jump to navigation

Giant book sale at St. Bonaventure publications June 18, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Basics, fun, General Catholic, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

We’ve bought a number of books from St. Bonaventure Publications, a small company in Montana.  I got our St. Andrew Missals there, as well as The Liturgical Year by Dom Prosper Gueranger and the Owen Francis Dudley “Masterful Monk” series.  I don’t believe these publications are available anywhere else, new.  They’ve also picked up much of the Tan Books line

They are having a big sale right now on the Tan books – 35-85% off.  Since they are a small publisher trying to bring forgotten Catholic classics back into print (like the Dudley books), I think they are worthy of your support. 

Check them out!

Yale chaplain believes Church Doctrine can change June 18, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, error, foolishness, General Catholic, scandals.
comments closed

A university chaplain has the ability to influence the thinking of many minds. Perhaps not nearly so many as was the case 50 years or so ago, but a fair number, nonetheless.  The Catholic chaplain at Yale University recently made some remarkable statements regarding the Faith in regard to Sr. Margaret Farley and her apostate book, which has been denounced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.   Mind you, he made these remarks in his sermon for Corpus Christi.  I can’t think of a topic further afield from the august majesty of that great feast than the wordly, sexular paganist mentality prevalent in Farley’s book, which endorses gays simulating marriage, masturbation, and general sexual license.  According to the blog of the Cardinal Newman Society, the chaplain Fr. Beloin said:

The “notification,” signed by Cardinal Levada, pointed out that some conclusions that she holds are contrary to the official teaching of the Church. That is true. But, in her statement, she points out that she did not set out to write a book about Catholic moral theology.

(It’s like if I sat down and wrote a homily for a wedding and someone came along and said “well, that’s not an appropriate homily for a funeral.” I didn’t set out to write a homily for a funeral.)

Well, Margaret did not set out to write a book reiterating Catholic positions on some contemporary moral issues. She set out to explore some moral issues from the starting point of Scripture, Tradition, anthropology and human experience. She brings a different methodology to the table. [This is apparently the “new” argument being trotted out by the progressives to defend themselves when challenged on their apostasy.  It’s just a book!  She’s just “researching” the subject, whatever that means.  In truth, this book has found its way into many Catholic colleges as source material for moral theology and other subjects, and is even used at some seminaries.  So, it has a great ability to form minds into accepting heretical views.  This argument is false.  Even if the book were not so used, the Vatican has the right and duty to insure that any book that purports to expound on Catholic theology, from a Catholic source, adheres to what the Church believes]

And so maybe Margaret is right and what she is teaching will be the official position of the Church in a hundred years. And maybe she is wrong and further research will prove that.

That last paragraph contains most incredible statements.  Apparently, Fr. Beloin believes that the Church has a propensity to radically contradict itself, and reverse course on doctrinal beliefs.  In fact, such has never happened and can never happen, at least not on official dogmatic beliefs, as the Church is shielded from error by the action of the Holy Spirit as our Savior promised.

But what is this notion of “research?”  “Research” into established dogmas?   Perhaps such could be understood in terms of helping to explain a doctrine better, or to aid others in understanding it, but in contradicting it totally?  That’s not research, that’s heresy.  I knew that progressives/modernists had a propensity to radically alter the meaning of words to suit their purposes, but I think this is going a bit far even for them.

I wonder if Fr. Beloin believes the Archdiocese of Detroit had the right to tell RealCatholicTV to stop using that name? Certainly, double standards abound, as I haven’t seen the Distorter told to stop calling itself Catholic in the last 40 years.

I just don’t understand where, in Scripture and Tradition, these progressives get substantiation for thier ideas.  I guess they really don’t look back beyond more than about 100 years ago, except for a select few nebulous, cherry picked quotes.  It’s not complicated.  I don’t see why this is such a truly massive problem.  The Church is a body, yes, but also a Person.  That Person has revealed truths through His Church.  If you want to be a faithful member of that Church, you have to accept those truths.  If you don’t, you’re not in that Church, no matter what collar you wear or what prefix goes in front of your name (Sr., Dr., Fr., Br., whatever). 

