Stabbed in the back again: House GOPes pass Obama Bathroom Order into Law in Late Night Session May 26, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, unbelievable BS.
This is why Trump exists. This is why he has a shot to be the next president. I am so sick of these liars and knaves. There aren’t 50 true conservatives on Capitol Hill. I am just about totally disgusted with the political process in this country. There is essentially one party, the insider socially progressive party of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite. The only thing they disagree on are tax breaks for the very rich:
Many are asking what Republicans plan to do to stop Obama’s executive war on culture and religious liberty in pursuit of cultural Marxism. Now we know that not only will this party do nothing to stop Obama, it will use its control of Congress to codify Obama’s agenda into law.
Late Wednesday night, Republicans allowed a vote on an amendment from Rep. Sean Maloney, D-N.Y., which codified Obama’s executive order 13672 making transgenderism the law of the land. Obama’s executive order, promulgated in July 2014, instructed bureaucrats to sever contracts with companies that don’t follow the Obama-mandated sexual identity agenda. This could include companies that don’t allow men into women’s bathrooms in their private corporate offices. The Maloney amendment to the $37.4 billion FY 2017 Energy & Water Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5055) codified that unilateral act into law.
The amendment passed 223-195 with 43 Republicans supporting it. The GOP House just supported arguably the most radical Democrat agenda item in the dead of night……..
………Once the Maloney amendment passed with GOP votes, Republicans proceeded to do what they always do so well. They offered side-by-side amendments in an attempt to cover up the damage. [So they are not just radically progressive themselves, they do not fail to vote in the way they were elected to do so by the people they claim to serve (while really serving only themselves), they practice deceit on a grand scale to try to keep the voters fooled] They passed the “Pitts amendment” as a second-degree by voice vote to affirm the constitutional importance of religious liberty. Then they passed the Byrne Amendments to reaffirm that RFRA is still in place and the government cannot discriminate against religious individuals. Well, as we all know, the Constitution and RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) have been in place for the entire Obama administration, yet he is still able to get away with religious bigotry edicts by claiming they don’t interfere with religious beliefs. Enshrining Obama’s specific edict into law and then passing vanity language reaffirming the general importance of religious liberty is like doing CPR on a dead body.
So, in the period 2009-early 2011, we were told Obama’s agenda simply had to pass because the GOP had no majority in the Congress and just couldn’t do anything to stop it. Give them a majority, they said, and you’d see all kinds of obstruction of Obama’s radicalism and even a rollback of some of his major “victories.” Here we are, 5 years later, with historic majorities for the GOPE ropers in both Houses, and they are STILL passing Obama’s budget, Obama’s expensive, onerous, and freedom-killing regulations, and his radical cultural marxist agenda. Democrats with minorities in both houses continue to block any real conservative legislation (with the willing connivance of the GOP leadership, which has kept numerous pro-religious liberty bills, for instance, from coming to a vote).
The GOP no longer serves any purpose, other than arguing for marginally lower tax rates on corporations and a small slice of the population. They are not for defending out borders. They are not strong on national defense in any way that makes sense. They do not oppose the destruction of Western Civilization through cultural marxism. In fact, the vast majority of GOP pols are fervent acolytes of the religion of sexular paganism.
At this point, I’ve reached the conclusion the GOP needs to die, and something else emerge in its place. I hate to be so negative, but how many examples of lies, treachery, and deceit do we need before we realize they will never, ever support our agenda, and would rather see the party gone (and themselves defected to the democrat party, where they belong) than do so?
Saint Alphonsus on Humility May 26, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Holy suffering, Interior Life, mortification, reading, Saints, sanctity, Tradition, Virtue.
Saint Alphonsus on humility, or, more specifically, the kind of humility we should be have if we would advance in virtue and be saved. Saint Alphonsus says we should seek out humiliations and rejection by others in order to grow in perfection. A tall order, perhaps the most contrary thing to our nature imaginable, but one supported by many other Saints. I guess one way to put this into perspective would be to ask, what price eternity?
