $$$, Revolution, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

I’d say, a very, very great deal.

Remember, this is the party that could not, would not, support Trump on virtually any of his major policy initiatives (the border wall, principally, but there were others) and in fact tried to stone wall and impede every move he made.  Their actions, and an inept organization by the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee (were they trying to fail), chilled enthusiasm among Republicans and pretty much insured – along with a press consisting almost entirely of leftist operatives with bylines – that the demonrat party would gain control of the House in 2018.  Which, they did, after promising for two years that if they DID gain the House, they would use that as their leverage of power to impeach Trump and/or derail his re-election.  I increasingly believe that the House Republican leadership quite knew what it was doing in blocking Trump and helping to set this @#$&! show up, and that creatures like Paul Ryan (who, you will remember, conveniently retired from Congress to a lucrative lobbying career after his work in blocking Trump was done) did this deliberately with an intent to achieve just what we are seeing now.  Heck, the demonrats were very clear in their intent from even before Trump was sworn in – he must be blocked, stopped, and resisted by all means, fair or (preferably, for them) foul, up to an including use of naked violence.  They were talking impeachment from January 20, 2017 and haven’t stopped since.

Of course, this is what they have done to every single Republican elected President since Eisenhower, save for hapless, helpless, and hardly conservative Jerry Ford.

The democrats have been sending very strong signals to the American people for half a century now.  They mean to gain power, and once gained, never let it go.  I truly believe they felt they had practically attained their end in 2016, when, after 8 years of Obama and decades of flooding the country with democrat-voting immigrants, they were certain that 8 more years of demonrat rule under Hillary would mean perpetual democrat power.  That’s what this impeachment is about, it’s about overturning the elective will of the American people, and insuring that perpetual one-party rule under the democrats.

And leading Republicans went along with it, all too eagerly.  They are all too happy playing the always losing saps to the democrats one party rule (of course, as many have noted, there are so few differences between the Republican and Democrat elites that govern us that we are already essentially ruled by an incompetent, self-aggrandizing uniparty).  One grows exhausted at their constant malfeasance and cowardice. There aren’t 60 rock solid conservatives between the entire Congressional Republican bunch, House and Senate combined.  I guess at some point, we only have ourselves to blame.

So, I get very much what the “groypers” are doing.  I agree with much of it.  I just think their attacks are a bit broad and some parts of their focus may prove counterproductive. Or, at least, premature.

I liked this from reader T:

Bishop Barron Gives Invocation at US House, Fails to Use Sign of the Cross, or Holy Name November 11, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Revolution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
comments closed

I know some people think he does some good, but this guy to me is a snake, worse than an out n’ proud leftist like James Martin SJ, because he mixes in orthodoxy with diabolical error.  Also, his attempt to give Vatican II an orthodox theological explanation is a catastrophe, it basically just defines the Church as starting in 1962, and all that came before, no matter how solemnly defined or obviously the will of God, can be jettisoned:

Man Taylor was born again hard about August 2018. He has been a rock, on fire, since then.  Not that I mean to call him brimstone.  Just love mixing metaphors.

I took a screen shot for something at work one day while I was (unusually) listening to TnT on my work computer (which is a four monitor setup).  As I took the bit I needed for work, I saw I had captured this.  I thought it was funny.  Nice pink shirt, Tim Gordon, do you shop at the same store as your wife? Oh well, he does live in California.

Just a tease, both Ts are great but Taylor has really been fantastic the past 15 months.  I hear he gave a good talk at the Catholic Identity Conference.  Hope I get to go sometime.

I’m reading a wonderful book by Solange Hertz, who (whom?) I’ve never read before.  Goodness, Tumblar House is a great outfit and deserves the support of all faithful Catholics.  I sure like Charles Coulombe.  She (Hertz) has a wonderful quote, to the effect that the Bishops of the United States – and this goes back to the very first one, Bishop Carroll – have always feared what non-Catholics would think far more than God, or the Holy Father, or the Doctrine of the Faith.  That is soo true, and is perfectly exemplified in Bishop Barron.  If he, and the American episcopate generally, could be summed up in one word, I would choose………craven.

