Vietnamese Servant of God Marcel Tan, CSsR, was killed by communists. That’s
pretty widely known. What may not be as widely known is that he suffered at the hands of communists/leftists throughout his life, even before WWII.
As Van was growing up, his family became mired in poverty. His mother sent him to a school/church run by a priest. It turns out, this priest was very unworthy of his pious mother’s trust. He drank, he gambled, and he womanized. Even wore, he turned over the formation of the young boys entrusted to him to extremely deranged and perverse individuals, the leader of which was actually an infiltrator from the communist party cadres being formed up by Nguyen That Tan (Ho Chi Minh) in pre-war Vietnam. He was also a sicko child molester. He tried to violate Van’s purity in every way imaginable, and wound up inflicting grave spiritual wounds on the boy.
This is exactly the program communists intended for their agents in the Church to carry out – wrecking holy souls, destroying innocence, spreading vice and evil, and creating chaos in order to destroy the moral credibility of the Church and weaken it as a source of opposition to communist world domination.
From Marcel Van, The Triumph of Love, pp. 36-41 (segments):
“In the rectory there was a certain boy [more like a teen, probably a late teen. His name was Vinh] who was half-monitor, half-teacher; he detested me especially because one day he had wanted me to commit an action against the Sixth Commandment…..But I had resisted energetically, and from then on I avoided that man’s presence. Moreover, I was always regarded as an exemplary child, whereas he was constantly reprimanded by the priest. [Which makes one wonder why the priest kept him in his employ] This annoyed him and kindled his hatred against me……
Every morning he would call me to his room under the pretext of asking about my health and initiating me into the “life of perfection.”………..After questioning me, he would motion me to lie on the floor, then give me a beating with a rattan switch as he sang at the top of his lungs. Finally, he would give me this order with his eyes: “You are forbidden to cry!”………Then, before dismissing me, he would place his index finger before his lips with a severe look and..give me this order: “You are forbidden to talk about this.” Sometimes he would say, “If you talk, I will bury you alive.” [typical behavior from a child molester]
Van certainly did not open his mouth. Within a week his poor little body could not find a comfortable position or take any rest……..Finally, traces of blood were found on his shirt discovered in the laundry drew some attention to the problem. The pitiless torturer suspected of being the author of these beatings was warned to change his ways. [We can see how the problem of weak priests not dealing with wanton immorality preying upon children dates back decades.] But he would know how to take his revenge.
Shortly after this first persecution, another more collective one began. Profiting from the pastor’s absence, the catechists set up a shameful kangaroo court whose purpose was to “judge” the undesirable Van. Master Vinh presided as chief justice. Court was held church after evening prayers. The child describes the humiliating scene:
When I was brought before this people’s court, I was stripped of all my clothes and then given a banana leaf loin cloth, except on certain days when I did not have even that………Their sole intention was to make me act like an idiot for their amusement. They therefore asked me questions on loose and dirty subjects to make me squirm. But I always kept silence or answered them very briefly……
…..Exasperated by the boy’s resistance, the perverse monitor made a second attempt to rape him. Van again resisted him “with all my might,” in spite of threats of being “buried alive.” Furious, Vinh again assembled the odious tribunal that very evening, and the implacable sentence fell: “You are henceforth forbidden to receive Holy Communion!” [Think of the diabolical inversion here. He is denied Communion not for engaging in sin, but for refusing to do so!] Van protested and stood up to the entire assembly. Tempers flared, and he was badly beaten. The boy collapsed, he could no longer stand, so he was tied to a bed in a sitting position…….
……Finally he was allowed to receive Communion, “but forbidden to eat, to see whether I would live or die.” The next day Van went to Communion and ate no food. That evening, he was very weak…….
“The next morning,” relates Van, I went to Communion again, but it was the last time. After Communion that day, my heart felt drier than usual and I was overcome with an indescribable sorrow. I was extremely disturbed by the questions they had asked me.
Indeed, with the perverse intention of confusing Van, the wicked pseudo-catechists “had evoked the lives of past Saints,” saying that they “went to Communion one day and gave thanks for a year.”……..
The communist goal was achieved – horribly confused and abused, his innocence in many matters lost, never to be regained, Van began to suffer horrible scruples and the sublime, miraculous piety and holy knowledge he had possessed from a very early age disappeared for many years. He eventually overcame his scruples and regained his holy interior life, but only after enormous suffering and personal lost. This scene, repeated thousands of times around the world by deliberate communist infiltration of the Church, paved the way for the disasters of the 20th century and the near-collapse of the Church at this time. It was a plan so successful, only the devil himself could have devised it.
Marcel Van, please pray for us, and our Holy Mother Church, so sorrowfully afflicted and divided in these times of darkness!
Mass AG bans all semi-auto rifles July 22, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
1 comment so far
The decree – because it’s not a law, it’s simply the decree of a politician – is allegedly only targeted at so-called “assault weapons,” but it is so broadly worded that virtually any semi-automatic rifle could be judged “illegal.” In fact, the provisions are so broad even many bolt-action or other types of weapons could be included. That’s the real danger of this illegal decree, it is so vague and nebulous an overly zealous cop or prosecutor could wreak havoc with people’s lives, all for owning a gun that is perfectly legal by the letter of the law.