From The Holy Eucharist, pp. 361-2:
But it is not enough, in order to be humble, to have a lowly opinion of ourselves, and to consider ourselves the miserable beings that we really are; the man who is truly humble, says Thomas a Kempis, despises himself, and wishes also to be despised by others. [It’s a goal, not necessarily a command!] This is what Jesus Christ so earnestly recommends us to practice, after his example: “Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart” (Mt xi:29). Whoever styles himself the greatest sinner in the world, and then is angry when others despise him, plainly shows humility of tongue, but not of heart. St. Thomas Aquinas says, that a person who resents being slighted may be certain that he is far distant from perfection, even though he should work miracles. The divine Mother sent St. Ignatius Loyola from Heaven to instruct St. Mary Magdalene of Pazzi in humility; and behold the lesson which the Saint gave her: “Humility is a gladness at whatever leads us to despise ourselves.” Mark well, a gladness; if the feelings are stirred with resentment at the contempt we receive, at least let us be glad in spirit.
And how is it possible for a soul not to love contempt, if she loves Jesus Christ, and beholds how her God was buffeted and spit upon, and how He suffered in His Passion! Then did they spit in his face and buffeted Him; and others struck His face with the palms of their hand (Mt xxvi:67). For this purpose our Redeemer wishes us to keep his image exposed on our altars, not indeed representing Him in glory, but nailed to the cross, that we might have his ignominies constantly before our eyes; a sight which made the Saints rejoice at being vilified in this world. And such was the prayer which St. John of the Cross addressed to Jesus Christ, when He appeared to him with the Cross upon His shoulders: “O Lord, let me suffer, and be despised for Thee!” My Lord, on beholding Thee so reviled for my love, I only ask of Thee to let me suffer and be despised for Thy love.
St. Francis de Sales said, “To support injuries is the touchstone of humility and of true virtue.” If a person pretending to spirituality practices prayer, frequent Communion, fasts, and mortifies himself, and yet cannot put up with an affront, or a biting word, of what is it a sign? It is a sign that he is a hollow cane, without humility and without virtue. And what indeed can a soul do that loves Jesus Christ, if she is unable to endure a slight for the love of Jesus Christ, who has endured so much for her? Thomas a Kempis, in his golden little book of the Imitation of Christ, writes as follows: “Since you have such an abhorrence of being humbled, it is a sign that you are not dead to the world, have no humility, and that you do not keep God before your eyes. He that has not God before his eyes, is disturbed at every syllable of censure that he hears.” Thou canst not endure cuffs and blows for God; endure at least a passing word.
As I said, there is little that could be more contrary to human nature than bearing with slights and insults with complete humility – but it is the example our Blessed Lord gives us. I pray for the strength to deal with contradiction with much greater equanimity and peace of soul. That’s not something I’m very good at.
This Faith of ours, because of our fallen natures, may be simple, in a sense, but it is certainly not easy. May God have mercy on us and patience with us in our struggles towards perfection, from which I feel a long, long ways.
Going off topic for a moment…….
As I’ve mentioned to many people offline (my poor wife has heard this too many times to count), there is simply no way a program like Baylor attracts talent to attain Top 5 status without serious recruiting and other moral violations. Just no way. You can be a skeptic and say that Alabama and all the other top programs do the same, but for a small private school in a highly undesirable location and little tradition of winning to suddenly become a top program, something is seriously off-kilter. Think SMU in the late 70s and 80s off kilter.
I’m willing to bet this is almost certainly just the beginning of an avalanche:
Baylor University is making sweeping changes to its athletic and academic leadership in the wake of a sexual assault scandal involving numerous football players.
The school announced Thursday it has suspended coach Art Briles with intent to terminate him after eight seasons.
In addition, school president Ken Starr has been removed as president and will transitions into role of chancellor; he remains a professor at the Baylor law school. Dr. David Garland has been named interim university president. Athletic director Ian McCaw has been sanctioned and placed on probation.
A report from Pepper Hamilton, an outside law firm hired by Baylor last fall, found the school “failed to take appropriate action to respond to reports of sexual assault and dating violence reportedly committed by football players. The choices made by football staff and athletics leadership, in some instances, posed a risk to campus safety and the integrity of the University.”
The report also found Baylor administrators actively discouraged some complainants from reporting or participating in student conduct processes and in one case constituted retaliation against a complainant for reporting sexual assault.
Firing Briles and a couple of others is also a way to proactively respond to any NCAA investigation, if you know what I mean. The hope is that by terminating the coach and some admins involved prior to any action from the NCAA, they can say they were being cooperative and any penalties imposed should be lessened.