Unfortunately, the Americanist heresy that was part and parcel of the Church in this country from before it’s founding (read Hertz excellent book) was deliberately evangelized upon a weakening Church by the Americanist hierarchy (e.g., the Paulist order), especially in Europe and South America, where it found many willing adherents among Catholics – lay and cleric alike – who sought that same approval of the world, and wanted to be for “liberal” and “progressive” ideologies.  Thus, Americanism is the seed-bed upon which modernism sprang and grew, and then ultimately took over the Church at Vatican II, which was little more than the implementation of Americanist principles upon the Church at large.  Rome was unable to interfere due to their lack of influence over this nation and its hierarchy, and their need for American funding during the very difficult times that occurred between the fall of the Papal States and the (extremely troubling) Concordat with Mussolini in 1929.

This is a huge subject and I’d like to go on for hours.  Not sure if anyone would like this kind of content in a podcast form?  I don’t know that I will find the time to write what would have to be a tl;dr 5000 word post, if not much longer. I used to do radio but all the back-end was handled by others,  I just had to show up and talk.  Doing justice on this subject would be thousands of words.

Dominus vobiscum!

Saint Alphonsus on the Proper Hearing of Mass November 11, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, Grace, Interior Life, Latin Mass, priests, reading, Saints, sanctity, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

From Volume XV of Saint Alphonsus Ligouri’s Ascetical Works, Preaching (only get the translations by Father Eugene Grimm, CSsR, the others are markedly deficient and full of modern errors and radical changes to Saint Alphonsus crystal-clear theology), an exhortation on the proper hearing of Mass, including what constitutes, in the Saint’s mind, irreligious and even sinful hearing of Mass:

Before I begin the excerpt, I should note that the section below regarding not going to Confession during Mass does not mean Sacramental Confession, which is of course not only permitted but encouraged during Mass or any other time, but the “implicit Confession” of the Confiteor.  Alphonsus is saying that if you have some grievous sin on your conscience, Mass does not remove the guilt of that sin, and explicit sacramental Confession must first be sought before assisting at Mass (this could of course be ongoing during Mass, but certainly before receiving Communion).

How should one hear Mass?

To satisfy the obligation of hearing Mass, two things are necessary: an intention and attention.

It is necessary to have an intention of hearing Mass, so that a man who is force into church against his will, or who enters only to look about him and see the place (NB: as many tourists do during Mass at famous churches throughout Europe), or to wait there for a friend, or for any other purpose except hearing Mass, does not fulfil the obligation.  But, should a person hear Mass through devotion, believing that the day is not a holiday, he is bound, when he finds that it is a holiday, to hear another Mass?  No; it is enough to have done the work commanded without having adverted to the intention of fulfilling the precept of hearing Mass.

It is necessary to hear Mass with attention – that is, to attend to the Sacrifice that is celebrated.   This attention may be external and internal.  It is certain that a person who hears Mass without external attention does not fulfil his obligation; for example, if during the Mass you are asleep, or are drunk, or are employed in writing, talking, or other external operations, you do not fulfil the precept of hearing Mass.

It is disputed among theologians whether a person who attends Mass without internal intention satisfies his obligation’ that is, if he sees what is going on, but is at the same time distracted, and employed in thinking not on God, but on other things.  Many theologians say that he is guilty of a venial, but not a grievous, sin, as often as he is voluntarily distracted, and that he fulfils the substance of the precept because he hears Mass with a moral presence. But the greater number of theologians, following St. Thomas, teach that such a person does not fulfil the obligation of hearing Mass, namely, when he is conscious that he is distracted, and not attending to the Mass, and positively wishes to continue in his distractions.