Also note that the language of the decree leaves plenty of room to confiscate weapons that were perfectly legal when bought, though now allowed to remain under a grandfather clause:
Gun buyers raced to snap up military-style weapons on Wednesday as Attorney General Maura Healey moved to bar the sale of rifles that have been altered slightly to evade the state’s assault weapon ban……[The edict was announced Wednesday, and went into effect the next day. Nice. How would leftists react if a state attorney general declared abortion illegal, with the ban going into effect the next day? They’d lose their minds. And yet one cannot find even a remote justification for baby-slaughter in the Constitution, while the 2nd Amendment is as clear as day.]
…….The stores were responding to an order Healey issued to the state’s 350 gun dealers telling them to immediately stop selling “duplicate” versions of common assault rifles like the AR-15, which she argues are illegal under the state’s 1998 assault weapons ban.
The law bans duplicate weapons but has left it to gun manufacturers to define which weapons would fall into that category. [That is completely untrue. In fact, it’s an inversion of the Truth. When the federal assault weapons ban was first brought forward by the Clinton Administration in the early 90s, teh NRA and gun manufacturers immediately conveyed their concern that no one knew just exactly what an assault weapon was. So, in the federal law, upon which the Mass law was based, defined a number of (meaningless) features in an attempt to define an “assault weapon.” To be an assault weapon, a firearm had to possess 2 or 3 of the listed features. Now, these distinctions were false and dumb and only intended to ban certain weapons entirely, but because distinctions had to be made to arrive at a definition, it was also possible to produce a gun that didn’t have those features/distinctions and thus was compliant with the ban. Blaming gun manufacturers/owners for figuring ways around a rule written by their mortal enemies and then accusing them of getting to “define the weapons” is lunacy]
Manufacturers exploited that “loophole,” she said, to produce assault rifles that had “small tweaks” but were functionally identical to the banned weapons. Some, for example, had no flash suppressor or featured a fixed instead of a folding stock.
She said the directive clarifies that duplicate guns are those that have internal operating systems that are essentially the same as illegal assault weapons, or have key functional components that are interchangeable with those of banned weapons.
You can see from the last paragraph just how ill-defined and dangerous this is. This is, in fact, a back-door way to banning huge swaths of firearms used today, even relatively prosaic hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns. There are only a few basic operating systems to make a semi-auto rifle work. Because of that, and because of the wide number of firearms listed in the ban, virtually any semi-auto, including handguns, could be interpreted to be in violation. Then there is the issue of a key functional component? There is no mention of what that includes. Because things like tactical stocks, flash suppressors, rails, and other components are added to certain bolt-action, lever action, and even break-action rifles, are they now illegal? No one knows, because this edict was only issued Wednesday and went into effect yesterday.
Disarming citizens has been the goal of every leftist government that has ever come to power. That disarmament led directly to the slaughter of millions of that government’s own citizens. I would say this lawless edict would never stand, but with Scalia dead, the Supreme Court deadlocked, and Hillary waiting in the wings, I don’t think we can assume anything about the courts anymore – except, likely, just more and more and more bad news.
This is really just a paving of the way for a Hillary administration to ban guns by executive fiat. This is a test case, and I promise you it was carefully crafted and timed to be heading through the courts in the early months of Hillary’s administration, should the sorrowful witch be elected. Buy now, and buy lots.
This may sound a bit excessive, but how long before certain books are banned and burned, books conveying ideas too dangerous for people to be able to “handle,” ideas that “provoke violence” or “intolerance?” How many Americans already hold the Bible in such ill-repute? The same exact logic that now applies to guns could easily be extended to books or other sources of information, for if a “bad gun” can kill a dozen, a “bad idea” can kill millions. In truth, the bad ideas are mostly on the other side, but they don’t see it that way, and they have the whip hand.
Matthew Schmitz, who apparently writes at First Things (which is a severe condemnation of that publication) has a piece at the Catholic Herald wherein he wrings his hands over the future of liberal “Catholicism.” Apparently, liberals are feeling a great deal of angst over Francis’ failure to implement as radical a policy as they would like. Goodness, his documents and statements all but obliterate the moral Doctrine of the Faith – what more could they want?! That, in itself, tells us a very great deal about what liberal Catholics really believe. They want a Church that is so permeated by the sense of the world, that it is indistinguishable from it, and bends to every shift in liberal opinion.
I’ll excerpt quite a bit from the below, adding my own emphasis and comments, but the thought that overwhelmed me throughout reading it was how un-Catholic it was. Not in the details, not in the diminution of Tradition or the advocacy of error, but in its overall sense. There is no sense of conversion. No sense that perhaps the liberal who desires to be Catholic should shift his belief to conform to that of the Church, instead of always insisting that the Church should change to conform to his belief, and militating to that end by devious means (which the author openly advocates – “hollowing out” the Doctrine of the Faith is desirable for Francis right now, because outright repudiation of it is not possible!). This is a path of pure destruction, as any review of history and the ongoing collapse of the mainline sects would reveal to anyone with even a remotely open mind.
This desire for the Church to conform to me, wonderful me, is utterly alien to me. I am a convert. I have, by an act of Grace and of the will, changed by belief on a huge number of subjects to conform with Catholic thought. That process continues to this day, as I learn the Faith better (I pray). I became a Catholic by choice. I think Dom Prosper Gueranger would, among other Catholic greats, agree with me, that it would be far better for these liberal “Catholics” to leave the Church whose beliefs they so manifestly reject, rather than continue to heap coals of fire on their heads in their useless attempts to create a Church in their own fallen image. In fact, if I put my mind to it, I am certain I could quote Gueranger to precisely that end.
Nevertheless, the angst of the unsatisfied radical:
…….The first problem is demographic. There are not enough highly committed young liberal Catholics to replace the older generation. Last September, the posh Town and Country Club in St Paul, Minnesota, hosted to a conference with the title “Can Francis change the Church’s approach to sexuality?” Barbara Frey, a human rights lawyer, and Massimo Faggioli, an advocate for the theological education of newspaper columnists, addressed a crowd of 125 attendees. Notwithstanding the spicy topic, the National Catholic Reporter noted that crowd members were “mostly in their 60s, 70s and 80s”.
Though many self-identified Catholics count as liberals, broad trends [trends perpetuated by…….liberalism!] away from religious attachment and observance have left fewer than ever willing to spend time and energy trying to change the Church. Phyllis Zagano, a professor at Hofstra University and advocate for women deacons, worries that “older Church professionals who adjusted to vernacular liturgies and who incorporate mercy into their understandings of justice are retiring daily” only to be replaced by young conservatives. [I pray that is the case. If it is, it isn’t happening fast enough. I would posit to those who incline liberal, that they actually belong to a different and inveterately hostile religion. Liberalism is itself a religion. It has dogmas, certainly, but also signs and symbols, and even diabolical sacraments (abortion, contraception, etc). Liberals seek to force the Church to correspond to their true religion, left/liberalism. Thus the Church must be forced to yield to their worldly religion at all times, and since the revolution is never over, even Francis’ mighty novelties are judged insufficient, and cannot be, until there is literally nothing left. Then there will be a crocodile tear or two, while the liberal rests smug in his act of destruction]
Though liberals control
various[virtually all] media outlets and theology faculties, they have not been as successful as traditional Catholics in drawing people into the sacramental life of the Church. Liberals who have accepted calls to the priesthood or religious life, who attend Mass daily, who volunteer on parish councils are getting older [and fewer] every year…..[Why is that? It’s because liberalism is a false religion inefficacious of Grace and unable to work true conversion on men’s hearts! Why? It is a religion of men, for men, and by men! Liberalism has always sought to dethrone God and replace Him with a false god acceptable to the world, as I quoted just earlier today! And the ONLY reason liberalism ever had any more than a bare handful of Catholics who assisted at daily Mass or, incredibly, took a religious vocation, is because THEY WERE ORIGINALLY FORMED IN THE TRUE FAITH AND THEN REBELLED AGAINST IT! That’s why liberalism cannot replace itself, the original cadre of aging leftist “Catholics” were formed before the revolution occurred, and still carry elements of that formation, that attachment to the Faith, even though it is twisted and perverted. But for younger people, that formation has been denied them as liberalism swept over and subsumed all but a few small pockets of the Church! They never had have, and never will have, the well of true Faith upon which to draw in order to become good, faithful Catholics – Catholics who assist at Mass daily, who deeply care and are involved in the life of their parish, who might even become a priest! Thus, a liberal church’s collapse is a self-fulfilling prophecy – the more liberal the Church or a sect becomes, the smaller and less effectual it will become, BECAUSE IT HAS DEVIATED FROM THE TRUTH OF JESUS CHRIST AND IS NOT EFFICACIOUS OF GRACE! See all the mainline sects for examples of this]
This spring I attended the ordination and first Mass of a young priest. As the infant children of our friends cried in the pews, I watched him kneel before the altar and elevate the Host. [Oh, the horror! How gauche! Didn’t he know there were liberals in the audience who would look aghast at such cornball displays?] After the liturgy ended, we gathered in the parish hall for a reception with sandwiches and soda. The newly minted Father entered the room dressed in a soutane. [Good for him] He is neither a traditionalist nor a controversialist, [Too bad, I pray he becomes both] but his long garment would have struck a previous generation or priests as grossly retrograde. [Which tells us a great deal about them, doesn’t it?] I asked if any of the older priests he knew would be offended by it. He said yes, but that they had by now resigned themselves to seeing such things among their younger colleagues.
Not everyone is willing to concede so quietly. A few years ago I attended a Mass at which the priest began to rage against Benedict XVI’s investigation of American nuns: “This is evil, evil, wicked and evil! It is a sin, and Benedict should beg for forgiveness!” [What a stupid, vapid argument. Imagine, the Pope investigating serious, repeated, and incredibly well-documented deviations from the Doctrine of the Faith, and the 40-year promotion of a hostile and alien set of beliefs, within the Church!]
……..Yet such anecdotes tend to overstate liberal Catholicism’s weakness. It may not be able to propel people toward the centre of Church life, but it appeals to many who are falling away, or at least lingering near the exits. Newman once wrote, “there are but two alternatives, the way to Rome, and the way to Atheism: Anglicanism is the halfway house on the one side, and Liberalism is the halfway house on the other.” Liberal Catholicism may be a temporary home for many who are headed to unbelief, but some who stop there take the opportunity to turn back. [Setting aside the fact that this is circular reasoning, what the heck is he saying? That liberalism is a deviation from the Faith that some return from? Is that it’s only use, then? To stop a few wayward souls from completely departing? But what damage do they do in the interim? This is really a weak and rather pathetic bit of argumentation – he is completely misinterpreting Blessed John Newman. Newman wasn’t positing Liberalism as a good thing, but as a very, very bad thing, simply one other way to leave the Church and enter another religion, like Anglicanism.]
Liberal Catholicism is based on the admirable and eminently Catholic aspiration for a Church and society that work in concert. What distinguishes the liberal from your run-of-the-mill integralist is the liberal’s belief that the society must not only be brought around to the views of the Church, but that the Church must also, to some extent, and perhaps to a very large one, be brought around to the views of the society. [Thank you for making my argument for me. Did not our Blessed Lord specifically warn us to reject the false wisdom of the world? And yet you would drag this into the heart of the Church? No thanks.]
……..Revolution may have seemed possible in the 1960s, but it no longer does today. The New Mass may have given our grandparents a delicious frisson, but it is comfortingly or depressingly familiar to younger Catholics. As it no longer has the power of revolution, liberal Catholicism has lost its last taste of transcendence. Those who want some share of excitement must look elsewhere.
I’ll conclude on that note, leaving aside the author’s statements – which he plainly makes – that Francis’ attacks on the Doctrine of the Faith are made in a deliberately underhanded way, as that is the only way to attack the Doctrine without opening up an obvious breach (I’d say the breach is obvious any, but….). He also notes with great candor that Francis has advanced beliefs that contradict the solemn Doctrine of the Faith.
But I’ll leave that aside, and simply note in conclusion the possibly inadvertent “tell” the author gave us there in the last paragraph. What is intoxicating about liberalism? The excitement of revolution? What does revolution always involve – the destruction of the preceding order, and its replacement by a new one, most often involving violence, always with great distress to the maintenance of peace and civil order.
If revolution was the only thing that ever gave liberalism transcendence, then the author would, I think, be forced to admit that it is a false ideology and one that is not pleasing to God. Catholicism is transcendent to its core, in all of its manifestations. It is transcendent in the public sphere, and in the interior forum. It is transcendent in its Sacraments and in its Doctrines.
But liberalism is not. It is only “transcendent” – and in a manifestly false way – when it stirs the emotions to a violent peak, tearing down what existed before and promising to build a better tomorrow, which somehow never comes. Catholicism posits an interior revolution, a quiet, peaceful revolution in the soul, as one exchanges the errors one holds for the Truth of Jesus Christ, just as St. Paul did. Liberalism, on the other hand, posits an exterior revolution, a revolution of emotional excess and invariable suffering – just as millions of souls were anguished by the changes unleashed on the Church in the 60s and 70s.
In brief, Catholicism demands the soul convert to Jesus Christ and the Church He gave us. Liberalism demands everyone and everything – including the Church, including Jesus Christ Himself – submit to the individual liberal will. Thus, liberalism advances a revolution that never ends, until the last human being has breathed his last. It is the ultimate realization of the notion of non serviam. It is, as Pope St. Pius X alluded when speaking of liberalism’s ecclesiastical offspring, modernism, the synthesis of all errors.
May God have mercy on all those who fall into this false, nightmarish ideology.
Who’s Up for a Little Prayer/Protesting? – July 27, 2016 July 21, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Dallas Diocese, fun, General Catholic, Interior Life, manhood, Restoration, Society, Spiritual Warfare, Virtue.
It’s been almost a year since I’ve invited folks to pray outside a den of iniquity with me. I’ve done it a couple of times since on my own, bu that’s neither here nor there.
Local Dallas men, are you up for some prayer warfare? I’m thinking we’ll start at the same place we did last time, as it was easy and convenient.
The plan is to do it Wednesday night, July 27 at 8 pm. The place:
The Men’s Club, 2340 W. Northwest Hwy, Dallas, on WEDNESDAY OCT 21 @ 8pm – actually across the street in the parking lot of the US Post Office. This is directly across from the entrance to the inappropriately named “gentleman’s club.”
The post office parking lot is well lit and set back some distance from the very busy roadway. It is public land so we cannot be harassed for being there. It’s really an ideal situation, we are basically impossible to miss by patrons leaving this sexually oriented business (SOB). Men over 18 only. All men are welcome. You don’t have to be a member of a particular parish.
I will stay for at least an hour.
Thanks to MFG and the TFP, I have an awesome banner and flag for us to demonstrate who we are.
I’m psyched. It’s been too long:
1 comment so far
Via Mahound, the kind of interreligious dialogue that muslims appreciate – conversion for Christians to islam is just peachy, but muslims who convert to Christianity must be killed (my comments):
Two months ago, Pope Francis welcomed Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb, – the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, and the highest scholarly authority in Sunni Islam – to the Vatican.
And a week ago, the Pope sent a representative to Al-Azhar as a follow-up and to “relaunch dialogue.”
The original meeting, which included discussions between larger delegations from Al-Azhar and the Vatican, was characterized as extremely friendly – a sort of “re-set” of Catholic-Muslim relations after the iciness allegedly set off by Pope Benedict’s Regensburg remarks in 2006…….
……..The Pope gave Sheik el-Tayeb a number of gifts including a copy of Laudato si. [Oh I’m sure Tayeb read that with bated breath. Cover to cover in a night, for sure. In reality, it probably went in the fire]
Then they spontaneously embraced.
However, as the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies recently pointed out (as highlighted by Raymond Ibrahim in a recent essay), el-Tayeb has a history of saying one thing to Western audiences and another to Arabic or Muslim ones. [No, really?!?]
For example, during this past Ramadan, el-Tayeb reaffirmed on his television show that Islam mandates death for apostates:
Contemporary apostasy presents itself in the guise of crimes, assaults, and grand treason, so we deal with it now as a crime that must be opposed and punished…. Those learned in Islam [al-fuqaha] and the imams of the four schools of jurisprudence consider apostasy a crime and agree that the apostate must either renounce his apostasy or else be killed.The plucky Institute made a public statement calling on him to renounce this position, also making the general observation thatAl Azhar adopts two contradictory speeches: one is open and directed externally, while the other supports violent extremism, and is directed internally. [It’s called taqqiyah, or “holy lying,” and is sanctioned by the Koran. Basically any immoral behavior is sanctioned, provided it is directed towards the house of war, or the infidel. That’s us. Muslims are actually called to lie to the infidel in order to weaken their resistance to islam and bring them into the ummah, or islamic world. That can be achieved by relatively peaceful means, but since that rarely happens, it is usually down to war and violent repression.]Interestingly, it appears that the statement was not released in English or referenced on the English version of the site.
What are we to make of this? [Taqqiyah]Is Pope Francis aware that his new Muslim friend appears to believe that apostates from Islam should be killed? How does this comport with the “protection” of Christians in the region? Or perhaps the Pope, in his rejection of “proselytism,” does not believe that Christian converts are worthy of protection, or should not be placed in the category of “Christians.” Maybe it’s more of an ethnic category.Also, converts do tend to be a bit conservative, after all. [Heh. Great point]Actually, I suspect the Pope has no idea what el-Tayeb really believes or more to the point, doesn’t really care. But he does seem to care very much about publicizing how dialogue with his quasi-peer distinguishes him from his predecessor……[It’s all about the agenda, which has little to do with islam, and everything to do with internal Church politics, remaking the Church according to Francis’ vision]…..In fairness to el-Tayeb, as the highest Sunni Muslim scholarly authority in the world it would be difficult if not impossible for him to declare to a Muslim audience that apostates shouldn’t be put to death, as this is clearly stated in the Koran, the Hadith and Islamic history and tradition. [In other words, it’s a hardcore islamic doctrine and not subject to reform without encountering immense resistance. Thus, the taqqiyah] In that context, advocating the death penalty for apostates is not an unusual or extreme position at all. Indeed, polls show that most Muslims in Egypt support it. Though, again, there is a tradition of not, as it were, making a big deal of this to Western audiences………
……..The problem with Islam is not that all Muslims are evil. It’s that all Muslims are to one degree or another beholden to an evil ideology. Many Muslims (including most women) are enslaved to it.
So, why don’t they just leave?
Who speaks for them?
Not Pope Francis, obviously.
Sorry to say, but that much is certainly true. Francis’ defense of persecuted Christians has appeared disinterested and pro forma, to say the least. But someone should remind him it is his solemn duty as the Vicar of Christ to speak for and defend all Christians, including non-Catholics, and even those wicked, nasty conservative ones.
How could any reasonable Christian-muslim dialogue occur on anything like an even or rational basis, when one of the religions in question preaches death to the infidel and those who convert from it? That is to say, what kind of dialogue could occur, other than one based on Christian surrender? Is that not what many perceive this dialogue to be – the Church surrendering to islam for the sake of sexular pagan plaudits, or at least to serve a worldly ideology?
And to think this is the same Church as St. Pius V, Saint Fernando III, or Urban II. Or…..???
I know. Water is wet. But I gotta write about something. I can’t come up with 20 original posts a week!
…….and some implications that might be drawn from this hatred with respect to the revolutionary changes made to the Liturgy 50 years ago. I won’t draw those implications out, but leave them for you to do so on your own, if so motivated.
The excerpt below also shows how the modern world works in concert with satan’s loathing to attack the Church and try to do away with the Mass as it was offered for so many centuries. Gueranger’s prophecy regarding how this will all play out is not a happy one. The world must hate the Mass. The world has invaded the Church. Thus, much of the Church, even (or especially) its hierarchy, hates the Mass as it was and indeed must be.
Pretty deep stuff, if you think about it, and one of the best little bits of Gueranger I’ve ever had the privilege to read.
From The Liturgical Year Vol 10 pp. 356-7:
…..Hell, from its deepest depths, trembles at the Mass; and raging as it does against God, and vowing vengeance against man, it holds no object so hateful as this Sacrifice. What untiring efforts has satan been making, what artful designs has he planned, in order to make this much-detested Sacrifice cease! And alas! There has been, even in the very heart of Christendom, some partial success to those efforts and designs: there has been the protestant heresy, which has destroyed thousands of our altars, especially in our own dear fatherland; [that fatherland for Gueranger was France. For us, it is the Church herself] and there is still the spirit of revolution, which is spreading as our modern times grown older, and whose avowed aim is to shut up our churches, and do away with the priests who offer sacrifice!
So it is: and therefore our world, which heretofore used to be set right again after the storms that swept its surface, now complains that the impending ruin is a universal one, and one wherein there is no strength, save in the very chastisements sent by God. It vainly busies itself with its plans of safety, and, at each turn, feels that the human legislation it would trust to is but an arm of human folly stretched out to support a decrepit age of proud weakness. The Blood of the Lamb, once the world’s power, no longer flows upon it with its former plenty. And yet the world goes on; it does so, because of that same Sacrifice, though despised, and in many lands totally suspended, is still offered in thousands [hundreds, perhaps, today?] of happy spots around the world, and on the world will go, for the time yet to come, until, in a final access of mad frenzy, it shall have put the last priest to death, and taken away from every altar here below the eternal Sacrifice.
Shades of Fatima there at the end, no? And Our Lady of Good Success and La Salette, too.
We are plainly living through those times. They may yet persist for 500 years, but we are living through them.
May God have mercy on His Church, and on us all. I thank Him for giving us prophetic voices like Dom Prosper Gueranger to steel us for these times of suffering persecution.
A little bit more from St. Alphonsus, also from his book The Holy Eucharist. This really struck me as a beautiful reflection on how great our need is for God’s Grace to convert us, to see through the stains of sin that so blind us to our failings. But through love of God, our eyes can be opened, and we can begin a much better, holier form of life:
One of the greatest evils that the sin of Adam has produced in us, is that darkening of our reason by means of the passions which cloud our mind. Oh, how miserable is that soul that allows itself to be ruled by any passion! Passion, is at it were, a vapor, a veil which prevents us from seeking the truth. How can he fly from evil, who does not know what is evil? Besides, this obscurity increases in proportion as our sins increase. But the Holy Spirit, who is called “most blessed light,” is He who not only inflames our hearts to love Him, through His divine splendor, but also dispels our darkness, and shows us the vanity of earthly things, the value of eternal goods, the importance of salvation, the price of grace, the goodness of God, the infinite love which He deserves, and the immense love which He bears us. The sensual man perceiveth not those things that are of the Spirit of God (I Cor ii:14). A man who is absorbed in the pleasures of earth knows little of these truths, and therefore, unfortunate that he is, he loves what he ought to hate, and hates what he ought to love. St. Mary Magdalene of Pazzi exclaimed: “O love not known! O love not loved!” And therefore St. Teresa said that God is not loved because he is not known. Hence the Saints were always seeking light from God: “Send forth Thy light; illuminate my darkness; open Thou my eyes.” Yes, because without light light we cannot avoid precipices, nor can we find God.
A prayer from St. Alphonsus related to the above: O holy and Divine Spirit, I believe that Thou art really God, but one only God with the Father and the Son. I adore Thee, and acknowledge Thee as the giver of all those lights by which Thou hast made known to me the evil which I have committed in offending Thee, and the obligation which I am under of loving Thee. I thank Thee for them, and I repent with all my heart of having offended Thee. I have deserved that Thou shouldst abandon me in my darkness; but I see that Thou has not yet forsaken me. Continue, O eternal Spirit, to enlighten me, and to make me know more and more Thy infinite goodness; and give me strength to love Thee for the future with my whole heart. Add grace to grace; so that I may be sweetly overcome, and constrained to love none other but Thee. I implore this of Thee, through the merits of Jesus Christ. I love Thee, my sovereign good; I love Thee more than myself. I desire to be entirely Thine; do Thou accept me, and suffer me not to be separated from Thee any more. O Mary, my Mother, do thou always assist me by thy intercession!
I found the metaphor of our passions as a veil barring us from the truth to be very familiar, very meaningful. Really beautiful. I pray these little postings are helpful to you! To be honest, these are some of my favorite posts, so I’d do them anyway!
Shorter Ann Barnhardt below. Diabolical narcissism defined in 12 seconds:
“HEY GUYS! I MURDERED MY BABY! I MURDERED MY BABY AND I’M PROUD OF IT! CHEER FOR ME! CHEER FOR ME BECAUSE I MURDERED MY CHILD…… ON GOOD FRIDAY! YEAH! IT’S JESUS’ PROBLEM NOW! OR SATAN’S I DON’T CARE BECAUSE I MURDERED MY BABY!”
Also see: feminist solipsism.
Pro tip: that baby is not in Heaven, tragically. Abortion is not a Sacrament. Telling women their aborted babies go to Heaven only encourages them to go through with it. They actually convince themselves they’re doing a good thing. The constant belief of the Church, whether it be a solemn Dogma or not, has been that babies innocent of actual sin who die unbaptized cannot enter Heaven. That’s not to say they endure eternal suffering, but they do not receive the blessedness of the Beatific Vision for having been ripped limb from limb at their mother’s command.
In reality, this soul is in enormous pain and needs a lot of prayers. She’s desperately trying to convince herself that what she did was morally acceptable, even though on some level, she knows it is not, hence the desperate need to appear brave and transgressive.
I just finished a great book on the life of William Weston, one of the many Jesuit priests sent to England during the hellish reigns of the later Tudor monarchs. Amazingly, even though this man was revered by many Saints for his incredible holiness and record of service to others, which they felt far surpassed their own, he is not only not canonized, he doesn’t even have a cause of canonization. That’s a shame, as his book is the best of the 6 or 7 I’ve read on the subject.
Anyway, more to the point of this post, I’ve had people request from time to time resources that could help them survive what many feel is a coming persecution. I’ve thought about it for a long time, and I’ve conclude that nothing could prepare one better for a persecution than the historical record of one that has already occurred. And I don’t think any preceding persecution can better inform Catholics of the horrors that await, nor the heroism they are called to, than the history of the the English persecution of Catholics. I believe this for the following reasons:
- The persecution occurred in early modern times. While those times were very different from today, they are much more similar than, say, the persecutions of Decius or Diocletian. In fact, the Anglosphere of today grew directly out of this time period, and was fundamentally shaped by it.
- We can read the record in its native tongue. While flowery, we can understand the language of the English Saints and martyrs.
- The English persecution was one of the first to use the power of the totalitarian modern state to extend the persecution as deep into people’s lives as possible. At times, Catholics could not travel more than a mile or two without being accosted by pursuivants, sheriffs, bailiffs, etc., all bent on finding them out and receiving the reward for putting them in prison. The organs of state repression invaded people’s homes, tore them apart looking for priests (whether one was there or not), and then charged the homeowner for the privilege of having his home wrecked!
- It was fueled by unbridled hatred for the Catholic Church. Nothing makes a man more wicked than an guilty conscience, and in Elizabethan England, there were many, many to go around. This was an especially vicious, personal persecution.
- The persecution was justified by the state’s fear of Catholics holding beliefs different from the officially-sanctioned state religion. Sound familiar?
- The government used false flag operations and the use of deeply embedded spies as a matter of course. Plot after plot was hatched by government representatives and then innocent Catholics were blamed for them. Greed abounded. After thousands became incredibly rich from the rape of Church lands, government agents found they could steal still more wealth by throwing Catholic landowners in prison and stealing their property for themselves.
There’s a great deal more, of a more positive nature: the endlessly edifying example of the English Catholics, the great number of Saints, the extensive writings they left us, the fact that the Church bore up under this, one of the longest persecutions in world history (nearly 300 years). The fact that there were still Catholics after 250+ years of constant abuse, theft, murder, wrongful imprisonment, and worse is a shining example for us all.
As far as very good sources to turn to from the English persecution, here are some of my favorites:
- Edmund Campion, A Life by Evelyn Waugh – straightforward, easy-to-read modern biography. Waugh kept the opinionating to a minimum and reported the facts more or less straight. Much appreciated, that.
- Autobiography of a Hunted Priest, by Fr. John Gerard, SJ Excellent autobiography, especially for its details of his priestly mission, the lives of good Catholics of the time, the lengths to which pursuivants would go to find priests, and the horrors of torture and prison. Very good.
- The King’s Good Servant, but God’s First by James Monti – provides great background on the genesis of the English persecution, the protestant greed and errors that caused it, and of course much on the life and writings of one of England’s greatest Saints, Thomas More. The book is modern in outlook and is perhaps wounded a bit by modern sensibilities, but it’s still a solid resource
- An Autobiography from the Jesuit Underground – Father William Weston, SJ, foreward by Evelyn Waugh – perhaps the best book of the bunch. Extremely extensive notes that add a great deal of valuable information, especially of the role played by turncoat Catholics who spied and reported on their former co-religionists. The damage they did was unbelievable. Cannot recommend this one enough
- Blessed Margaret Clitherow by Margaret Monro – short but good 1940’s biography from when the Saint was still a Blessed. I liked it. It’s a good source of inspiration. Clitherow’s death was grisly, however.
- The Cleaving of Christendom – Warren Carroll’s history of the period is a very good reference work but of necessity has to gloss over specific events since it is a broad tour of the entire history of the Church
- The Outlaws of Ravenhurst – Yes, it’s a kid’s/teen’s novel but it still gives a very good sense both for how severe was the English persecution, and its very long reach. Catholics really were abducted back from Belgium, France, and even Maryland and made to suffer.
- Treason by Dena Hunt – I am torn recommending this one, it is a solid enough novel on the subject of the English persecution, the lengths Catholics would go to maintain their Faith, and the kinds of horrific moral quandaries persecution could cause, but there is one unfortunate scene in an early chapter that is really inappropriate and unnecessary. Be forewarned, when the gentleman goes upstairs to the woman of ill-repute’s room in the inn, it’s a bad scene. Probably not what you think, but bad nonetheless.
I’m afraid I’ve forgotten one or two I wanted to recommend. Another good source of information and inspiration, of course, is reading about the Cristiada, the persecution of Mexico’s Catholics, which was much shorter but equally fierce. Mexican Martyrdom and The Power and the Glory are good books on that subject.
I’m open to your suggestions. I pray you find this post useful.
Wild Weasel Wednesday July 20, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Flightline Friday, fun, history, non squitur, silliness, Society, technology.
add a comment
Instead of a Flightline Friday, I’m doing a Wild Weasel Wednesday this week. May as well, I haven’t done a Flightline Friday in forever.
Wild Weasel is the nickname of the airborne defense suppression mission set. It primarily involves the suppression or destruction of enemy air defenses (SEAD/DEAD). The air defenses in question are ground- or sea-based, destruction of enemy aircraft is a different mission (air combat/air superiority).
As far as the United States and the West is concerned, the Wild Weasel mission evolved from the hard and embarrassing lessons of the early days of the Vietnam conflict. US defense policy under Eisenhower (and it was absolutely the right policy) focused almost exclusively on strategic nuclear warfare, rather than the development of a broad range of tactical capabilities and, especially, the retention of a large standing army. Ike did this for several reasons – it was much cheaper, it reduced the manpower drain on the nation, and, most especially, not having a very large army and tactical air force virtually guaranteed the US would not get sucked into another “brushfire conflict” like Korea.
Kennedy, of course, had different ideas, and ran and won in 1960 on the argument that Ike had allowed US defenses to seriously weaken (this was a false statement). Kennedy wanted “flexible response,” that is, a very large strategic nuclear force but also a large army, navy, tactical air force, etc. Ike’s prediction came true within a few years, that a large standing army is an irresistible temptation to politicians. If you have one, it will be used, and we were in Vietnam in force by 1964/5. Unfortunately, the tactical buildup was still in its early stages. A number of weaknesses were quickly revealed, especially with regard to tactical air forces (Air Force, Navy, or Marine).
The biggest of these was in spite of the capabilities of Soviet surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) being clearly revealed in the 1960 shootdown of Francis Gary Power’s U-2, no one had thought to provide any of the tactical aircraft in service with defenses against radar-guided missiles. Not only did they have no defenses, they didn’t even have the ability to tell when they were being painted by radar and under threat of attack. Within a few months of the start of the will o’ the wisp, on again, off again air war against North Vietnam, US aircraft were falling to Soviet-installed (and frequently operated) SA-2 missiles.
These growing losses were the genesis of a crash program to equip aircraft with what is called radar homing and warning equipment, or radar warning receivers – which let aircrew know they are being targeted, where that radar is, and what kind it is (search, track, targeting, AAA, etc) – and eventually “anti-radiation” missiles designed to home on emissions from SAM radars and destroy them. These two elements in concert with exceptionally well-trained and brave crews working aboard dedicated defense-suppression aircraft was, in essence, the Wild Weasel concept. They were called Wild Weasels because the mission was judged to be similar in intensity and danger to a weasel taking on a poisonous snake.
That’s a background to the videos below, the first two of which are truly excellent. Produced, I’m sure, in the mid-80s during the height of the Reagan defense buildup, they provide a very loving, very detailed account of the early days of the Wild Weasel program not only from the perspective of the pilots and EWOs who flew the missions, but also the industry teams that provided the life-saving equipment. There is a great deal of commentary from early leaders of the Wild Weasel community, all of which is very good. There are also some very intelligent statements about how defense suppression/electronic warfare tends to be one of those mission sets that is the first to get dumped once the pressure of war is no longer present to force the issue. Sadly, that is exactly what has happened in the Air Force since Desert Storm.
It then turns into sort of an extended commercial on the F-4G Wild Weasel IV or Advanced Wild Weasel, but that oft-ignored aircraft deserves much praise. It was a dark day when the last Weasels were retired without replacement, and Scott O’Grady’s shootdown weeks later sort of proved the point that they were still needed.
After the first two videos are some more recent ones from the early 90s. Then, the F-4Gs were leaving service and being replaced with F-16s with scabbed on targeting pods. Many Wild Weasel professionals gravely doubt the modified F-16CG, as it is called, comes anywhere close to the capabilities of the F-4G. Fortunately or not, we’ve only been fighting wars against third world goat herders for the past 15 years, with no air defenses to speak of, so the matter has never been put to the test. But it will be, eventually.
To the vids (warning the first video especially has a few occasions of foul language):