Good luck with that.
TCU won’t be far behind in this process, either, I don’t think. But Baylor has long been known to those with even a bit of inside knowledge to run one of the most unsavory athletic programs in the state. I won’t go into details, but they did a lot of really gross things, things in mark contrast to their supposed baptist beliefs. Again, these things might happen a lot of places, but I’m talking about a whole ‘nuther level of magnitude.
But Texas will still continue to struggle for another 7-8 years, quite possibly just punishment for a rabid, over-emotional fan base.
Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell Wholeheartedly Endorses Highly Problematic, Scripture Denying “Always Our Children” for “Gay” Ministry May 26, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, North Deanery, Restoration, sadness, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, Society, the struggle for the Church.
It has been reported to me via disparate sources that at the most recent convocation of priests for the Diocese of Dallas, Bishop Kevin Farrell gave strong support to the ministry “Always Our Children,” and encouraged its spread throughout the Diocese. “Always Our Children” is a group which purports to be a support entity for the families of individuals who act out in profound ways on their same sex attraction. Always our Children is a renaming of the group’s previous title, “Outstretched Hands,” and according to some has links to the heterodox New Ways Ministry and Dignity “gay” lobby front groups.
Before I get into the details, I’ll simply state I’m not talking about intent. The intent behind this may be pure as the driven snow, but the effect I fear will be quite the opposite. In fact, the evidence already demonstrates that is already the case.
Some history: 6 years ago, I became aware of what was then called Outstretched Hands at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton parish in Plano. I wrote several blog posts on this subject, the two most principal of which are here and here. As I stated, the problems with “Outstretched Hands/Always Our Children” are manifold, including:
- Undermining or attempting to refute the plain condemnations of both the inclination towards, and especially the commission of, sexual acts committed between people of the same sex as outlined repeatedly in Sacred Scripture. In doing so, they adopt the language and diabolically erroneous interpretations of Scripture emanating from false, pro-gay sects like the Metropolitan “church.”
- Basing much of their outlook, and even their name, on an erroneous document produced by a sub-committee of the USCCB in 1997 and never approved by the full body of bishops: “Always Our Children.” This document was so full of error and false moral equivalence, the CDF under then Cardinal Ratzinger demanded it being rewritten and recast under a new title, which document was approved by the USCCB in full in 2006. The “Always Our Children” website makes no mention of this later, much more faithful document, which condemned the acts of Sodom and Gomorrah in much clearer terms, nor the fact that since the “Always Our Children” document was never approved by the full body of US bishops, it has essentially zero doctrinal or moral authority. The bias of the Always Our Children website is readily apparent from the short list of documents they use for reference, all of which were problematic to one degree or another and all of which are distinguished by their unusual degree of acceptance/support for the arguments of the “gay” lobby.
- Referencing the problematic 1990/94 version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which erred towards softness on the subject of sodomy and its associated sins. One has to dig far down to find any mention of the revisions made to the 1997 Catechism on the same subject, correcting what many felt was a far too tolerant approach to these sins which cry out to Heaven for vengeance. The 1997 version of the Catechism is the only “authoritative” version at present, having superseded the earlier versions.
- Routinely serving as an advocacy group for the LGBT agenda
- Violently attacking anyone who shows up at an “Always Our Children” group meeting who speaks of chastity, self-denial, living in accord with the Doctrine of the Faith, etc. I have received numerous reports to this effect, and can attest to this truth by personal experience. In fact, those who present a faithful Catholic perspective at local Always Our Children meetings are routinely told to leave
A bit more history: when I first reported on this matter in 2010, there was a bit of a flap and a number of complaints sent to the Diocese. Bishop Farrell’s response was not to investigate the problems with the offending group with an eye towards removing them from local parishes, not to counteract their potentially (likely?) harmful influence by supporting the only Vatican-approved outreach ministry for same sex attracted individuals and their families, Courage/Encourage, but to order the deletion of the offending (contrary to doctrine) materials on the St. Elizabeth Ann Seton website! In other words, a cover up of sorts. And yet now those same materials have returned!