Hence I exhort you, in hearing Mass, to reflect on the great Sacrifice which is being offered. Meditate on the Passion of Jesus Christ; for the Mass is a renewal of the Sacrifice that Jesus Christ offered on the cross. Or meditate on some eternal truth – on death, judgment, or hell. Let him who knows how to read make use of some little book, or let him recite the office of the Blessed Virgin……..say the Rosary, or some other vocal prayers: let them, at least, attend to what the priest is doing.

Does a person who makes his confession during Mass satisfy the obligation of hearing Mass?  No; for then he would attend it as a criminal accusing himself of his sins, and not as a person offering sacrifice; and it is certain that all who hear Mass offer sacrifice along with the priest.

Hence it would be advisable during Mass to offer the Holy Sacrifice for the ends for which it was instituted: adoration, contrition, thanksgiving, and supplication.

During the Mass, then, we ought, first, to offer to God the Sacrifice of His Son in honor of His Divine Majesty; secondly, in thanksgiving for all the benefits we have received from him; thirdly, in satisfaction for our sins; and fourthly, to implore of God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the graces necessary for our salvation.  At the elevation of the Host, let us ask God to pardon our sins, for the sake of Jesus Christ, and at the elevation of the chalice, let us beg of God, through the merits of that Divine Blood, the gift of His love and holy perseverance. And during the Communion of the priest, let us make a spiritual Communion, saying: My Jesus, I desire to receive Thee; I embrace Thee: do not permit me to ever be separated from Thee.

———————-End Quote———————

No special message in this post, just some hopefully helpful reminders and exhortation to even better devotion and practice at the source and summit of our Faith, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

The USS Liberty Incident as a Basis for anti-Israel US Policy November 8, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in fightback, General Catholic, pr stunts, secularism, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

This post both got too long and is some deep-inside baseball stuff on small aspects of the conservative movement.  But, I’m a Youtube addict and this is a matter that is attracting much attention, there.  It has to do with fringe elements of the conservative movement among younger millenials and Zoomers and their criticisms of more mainstream conservatism. I agree with much of what they have to say but disagree on one particular element.  That’s not even true, I don’t mind changing US policy towards Israel, but I just don’t see how it’s germane to the other topics, or why it needs to be such a huge focus of their attention, and I think it is a very dangerous game that could lead to severe damage not just to these youngsters but the entire conservative agenda and even the re-election chances of Donald Trump. At any rate, the part on the Liberty is in italics, you can read just that if you want.  The whole thing is probably TL;DR.

I have seen a growing movement online among primarily young men – many of them under the influence of E. Michael Jones and also the  Youtube personality Nick Fuentes (who presents as an orthodox if not traditional Catholic) – who are vociferously criticizing slightly more mainstream conservatives such as Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, and others at various public events.  They call themselves “groypers” and they advocate an “America First” vision of conservatism which is very similar to certain strains of pre-WWII conservatism in the US.  That is, they advocate for a much more isolationist foreign policy, they are extremely concerned over the threat posed to this nation’s culture (such as it is) and government by unconstrained immigration, legal and illegal, and they have very strong criticisms towards Israel that, at times, seem to tip into anti-semitism, though the “groypers” deny the charge.  While there is much to admire in this movement, I believe this anti-Israel stand is ultimately going to prove counterproductive and even destructive of their aims.

Tactically speaking, there is no way to get labeled an “alt-right” fascist quicker than to start throwing rhetorical bombs at Israel.  There is certainly room for criticism of US policy towards Israel, but given the bias in the media, the historical past, and the, how shall I say, extreme friendliness of the political/cultural elite in the current culture towards Israel and Zionism generally, making loud and very brash and broad criticisms of Israel is a very short path towards getting your movement labeled extremist, fascist, Nazi-like, etc.  That may not be fair, but it’s the reality.