Modernism is all about the “lived experience” of the so-called faithful.  Whatever experience moves them, whatever their preconceived preferences are, that somehow magically becomes “doctrine.”  It’s nothing more than protestantism in disguise, really, where authority is meaningless and everyone decides for themselves what they want to believe.  Larry D had a post on this over the weekend, where a distorter writer asked very plaintively why we can’t all just get along, since we’re all cafeteria Catholics anyways.  No, really, she said that – apparently, faithful Catholics are “cafeteria” because they don’t support socialism, or something.

In reality, they’re getting desperate.  The few remaining sands are slipping through the hour glass faster and faster.  Almost by definition, each generation of the progressive is doomed to be smaller than the preceding one.  It’s simply a matter of time before they are inconsequential.  But for the interim, the F5 tornado of destruction continues.

Burke on SSPX June 18, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, Latin Mass, Papa, SSPX, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

I pray this man is the next Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

I know I’m late with this.

In other news, via Rorate Caeli, it appears Bishop Fellay may have gotten a little surprise in his meeting with Cardinal Levada regarding the “final final agreement” for regularization.  Was there a last minute change in doctrinal formulations by the Curia?  Is someone submarining this process?  Its frustrating reading Rorate at times, because they are in Europe and are ahead of us in terms of time, and, also, they read French and Italian and password-only traditionalist sites that give them a ton of inside information.  So, when they post, at times, it’s like inside baseball.  It doesn’t always make sense.

But then again I aer domb.


Fr. John Hardon Memorial Mass tonight June 18, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Dallas Diocese, fun, General Catholic, Interior Life, Latin Mass.
comments closed

A Mass of memorial for Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ, will be offered tonight at the Carmelite Chapel at 7pm.  Fr. Paul Weinberger is offering the Mass.

The Latin Mass is also on tonight at St. Mark, at 7pm, as well. 


Viva Cristo Rey! June 18, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Basics, disaster, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Holy suffering, persecution, priests, Saints, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

So, I finally saw For Greater Glory over the weekend.  I really enjoyed it.  I found it very moving.  There was the usual Hollywood problems of re-writing and condensing history in order to tell a better story, but I thought it was very, very well done.  The acting was extremely good throughout (especially Oscar Isaac and Bruce Greenwood), and the Mexican locations added a great deal of authenticity to the film.  I thought it was generally quite well done, much better than most movies of a religious bent of late.

Some minor aspects, before i get to the major ones.  There were some details I just loved to see.  Cassocks abounded.  As did Roman chasubles.  There was much Latin Mass.  There was Mass facing the Lord in the tabernacle!  The producers/director got many aspects of the Faith right, unlike so many modern movies that just totally botch the Mass and the meaning of aspects of the Faith.  Communion was received on the tongue, if not kneeling, but given the circumstances (Mass in an armed camp), that is perhaps understandable.  Communion was even denied to a man who had not practiced the Faith and who admitted having committed serious sins and having a general problem with belief. 

Peter O’Toole did a good job but looked very frail.  I wish he hadn’t had the cosmetic surgery, he looks freaky.

The Church was presented in a very dignified manner.  There was no Church-bashing whatsoever – the perspective of the film was definitely on the Catholic side.  The atrocities of the Cristiada were shown to varying degrees – one major character experiences terrible horror, based on a real life story of a young Mexican martyr and Saint.  There were scenes of churches being broken into, statues and other art smashed, a soldier riding his horse into the sanctuary, etc.  But not many. I actually wished there had been more scenes like this, to convey how frequently the occurred.  For they happened many, many times.

I don’t want to go too much into the specifics of the story.  I don’t want to ruin it for those who haven’t seen the movie, and, again, there were certain liberties taken with the actual history and with characterization in order to tell a better story.  That’s fine and understandable.  What I want to talk about is how the movie portrayed the Cristiada as a reality faced by millions of Mexican Catholics and the horrors it contained.

For something horrifically evil was unleashed in Mexico in the 1920s, something that I don’t believe has fully gone away.  The persecution that really got going in 1926 lasted up until 1940, at least.  In reality, it’s still ongoing, for there are still onerous restrictions on the Church in Mexico that would be baffling and unacceptable to an American protestant, let alone a faithful Catholic. 