But that’s not even the half of it. I can also report to you that this isn’t the case of a bad memory. Numerous attempts have been made in recent weeks/months by well meaning souls to explain to the Diocese/Bishop Farrell the continuing problems with Always Our Children. There have also been a number of attempts to garner support for the far more faithful and morally satisfactory Courage group. Those efforts have met with the usual stonewalling and delay tactics.
It is also reported that most diocesan priests are strongly hostile towards Courage, to the extent that for nearly 3 years, from the departure of former auxiliary Bishop Seitz until very recently, the local Courage ministry could find no priest to serve as spiritual advisor/mentor in either the Dallas or Fort Worth dioceses (that sad situation has now, to my knowledge, been rectified). I’m sure you can imagine why so many priests might be hostile towards a faithful Catholic ministry that teaches chastity, the denial of sinful urges, and living in accord with the Doctrine of the Faith.
The truly devastating part is that Bishop Farrell’s support has now caused Always Our Children to spread throughout the Diocese. From being based at only St. Elizabeth Ann Seton in 2010, it is now in four parishes in the north deanery alone: Seton, St. Mark, St. Francis of Assisi (Frisco), and Prince of Peace. Three of the four are of course in Plano.
It does seem that some “Always Our Children” groups are better than others, but the information I have garnered informs me that the groups in the Diocese of Dallas are quite strongly on the liberal/unquestioning acceptance side of this matter. Again, I have some experience of this myself, though it is several years old, but I have recent testimony of folks who tried to represent an orthodox Catholic viewpoint in the local Always Our Children groups who met with a distinctly hostile reaction. This is not surprising to me, given the long time and overwhelmingly left-liberal influence of the lay ministers who oversee the operation of AOC at the local parishes in question. The family and adult ministries at three of the four parishes above have long been dominated by women who hold quite heterodox views regarding the Doctrine of the Faith, and whose advice in practical situation is highly questionable.
But at root, what is most upsetting to me, and others, is Bishop Farrell’s choice to so strongly endorse Always Our Children, when an alternative of much more robust orthodoxy, and a far more successful pastoral approach, exists in Courage/Encourage (Courage being the ministry for those with SSA, Encoruage for the families/loved ones of those with SSA). There are priests in the Diocese of Dallas who would like to see Courage get more support, but they are unfortunately in the distinct minority. As I mentioned above, many priests, quite possibly the majority, are reported to be quite hostile towards Courage and its approach. I would not be surprised in the least if this hostility did not influence Bishop Farrell’s decision. Again, I do not think ignorance can be cited as a defense, as I know problems with the current “gay outreach ministries” and the alternative of Courage have been presented to the chancery for years.
I’m not terribly surprised at all this, though I do find it disappointing. While the Bishop Farrell may be acting with the best of intentions, given the history and the criticism I know these groups have received, it’s pretty upsetting that he decided to go this route.
I’ve inveighed on people to contact the Diocese in the past on such matters, but having been through that process several times I can’t say it makes much difference (save, perhaps, to remove the public embarrassment by taking down a webpage or two). But, if you feel motivated to contact the Diocese of Dallas, by all means, knock yourself out, though I ask that you be respectful and to the point, eschewing words like evil or hell (not because I disagree, but because I don’t think they’re very effective).
Contact info below. Bishop Kelly is really the man to contact, since getting to Bishop Farrell is all but impossible unless you leave a trail of gold coins behind you when you walk:
Mary Edlund Chancellor, Dallas Diocese firstname.lastname@example.org 214-379-2819
Bishop Greg Kelly Auxiliary Bishop / Vicar of Clergy
Elsa Espinoza: Executive Assistant to the Bishop
Would someone kindly link this to Pewsitter? God bless you.
John Salza against sede-vacantism May 25, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, error, General Catholic, Papa, Restoration, Society, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
10 years ago, when I was first becoming an active, committed Catholic (or trying to), I found the books of John Salza to be immensely useful. His “Biblical Basis” series was an excellent resource to help bring me from erroneous protestantism to a solidly formed Catholicism.
Since then, Salza and I have both become committed trads, him probably more so than me. Salza is now definitely in the SSPX camp, and doesn’t have too many kind words for the Ecclesia Dei communities. So while you could say I disagree with him on some points now, I remain very thankful to him for the role his works played in my conversion to a more robust practice of the Faith. I still think he’s one of the best, most thorough, most orthodox Catholic writers around. I have a great deal of respect for his views.