As I said, there is much to admire in these “groypers.”  They are well organized, dedicated, and largely coherent.  I have no problems with, and indeed strongly concur on a number of the policy positions they advocate, especially those related to immigration.  I believe at this time and place in American history, we need to not only control illegal immigration but put in place a practical moratorium on legal immigration for a period of 20 or 30 years, to allow for assimilation of those teeming millions who have flooded our country over the past 50 years.  I also have no problem with a more coherent and thoughtful foreign policy that gets away from the “troops first, ask questions later” mentality of the past 18 years.  That has gotten us nowhere in terms of advancing American interests and has indeed led to the needless expenditure of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.  It has left the Mideast much worse off, from a geopolitical standpoint, than it was 20 years ago.

But many Americans, myself included, are probably more than a little confused what Israel has to do with any of this.  The “groypers” claim that the US involvement in the Mideast has been done at Israel’s behest, but this is a case they are far from proving, and in fact they tend to resort to hand-waving very quickly when questioned.  When asked why the US should stop supporting Israel with – frankly speaking, relative to the federal budget – paltry sums of a few billions dollars a year (about $4 billion).  Most of that money winds up coming back to the US in the form of the purchase of defense hardware.

The ”groypers” frequently insist that Israel is not the US’ friend and that we have no business supporting them.  While this is a highly debated question and one I don’t need to go into now, one of their primary justifications for this claim is the USS Liberty incident.  In this, I’m afraid they err, and quite possibly, tip their hand more than they intend to.

The attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, is one of those incidents in history that has attracted far more attention and controversy than it has any right to.  A US surveillance ship in international waters was attacked by Isreali fighter aircraft on the 4th day of the Six Day War.  Israeli aircraft were constantly traversing this region of the Mediterranean going to and from targets in Egypt, whose military they obliterated in the course of a few days.  The USS Liberty was in the area under NSA orders to gather intelligence on both sides, but particularly the Egyptians, who used mostly Soviet hardware.  The ship was strafed and torpedoed repeatedly, with 34 men killed, 171 wounded, and the ship almost sunk.

Israel quickly apologized for the attack and paid some degree of compensation, but ever since, many people, including a number of the Liberty’s survivors, have claimed that the vessel was deliberately attacked by Israel, for what reason is never quite made clear, or makes much sense.  The US was at that time Israel’s largest and just about only ally.  How Israel would benefit from this attack is also far from clear. 

But, some survivors and those who feel the attack was deliberately made claim, Israel had to know it was a US ship!  It was flying an American flag!  Israel had been notified of the ship’s presence!  Unfortunately, the notification of the ship’s presence never made it to the Israeli Air Force and the squadron involved in the attack.  False reports of Egyptian ships shelling Israeli units in Sinai caused alarm in Israel’s chain of command.  Aircraft were dispatched to investigate.  They found the Liberty, and attacked.

But still, the flag!  They should have known it was a US ship!  Also, the Liberty was a converted freighter, which looks nothing like a warship.  They should have, they must have known. 

This is where a little knowledge of military history enters in.  In fact, misidentification of ships by aircraft is a constant, severe, and ongoing problem.  Air force pilots are rarely well trained in ship identification.  Even naval aviation pilots often make severe mistakes.  How severe? A few examples:

  1. British pilots attacked US ships in several of the Malta convoys during WWII in the same region – the Mediterranean.
  2. US pilots at Coral Sea, the Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz, and the Philippine Sea constantly misreported attacks. The Japanese did the same in all these battles, and more.  The Japs sank USS Neosho, an 8000 ton oiler, at the Coral Sea, and thought they had sunk the USS Lexington, a 40,000 ton, 900 foot long aircraft carrier (they did, later).  US pilots reported sinking battleships and aircraft carriers when they had actually slightly damaged a freighter or a destroyer.  US pilots attacked US ships.  German pilots attacked Italian ships.  This kind of thing happened all the time.  There were literally dozens of such incidents. 
  3. At the invasion of Sicily, Allied warplanes attacked allied ships of the invasion fleet right off the coast, in spite being briefed that is exactly where they would be!