Questions that still linger in my mind are…….how did this happen?  How would I react?  Yes, the persecution was instituted by a Church-hating Bolshevik freemason, Plutarco Elias Calles, and was carried out in some locales by fire-breathing marxists that hated anything related to the Catholic Church with a satanic passion.  But, at the same time, much of the persecution was carried out by ordinary soldiers, police, and government workers, almost all of whom, I’m certain, were raised at least some degree as Catholics.  Alcohol, drugs, and rapacious (literally) sins of the flesh abounded among these persecutors, but I have to wonder why they fell so far?  Why did they willingly urinate on altars, mix in consecrated Hosts with horse manure, rape women, kill priests, and do a thousand other God-hating things with such abandon?  How did they fall so easily and so far into satan’s eager grasp?

There is a semi-major character in the film who works as a mid-level government functionary.  At the start of the film, he’s a defender of the Faith and supporter of what is right.  But, due to fear of losing his very comfortable livelihood, and general moral cowardice, he falls, and becomes the very model of the morally compromised man.  He winds up going along with horrific acts perpetrated against his god-son. 

The point is, these kinds of things could happen to anyone.  This persecution, which Graham Greene described as the worst since the reign of Elizabeth I, could happen here.  It may already be starting.  How would we react, as Catholics?  How would I react?  It’s easy to see the soldiers and others who so horrifically persecuted the Church, and even tortured little boys, as monsters – and they were.  But they did not start out that way.  There but for the Grace of God go any of us.  It’s so easy to fall. I’m sure the mid-level functionary I described above really did believe that saying “Death to Jesus Christ” was just some “meaningless” words.  But, it didn’t turn out that way – he became more and more complicit in more and more acts of persecution and brutality with each step of the way.  It’s like that in almost every sin.  We don’t start out with big ones, usually, we start with small ones and work our way to very grave sins.

Unsurprisingly, I highly recommend the movie.  It’s the best movie I’ve seen produced, from a faithful Catholic perspective, in years.  It’s amazing it got made. I was glad the small theater I was in yesterday was pretty full.  The showings now are getting limited, so the movie may be on its way out, but I pray it does well enough to encourage more such movies being made.  I have other aspects of the movie I’ll post on later, maybe tomorrow, God willing.

Viva Cristo Rey!  Que Viva!

Keehan gets religion? – CHA now opposes HHS contraception mandate June 18, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, persecution, sadness, scandals, Society.
comments closed

She was against before she was for it before she was against it.  Or somesuch.  Sister Carol Keehan, who has received much attention on this blog but not much of late, head of the Catholic Health Association, has now come out against the HHS contraceptoin mandate, after supporting it for a time:

Now, however, the Keehan’s influential CHA has joined forces with the bishops. David Gibson, writing for Religion News Service, has the story Friday that Keehan and other CHA leaders sent a five-page letter to HHS saying, in part:

…The more we learn, the more it appears that the … approaches for both insured and self-insured plans would be unduly cumbersome and would be unlikely to adequately meet the religious liberty concerns of all of our members and other Church ministries…”

…It is imperative for the Administration to abandon the narrow definition of ‘religious employer’ and instead use an expanded definition to exempt from the contraceptive mandate not only churches, but also Catholic hospitals, health care organizations and other ministries of the Church.”

Because artificial contraception is against Catholic doctrine, Keehan’s response reiterated that Catholic institutions cannot have direct or indirect involvement in paying for it.

Who knows the reasoning behind this shift.  Perhaps CHA has studied the matter more and finally figured out what most bishops and virtually all faithful Catholics knew off the bat, that having insurers “pay” for the contraceptive coverage was no different from having the Church itself pay for it.  It was a fig leaf, and a pathetically small one, at that. 

When the mandate first came to light early this year, CHA was opposed to this egregious over-reach by Obama and his anti-Catholic catholyc HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius.  When Obama offered the “make insurance companies, not the Church, pay for contraception ‘compromise,'” CHA then supported the mandate. Now they’re against it.  I pray it’s due to prayerful reflection, but pressure from the bishops may be a more likely explanation.  Or not.  Keehan had no problem countering the bishops and going against their guidance when Obamacare was being passed into law.  She provided THE critical cover that encouraged so-called pro-life democrats to vote for the bill, democrats who are now largely out of office. 

Perhaps its the apostolic investigation of the LCWR and NETWORK.  Maybe the “harsher climate” (in reality, enforcement of belief) has changed the circumstances so that being in the vanguard of the “alternative magisterium” is no longer so appealing.  Maybe it was the Holy Ghost.

At any rate, once Obama makes some other meaningless offer of compromise, will Keehan eagerly jump back on the contraception mandate bandwagon, again?