I say the above to provide a bit of context of where I’m coming from with respect to the videos below. They contain an interview of Mr. Salza by Brother Andre Marie of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary on the brother’s Reconquest internet radio show. In general, I found Salza’s analysis below spot on. At any rate, he is a serious scholar of theology and ecclesiology and is worth listening to, even if you don’t agree with every conclusion he makes. I would also note the irony of Salza appearing on this particular radio show, with this particular host, since the Slaves are often lambasted as “Feeneyites,” seemingly every trad-group’s favorite whipping boy. That’s something I admit I’ve never quite understood (I get the root error, but they profess to no longer maintain it). So here you have an SSPX-supporter dashing sede vacantism on a “Feeneyite’s” radio show!
A reader had asked me to summarize the content below. I wish I had the time today to do so, but I’m just about out. It took me 4+ hours to finish the post below, as I had so many interruptions (how can that nasty old work ever get in my way like that!?). For those who cannot watch the below for technical reasons, or because they don’t want to invest the nearly two hours, I’ll try to work on a summary, but these guys cover a lot of ground, including much of the 710 page content of Salza’s book on this subject (which I have not read)! That is to say, summarizing this long interview would be no easy task. But, I’ll see what I can do.
The interview, in two parts:
If you have comments on the interview, I’d love to see them. Thanks and God bless you!
There has long been a debate within the pro-life community whether graphic displays of the reality of abortion are powerful tools to make people realize the awful reality of “a woman’s right to choose,” or excessive displays that turn off more people than they attract. I’ve long leaned towards the former, having seen a handful of people change their stance on abortion after being shown just what a baby at, say, 12 weeks gestation looks like (a tiny baby, instead of a blob of cells), and just what abortion does to their perfect, tiny bodies. But I know a good number of people who disagree, mostly because they feel these displays just turn too many people off.
Live Action has shown what might amount to a third way. They have produced some videos that use animation to demonstrate the reality of abortion. By using animation, the reality can be conveyed, while the horrifying reality of abortion can be somewhat sanitized through the unreality of animation.
The video below is one of those. It shows a typical “D&E” abortion on a 2nd trimester child. The baby is literally ripped limb from limb, before being pulled apart through the birth canal. The video is graphic and will be disturbing for some, but the reality is so important I think it should be shared:
I guess Live Action produced a whole series of these videos during the time I was away from the blog. They can all be found on their Youtube channel.
The interesting aspect to me was the reaction of a number of pro-aborts when shown the reality of abortion. Live Action maintains that 1/3 of the pro-aborts who witnessed the video above changed their position on abortion on the spot. Who knows how many may change their position later? I pray these “conversions,” so to speak, are permanent, at any rate:
Unfortunately, these “conversions” may not be lasting. These folks were on the spot, with people coming from an obvious pro-life viewpoint asking them to justify the unjustifiable. I pray they don’t revert to their previous blithe support for this horror later.
I mentioned in another post that Milo Yiannopoulos, who has been conducting a tour of US college campuses seeking to challenge the leftist repression of free speech and anti-left viewpoints so prevalent in American academia, had a rough ride at DePaul last night. I don’t think I’ll have a chance to get into the details of how he was assaulted and interrupted (as were many of his supporters), you can check out his channel for that, but I did find this interview below meaningful, as it demonstrates how an admittedly powerful personality can completely cow and over-awe a committed baby murder supporter through command of the facts and relentless argumentation. The relevant part is from 16:15 – 17:45, but the entire thing is worth listening to, if you can excuse the occasional foul language:
Perhaps overawe was the wrong term. Complete crushing, from the standpoint of argumentation and totally silencing the opponent, is perhaps more apt. Not sure her mind was changed, but at least the silence that resulted was blissful.
The point being, don’t be afraid to argue with these people face to face. Another rather unquestioned tenet of the pro-life movement of the past several decades is that confrontation is bad, that we should be kind and courteous and accepting and stay far away from judgment. I’m not sure that tactic has served the pro-life movement well. Yes, there have been many (mostly small) pro-life successes on the state and local level in terms of limitations opposed on abortion, but at the end of the day, abortion is just as legal as it ever was and just about as many abortions are being performed today as were being performed 30 years ago. We haven’t got a great deal to show for our niceness.
I’m not advocating that we stand there screaming insults at prospective baby murderers, but I do think we can be more aggressive in our use of facts and communication of the hideous reality of abortion to pro-aborts everywhere, be they outside a mill or not. I’d like to think there is room for both approaches, but many sidewalk counselors have been trained by various CLPCs and other pro-life groups that confrontation is very, very bad. I’m not certain I believe that, as I believe I’ve seen about as many positive results (walkaways, saves) from confrontation as I have from the more passive, supportive approach. I think it depends a great deal on the individual you’re dealing with.
There’s just no end with these people. Everything must be bent to serve the agenda or narrative, no matter how preposterous, no matter how blasphemous. There is no limit to the depths to which they will stoop in order to justify their depraved views and endless diabolical narcissism. Amazingly, these are the people who are utterly convinced they are the “good guys,” and we, who observe the moral creed that build Western civilization, the bad.
So, with total inevitability, we are now treated to screeds (safe link) arguing that the Christ is “transgender,” so look how wrong you are with your outdated morality and your hate-filled bigotry, Christofascist. Even more inevitably, the author of this demonic bile is a professor of “theological ethics” at the, ahem, Catholic university of Villanova:
Since Jesus had no human biological father, and since God, his heavenly Father, lacks a body, then Jesus was a man who likely had no Y chromosome. Would this not make Jesus more like a transgender person than a cis-gender one? We could grant Jesus a Y chromosome, but then we would have to assign his virgin mother Mary one as well. Either way, the miracle of sex-less conception suggests that Jesus can qualify as a “real man” only if Mary qualifies as something less than a “real woman.” (And I hope you can tell I that I am using quotation marks in order to signal extreme sarcasm).
I think the professor needs to go back to class. As if we needed another damning indictment of the Catholic colleges in this country. Wait till you see how Milo Yiannopolous was treated at “Catholic” DePaul yesterday.
As writer David French at NRO notes, this is probably less a serious effort to advocate some ludicrously insupportable new claim, than it is a part of that favorite left-wing pastime of virtue signalling and insulting the faithful:
None of this is intellectually or theologically serious, of course. It’s trolling for the sophisticated and deception for the simple. For elitist readers, it’s the kind of “ha ha look what we can do to Christian teachings” piece they love to share amongst themselves as “proof” that you can make any kind of argument from the Bible. For the vulnerable, it’s a quick Google search away from basic assurance that Christ is cool with their transition. [In other words, it’s all about serving the agenda, which is really about giving leftists their “sacred” good feelz, no matter how many have to get hurt in the process]
Oh, and it’s also blasphemous. But no big deal – it’s not like the authors were arguing that Mohammed was transgender. That would be disrespectful. Everyone knows that Mohammed was a revered religious figure, and it’s just wrong to hurt or anger his followers.
Great point. We can be assured this author would never DARE to insult the leader of a great religion like islam. But all progressives know, Christianity is not a great religion, it’s the deadly enemy of their substitute religion, leftism. And it must be destroyed at all costs. That has been the objective of leftism since its inception, and I continue to maintain that leftists will happily don the hijab and see their daughters (the few they allow to be born) in harems when the time comes.
Another blithering idiot is trying to claim that Eve was a trans woman, because she was born from Adam’s side, and thus must have had a Y chromosome. As if the Lord and Creator of the universe could not – and does not – raise up new life from dust. Can you imagine the insufferable pride that causes a person to limit God’s power to the present, inherently faulty state of human knowledge? Preposterous doesn’t begin to describe it. Only diabolical disorientation could result in such willful blindness and catastrophic illogic.
These are endlessly wicked, sick, and hate-filled people. The joy they experience in blaspheming Christ and constantly attacking His religion is palpable in their works. There’s a term for that – the reprobate sense. It is a terrible, terrible place to be (I’ve been there), a place where right and wrong are literally inverted, where lies become truth and Truth a lie. It is a sign of demonic oppression and it is mind-blowing that Catholic universities would employ individuals who give such obvious signs of hatred for God and His Church.
Mind-blowing, that is, if one operates from the assumption that those charged with overseeing Catholic universities – the bishops – possess the Faith themselves. An assumption that is all but inoperable in these dark days.
add a comment
Just a reminder, you should have switched back from the Regina Caeli to the Angelus on the Saturday before Trinity Sunday. Sorry for the lateness of my reminder, but better late than never, I suppose.
Also, the Novena for the Feast of the Sacred Heart starts today, Wed. May 25:
I have two versions, one from Fisheaters and another that is from St. Margaret Mary Alocoque. First:
O most holy Heart of Jesus, fountain of every blessing, I adore Thee, I love Thee and with a lively sorrow for my sins, I offer Thee this poor heart of mine. Make me humble, patient, pure and wholly obedient to Thy will. Grant, good Jesus, that I may live in Thee and for Thee. Protect me in the midst of danger; comfort me in my afflictions; give me health of body, assistance in my temporal needs, Thy blessing on all that I do, and the grace of a holy death. Within Thy Heart I place my every care. In every need let me come to Thee with humble trust saying, Heart of Jesus help me.
Now, what many already pray daily, if you are like me:
I.O my Jesus, you have said: “Truly I say to you, ask and you will receive, seek and you will find, knock and it will be opened to you.” Behold I knock, I seek and ask for the grace of……(here name your request)
Our Father….Hail Mary….Glory Be to the Father….Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place all my trust in you.
II.O my Jesus, you have said: “Truly I say to you, if you ask anything of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.” Behold, in your name, I ask the Father for the grace of…….(here name your request)Our Father…Hail Mary….Glory Be To the Father….Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place all my trust in you.
III. O my Jesus, you have said: “Truly I say to you, heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away.” Encouraged by your infallible words I now ask for the grace of…..(here name your request)Our Father….Hail Mary….Glory Be to the Father…Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place all my trust in you.
OSacred Heart of Jesus, for whom it is impossible not to have compassion on the afflicted, have pity on us miserable sinners and grant us the grace which we ask of you, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, your tender Mother and ours.
Say the Hail, Holy Queen and add: St. Joseph, foster father of Jesus, pray for us.
— St. Margaret Mary Alacoque
Diocesan TLM in San Antonio still available?? May 24, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, Interior Life, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Tradition.
Dear readers, I may be in San Antonio this coming Memorial Day weekend. I have heard in the past that the diocesan TLM at St. Pius X parish has become irregular, or may not be offered very weekend? The parish website did not say anything to that effect, but I know I have seen comments stating such here on my blog, and not that long ago.
Can anyone confirm whether the 12:10 pm Sunday TLM will be offered at St. Pius X on May 29? Really, that’s not the best time, and I’m contemplating the 10a at the other alternative.
Thank you in advance for your help. God bless you.
LMS Chairman: Sacrosanctum Concilium a self-contradictory document unsuited for guiding liturgical reform May 24, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, secularism, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
Joseph Shaw, chair of the Latin Mass Society in England, has penned a piece for Rorate Caeli noting the massive contradictions that riddle the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. What can be said about Sacrosanctum Concilium can be said about every document of Vatican II, which is that they are less clear pronunciations on the Doctrine of the Faith for all ages, than they are the transcripts of a very heated debate that took place at particular place and time, and which was never resolved. Thus, aspects of other documents of Vatican II seem bizarrely out of date.
I have long argued that the documents of VII are documents at war with themselves, filled with rather banal declarations of orthodoxy weakened with caveats that permitted the entry of mass amounts of destructive novelty. Or, vague statements permitting endless novelty “corrected” by weak endorsements of the constant belief and practice of the Faith. It reads like a debate in which the orthodox, unable to articulate the Doctrine of the Faith cogently, fought a rearguard action of damage limitation. Their efforts were largely unsuccessful, almost entirely because the conciliar popes sided overwhelmingly with the progressives, and so we have what we have today, a Church riven by discord, but with the progressives firmly in command. One could even argue that the documents of Vatican II are so riven with self-contradiction that they create an environment in which endless debate will be the inevitable result. Feature or bug?
Shaw makes some very good points, and demonstrates how both SC, and the conciliar and post-conciliar popes, have at various times endorsed both liturgical orthodoxy and dangerous innovation, which are well worth reading and considering. I’ll skip over those, and note his general summaries, which correspond very closely with my own thinking (which means he must be right, of course):
Liturgical conservatives and progressives argue endlessly about this. Their argument will never be resolved, both because Sacrosanctum Concilium was and the subsequent magisterium has been self-contradictory, but also because neither side in the debate is willing to be honest about the historical facts. I am sorry to be harsh, but having read the output of both sides of the debate over a number of years, it is time it was said.
First, Sacrosantum Concilium: how is it self-contradictory? It makes few concrete suggestions, but it does make some. It calls for wider use of the vernacular (63); the removal of ‘useless repetition’ (34), and a more ‘lavish’ presentation of the Scriptures in the readings, arranged over a ‘prescribed number of years’ (51). It leaves further details to local initiative and an official commission. On the other hand, it says (23):
There must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.
It is perfectly obvious that the this double condition is not satisfied by the concrete suggestions the document itselfmakes. There is no precedent in the liturgical tradition of the Church, in any Rite, for a multi-year lectionary, and to suggest that such a thing could grow ‘organically’ out of a single-year lectionary is obviously absurd. There is no precedent for a mixing of Latin and the vernacular in the liturgy, or for the liturgy to be translated into dozens of vernaculars for different countries. The principle militating against ‘useless repetition’ is entirely foreign to the Church’s liturgical tradition. And none of these changes could possibly, in advance, be said to be required ‘genuinely and certainly’ by the good of the Church.
From this fundamental self-contradiction, you can draw any conclusion you like. Perhaps the ‘general principle’ of section 23 should control our interpretation of the specific examples of reforms; perhaps it is the other other way around. The fact is, there is no coherent programme of reform in Sacrosanctum Concilium. Let’s not engage in make-believe. It is a compromise document with provisions pointing in different directions.
It was, however, interpreted by those appointed to interpret it, and the Novus Ordo Missae was signed off by Pope Paul VI. So what liturgical style are we guided towards by the official documents, documents of the ‘living magisterium’ as the conservatives like to call them, which accompanied and followed the promulgation of the new missal?…….
……..We need to face the fact: the magisterium’s own interpretation of Sacrosanctum Concilium is a moving target. It was quite different in the 1970s than it was by the mid 1990s. Who knows where it will be in ten years?
…….Those seeking, in Conciliar and post-conciliar documents, guidance on liturgical principles, with a view to the way Mass should be celebrated, and perhaps with a view to future reform, should stop right here. There is no single, coherent, vision of the liturgy in these documents. There is, instead, a debate. In the end, one side of this debate must win, and the other side must lose. [It’s been heavily back and forth since the 60s, as Shaw indicates in text not excerpted. The modernists dominated from the 60s through the 80s, but then the conservatives gained a stronger position in the 90s and 00s, not that much changed, practically speaking.]
I would like to appeal to the ‘reform of the reform’ writers, and to the progressives on Pray Tell and elsewhere: stop accusing each other (and traditional Catholics) of contradicting authoritative documents and the ‘real’ principles of Vatican II. On this subject, arguments from authority will get us nowhere.
The only way to think with the Church on the liturgy is to take a longer view: to look at what the Church has done, not over a few decades, but over millennia. The very idea of doing this, of course, contradicts the claim that everything up to 1965 was bad. But it is that idea, rather than an honest appraisal of the modern liturgical documents considered here, that is really troubling for the doctrine of the indefectability of the Church. If the Church was wrong up to 1965, why pay any attention to what she has said since then?
If you read through the entire piece, do you also come away with the impression that Shaw is recommending this: since Vatican II and the post-conciliar leadership have been blatantly contradictory on the Liturgy since 1965, we should mostly ignore their pronouncements and go back to the Church’s ancient understanding of the Mass and other Sacraments?
If so, that’s certainly something I can agree with. Not so much “rejecting” Vatican II, which has always been a meaningless canard, since the documents contain thousands of statements which can be twisted to say just about anything one wants them to, but ignoring the heterodox, novel portions therein. I’ve always favored the Japanese term mokusatsu, “to kill with silence.”
In fact, Shaw’s take is pretty sympathetic. A stronger stand would be that revolutionaries planned and/or hijacked a council, and targeted the Liturgy as their prime means of remaking the Faith. In other words, different religion.
All I know is, I plan on never assisting at a Novus Ordo again. I’m going to be in San Antonio next weekend. If there is no diocesan TLM, I’m going to St. Joseph’s.