And these were largely aircraft piloted by very experienced men who were experts in identifying ships!  It goes to show how incredibly difficult it is to ID a ship from a fast moving aircraft.  And fast moving is very relative.  Those mistakes in WWII were made by men flying aircraft at perhaps 250 kts.  A jet fighter will be going twice that speed, making identification all the more difficult. During the infamous Gulf of Tonkin incident, Vice Admiral and later Vice Presidential candidate James Stockdale came within an ace of unloading his ordinance on a US destroyer, mistaking it for a North Vietnamese PT boat, which is about 1/6th the size of a destroyer. 

The same applies to the torpedo boats which attacked the Liberty.  While not as common as aircraft friendly fire attacks on ships, in the fog of war instances of “blue on blue” or accidental attacks by surface ships are still quite frequent.  During WWII, the motor torpedo boats – PT boats in US parlance – were a frequent source of accidental, US-on-US attacks.  One particularly famous incident was during the 2nd Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, when the US’ best battleship admiral in history, Willis Augustus Lee, had to make an emergency, plain-language, unencrypted call to the nearby PT boat squadron base to keep them from attacking his ships.  And that, too, was a close run thing.  Now, most of these same side surface ship attacks occurred at night, when visibility is of course much worse, but they have been known to happen at day.  So, what happened with the Liberty is not all that surprising.

And I think that’s one of the reasons this has become such a persistent conspiracy theory, one maintained, to a large degree, by some of the Liberty’s survivors.  If I’m right, their suffering and the deaths of their friends were the result of an accident, and thus devoid of meaning.  That’s a hard thing to take.  It’s too much for some people.  So, instead of accepting this likelihood, they have created a mythos that the attack was deliberate.

The “groypers”, almost every time they bring up Israel, have referenced this attack as a reason why the US should have a neutral, if not hostile, attitude towards that nation.  The Liberty incident seems to play a major role in their ideology regarding Israel.  But I think the evidence overwhelmingly indicates this an entirely false premise.

And, as I said, I think it’s a serious mistake tactically, and I think it points to some unfortunate biases that have crept into their thinking.  It is not an understatement to note that E. Michael Jones has laid much, if not almost all, of the blame for the current collapse of Christendom at the feet of the perfidious Jews.  Much of his analysis is based on conspiratorial reads of historical and cultural developments and points towards a deliberate destruction of that culture perpetrated by one group of people.  As I indicated above, many of these “groypers,” including two of their leaders, are very open about the degree to which they are influenced by Jones, which is far more than slightly.  Thus, it is perhaps not entirely surprising that some of those they are attacking react by calling them anti-semites. At least some of the “groypers” were previously involved in the increasingly marginalized “alt-right” of extreme racist and anti-Semite Richard Spencer.  The “groypers” purported outrage, then, at being called anti-semitic is perhaps at least somewhat disingenuous.

Again, this is not to say that all criticism of Israel is out of bounds, nor that it is unacceptable to suggest completely changing US policy with regard to that nation.  It’s more  how they’ve done it, and the degree to which they have made it such a focus of their rhetoric, exclaiming that those who support Israel are guilty of “dual loyalty” (a very old anti-semitic trope), etc.

I also have a problem with another aspect of their tactics, which is the zero-sum game mentality, which holds that in order for them to rise, they must tear others down.  Number 1 “groyper” Fuentes goes on for hours almost nightly about how they must essentially destroy the reputations and influence of the likes of Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Matt Walsh, Dan Crenshaw, etc., in order to “get a seat at the table” and advance this supposed “America-first” agenda.  Now, I can understand on some level this desire, as conservatism has been cursed for decades with leadership that is full of lying, self-serving fools who disdain the base and their views and only play at being conservative for long enough to get elected or their cushy, “Conservative, Inc”  jobs. Indeed, Fuentes does make some distinctions, and seems to recognize that some people are much more honest and convicted conservatives than others.  He seems to have particular ire for Charlie Kirk/Turning Point USA and Dan Crenshaw, who he thinks are RINO shills with no real conservative principles.  So, some of these people may need to be exposed.

But……….the “groypers” have laid traps for other, much more stalwart conservatives like Shapiro, Walsh, and Crowder.  I think this kind of internecine, destructive warfare is not helpful in the long run.

Which is why the thought has crossed my mind that some or much of this “groyper” movement might be plants – just as the leftists loved the “alt-right” and Richard Spencer and gave him a platform every chance they could, in order to try to discredit conservatives generally as hateful, fascist bigots.  I would not say I’m convinced of their being plants, not even close, really, but it is something I will continue to ponder as I observe the actions of the “groypers.”

The Left Targets a Venerable Institution, Invades It, Kills It, then Parades Around in its Dessicated Husk Demanding Respect October 25, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, paganism, Revolution, sadness, secularism, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
comments closed

The future of the institutional Church?

How long do you think these pagans will permit the TLM to coexist in the “same church” as the one they hold hostage?

For those just coming to the realization of what Francis and his ilk are, and what they intend for the Church, well, many other Catholics felt just as scandalized and outraged after Assisi in 1986.  That event was what caused Archbishop Lefebvre to decide he must act to insure the perpetuation of the priestly society he had founded.  It was just as scandalous then, as this Amazonian sin-nod is today.

In other words……….

A lot of people have been very hard on the SSPX over the years.  For some, this hostility was based on ideology, for others, convenience, for a very few, true concern for their souls.  But I fear the vast majority of us who like to think we’re such faithful Catholics may have to make the very, very hard choice the “Lefebvrists” did back in the 70s and 80s – adhere to the true practice of the Faith, or retain the approbation of the institutional Church (I originally wrote Whore of Babylon, but thought that might seem a bit strong.  Ooops).  The Ecclesia Dei communities have been a very cozy middle ground for the past 30 years.  I don’t think those in charge of the Church today will see much use in permitting this coziness to go on for much longer, especially as the number of souls associating with traditional communities continues to explode in direct reaction to the ongoing anti-Catholic travesties in Rome.  Right now the traditional movement is still small enough for the old, out of touch men in Rome to ignore and hope will die a natural death, but for how long?  These guys are anything but blind to the threat we represent to their newchurch.  

I Told You They Should Have Smashed Them – Francis Claims Pachamama Idols Fished from Tiber, Will be in St. Peter’s this Sunday October 25, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in disaster, error, Francis, horror, paganism, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

No half measures, folks.  If you find an idol in a church, the very first thing you do is to smash it so it can never be reused.  I love what the good souls did earlier this week, but they didn’t go quite far enough, it seems:

At the end of Synod works this Friday, Francis spoke on the pagan idols that were being displayed at various Synod events and permanently at various altars at the church of Santa Maria in Traspontina, near the Vatican.
Francis first asked “forgiveness” to those who were offended by the action of those who removed the pagan idols from the church and threw them in the Tiber.
He then assured those present that there had not been “idolatry” in the worship and display of the pagan idols, that they had been recovered, and were now under the care of the police. He also said the pagan idols will be brought to Saint Peter’s  basilicae for the closing ceremony of the Synod, this Sunday.
Now, it’s possible Francis is mistaken or simply making another falsehood, when he claims the idols that will be in St. Peter’s on Sunday are the same ones that were thrown into the Tiber.  First, there have been a great number of these floating around Rome these past several weeks.  Secondly, who knows how many they had in crates.  Nevertheless, for the symbolic value alone, smashing is always the best alternative.  With the resources of a city like Rome, and given that wood floats (save for some exotic hardwoods), it was probably not a major effort to fish them out and recover them.
Will we see Pachamama worshipped in St. Peter’s, then?
Remember, the Vatican insists this didn’t happen: