jump to navigation

A corrective for the last post October 11, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, General Catholic, Glory, Interior Life, Latin Mass, religious, Tradition.
comments closed

Two words.  Papa Stronsay.

All it’s missing is full frontal nudity….. October 11, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Liturgy, Our Lady, sadness, scandals, sickness.
comments closed

…..I can’t even find words, other than this is surely the best rejoinder to Bishop Anthony Taylor’s comments against the TLM and the pre-VII Church.

The thing is, the people who put this circus (literally, including the music) together probably felt there was absolutely nothing in this contrary to Vatican II.  Is it any wonder the Church in Brazil is shrinking faster than just about anywhere else on earth at present?

BTW, this spectacle took part in the largest Marian shrine in the world.  You could have fooled me, I saw no visible sign of the Blessed Mother whatsoever.  Or our Blessed Lord, for that matter.  Anyone see a crucifx, or Tabernacle?

Could this be any more neo-pagan?

Actually, there is so much bad theology presupposing this nightmare that I could write a 10,000 word article on it.

And it just keeps going.  See….the apotheosis of Bishop Taylor’s view, “active participation:”

At some point, they truck in Our Blessed Lord in a monstrance, literally, with some poor priest riding a crazy contraption into the church.  A few actually genuflect, I was so surprised my heart palpitated.  I can’t tell you how many different processions this…….thing……had.  At least five. Including one of pregnant women marching up rubbing (I kid you not) their large bellies covered in a symbol of the globe – surely, there was some green message there.  Oh, heck, here it is.  Maybe this has something to do with culture, but this is beyond tasteless to me:

That actually has some pagan “fertility goddess” overtones.  It was to the god demon of fertility baal/moloch that babies were burned to death alive in the old pagan cults the Israelites had so much trouble with.

The bishop was present at this disaster.

Actually, the General Instruction of the 1969/70 Roman Missal does really call for a “narrator” to stand there telling people what’s going on in the Mass, like they are 3 year olds.  It literally says things like “Now, the Word of God will be read from Scripture……”, “Now, the deacon is taking the Gospel to the lecturn to be read to the people,” etc.

Voris: Part 2 of hostility towards Tradition October 11, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in episcopate, error, General Catholic, Interior Life, Latin Mass, Liturgy, persecution, sadness, scandals.
comments closed

I will only say this: that Bishop Taylor puts forth absolutely nothing new here.  All his criticisms upon the traditional Mass are the same tired, false, discredited claims that have been made, and refuted, for decades.  I can also say that I have never participated as fully in the Mass – in a truly active, interior, “connected with God” sense, as when I have assisted at the TLM.  There are some very good NO Masses I’ve been to, in Latin, some Ad Orientem and some not, but the experience was not quite as transformative for me as is the TLM.  I think most people who give the TLM  a serious try feel similarly.

This is nothing new for Bishop Taylor.  He has obliterated the TLM in Arkansas, where it was doing quite well before his arrival.  With antipathy as expressed by the exhausted cliche’s in his audio program, we can see why.  I think the bishop’s recording puts the hotly disputed events discussed here in a new light.

How does crow taste? Romney pivots on abortion? October 11, 2012

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

I’ve never had crow……anyone know how it tastes?  Perhaps Dismas and DDLG could try some good recipes for me.  Romney gave the impression of “pivoting” on abortion – that is, becoming less pro-life in his campaign, but then quickly backtracked.  I do hold out the possibility my voting for him could be a massive mistake:

Mitt Romney, buoyed by recent polls that show him ahead of President Obama after a strong debate performance, appears to have modified his stance on abortion, a key issue among social conservatives, a voting bloc that has been skeptical of the Republican nominee in the past.

In an interview with the Des Moines Register, Romney seemed to back away from his antiabortion position, suggesting that he would not actively pursue legislation that would outlaw abortions, a key objective among social conservatives.

“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” Romney told the paper’s editorial board. “One thing I would change however which would be done by executive order and not by legislation is that I would reinstate the Mexico City policy which is that foreign aid dollars from the United States would not be used to carry out abortion in other countries.”

Later, Romney, who spent the day in Ohio, appeared to back away from his remarks, saying: “I think I’ve said time and again that I’m a pro-life candidate and I’ll be a pro-life president.”

…..“I’m running out of fingers and toes to count the number of positions he has taken on abortion,” said Steve Deace, a conservative radio host in Iowa. “This is someone who does not have a deep or abiding position on this issue either way, and I think what it does is it puts pro-life leadership in America in a difficult position. I don’t know anybody in the pro-family movement who is not for sale who trusts him. People want to know who the person is that they are voting for at their core. I just don’t think he cares.”….

That’s sort of my viewpoint.  I think it’s just not important to him, so he’ll say whatever. I do think he’ll take the very minimal step of reversing the Mexico City policy, and then probably not do much else that directly opposes abortion.  How  much abortion is pulled back, or expanded, in this country will then depend on whether he can (or will) do anything to roll back Obamacare, and what kind of Supreme Court justices he nominates.  At this point, who knows.

I’m not looking to start another fight!  Certainly, there are reasons to have great trepidation in supporting Romney, which is why all I’ll do is vote for the guy (probably), I won’t put a sign in my yard or give him money or anything else.

This really does look more and more like tweedle-dee vs. tweedle-dum.

On the radio tonight! October 11, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, General Catholic.
comments closed

I’m no Fidelis Radio tonight at 9pm CDT. You can listen live right here, or any time after the fact at the same link.

I might just talk about this Cristeros some, as the previous post has me sort of inspired. I’ll cover more ground than I did in the post, so I’ll have something new for you, my ceaselessly demanding audience.

I’m also going to talk about the pushback against Tradition that is increasingly shaping up.  It’s been coming for a while, but I look for it to increase over the next year+.

The end of General Gorostieta of Cristiada fame:

Hmmm…..shot right through the center of the skull.  Like an assassination.

Pacifist? Our Sunday Visitor type hates “For Greater Glory…..” October 11, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, horror, persecution, priests, religious, sadness, sickness, Society.
comments closed

Over at CatholicVote, which I rarely read anymore, and now I remember why, an Emily Stimpson who writes for Our Sunday Visitor and who went to or taught at Steubenville, I can’t remember which, hates on “For Greater Glory. ”   I’ll give a glimpse of her viewpoint, which is essentially pacifist, and then my comment:

When those among you who claim to “like” For Greater Glory make such statements, I think what you really mean is that you like seeing a movie where the Catholic Church is the good guy and not the big bad boogeyman. I agree. It’s a real nice change. Go team.

Or maybe what you mean is that you like certain scenes in the movie…priests dying for Christ, boys holding fast to the Faith, sinful souls turning to Christ. Or again, maybe it’s seeing religious freedom championed. Or learning more about martyrs. Or seeing Eduardo Verastegui on screen.

Again, on all counts, agreed. All those things are indeed likeable.

But the movie itself? As a work of art? As a story? As a morally coherent tale? No, no, no. I do not believe that you liked it. You couldn’t have. It was too head-poundingly awful for anyone other than 12-year-old boys to actually like. And maybe I’m not giving 12-year-old boys enough credit.

But her problem is really less with the movie, than it is with the Cristero rebellion as a whole:

As it was, they glossed over the pointed moral problems of priests’ bearing arms, gun fights in churches, disobedience to Church authorities, and the whole idea that it’s okay for Catholics to deprive another person of their right to life in order to defend our right to religious liberty. [I know, move along……]

‘Cause you know what? It’s not. None of those things are okay. They’re all big bad no-no’s.  [Throughout the piece, Stimson maintains the habit of speaking down to her readers, as here…..]

Priests who bear arms are not heroes. [Ummm…….] Christians firing weapons before the Blessed Sacrament is gravely sinful. [I bet you could actually get quite a debate going between moral theologians on this point. Is it ok to use violence to prevent desecration of the Blessed Sacrament?] And when the Church says it’s not okay to be in open rebellion against the government, it’s not okay to be in open rebellion against the government. 
[see below]

Above all, while having the sacraments taken away is a fate worse than death, our death is the death in question, not the death of the person doing the taking. A Catholic should rather die than live without Jesus in the Eucharist. A Catholic should not rather kill someone than live without Jesus in the Eucharist. There is a difference.  [this is a good point, about her only good point, but the Cristero rebellion was about more than just being denied the Sacraments.  See below]

Maybe I’m going out on a limb here, but if Christ were standing around watching soldiers shout Viva Christo Rey right before they took aim at other human beings, I don’t think he’d be cheering. I think he’d be weeping.  [A bit heavy handed here, perhaps.  Is this point debatable? I think it might be]

Anyways, you get the quote point.   As you can see, Emily’s problem is much less with the movie, than with the Cristeros themselves.  I left the following comment.  It’s perhaps not real good, but all I had time for.

It is unfortunate that there is such an all-pervasive pacifist trend in the Church today. Many well-intentioned Catholics have come to believe – or been led to believe – that violence associated with the Faith in any way is absolutely unacceptable. That view is historically and theologically wrong. Saint John of Capistrano led a Crusade – personally – against the Turk at Belgrade. I’m glad to know he’s not a hero. Various Popes called for Holy War – Crusade – against constant Muslim aggression. Calling for a holy war, and being the person who pulls the trigger or wields a sword, are not morally different.  Aquinas provides extensive theological ground for the taking up of arms for many reasons, including to defend the Church/Christendom.  He’s probably just one of those crazy medieval types the Church has been well to forget these past 50 years or so.

Violence in defense of the Faith is not necessarily a sin. St. Joan of Arc has been mentioned. Why is she a Saint? Because of her deep theological insights? Because of her great works of charity? Or because she saved the Eldest Daughter of the Church from English domination, and thus preserved France from becoming protestant in the 16th Century along with England?  Did she perform this preservation by talking?  Or by spilling blood on her sword?

You have simply come to accept a very pacifist view of the Faith. That view is very widespread. But that does not mean it is right, or that it is sinful, as you say, to take up arms in defense of the Faith.

It is so very, very easy, to sit in your climate controlled room in front of a computer in a comfortable chair, with everything you possibly need, to judge those who have the most important thing in their life taken from them. The faithful in Mexico had suffered depredation after depredation for decades prior to the start of the rebellion. It wasn’t just the attack on the most important aspect of their life, the Faith, it was an attack on everything. Their women were raped. The faithful were murdered. Their land was stolen. As far as they could tell, the government meant to kill them all if they would not apostasize. The Church has always taught that using violence to defend one’s life is morally permissible. You completely gloss over all these historical facts. The situation is not nearly so clear as you attempt to present it.

I’m glad, at least, that you showed some mercy for the Cristeros at the end. You express worry over a potential persecution, or one already underway. Frankly, what is going on now is pathetically small compared to what the Catholics in Mexico endured. And your smug elitism is a bit tired “…….just another bad movie in a long line of bad movies being peddled to the Catholic masses……” (repeated twice, to make sure us brain dead rubes got the message). I got very strongly from the movie that the armed resistance of clergy was morally problematic. Perhaps I had less of a bias going in.

Finally – to say that the Cristeros disobeyed the episcopate is a gross generalization, and really not very accurate. The episcopate in Mexico was very cagey in how they dealt with the Cristeros – at times signalling support, at times seeming to deny it. Some bishops even sent their seminarians to the Cristeros to continue training and hide them from the government. At the end, after the fatal deal with Calles that led directly to the very sick, very weak, very worldly Church that exists today in Mexico, the bishops did call for all to lay down their arms. Most obeyed, and thousands were summarily executed by the government as a result. Some disobeyed.

In the end, Mexico, which had 4000 priests and about 10000 religious prior to the murderous persecution in 1925, had fewer than 400 priests and less than a thousand religious by the late 30s. But even worse was the limitations the bishops accepted which were instrumental in removing the Faith as the center of Mexican life. How many souls have been lost because of this? Is a death worth the salvation of a soul?  The Church used to believe so – in fact, the Inquisition, so very misrepresented and misunderstood, was founded on that principle, that bodily death was infinitely preferable to the death of the soul.

But, in our present, “enlightenment”-influenced materialist-dominated cultural construct, such has been completely, utterly forgotten.  We have a tendency, even as Catholics, to imagine that death is the very worst thing that could happen to a person. It’s not.  Losing one’s faith, dying outside the state of Grace, committing mortal sin, frankly – these are infinitely worse.  Because they effect our “real” existence, the state of our soul, and our eternal destiny.  Death is  just the process of getting there.  I don’t mean to trivialize murder to any extent, I am simply saying their are things worse than death.

Pray for the Cristeros. Many likely did morally questionable (or even damnable) things, but they did them, generally, for the right reasons.  I wouldn’t want to be put in there shoes.  I’m not going to cast aspersions at them, as Ms. Stimpson so glibly did.

I obviously don’t have Stimpson’s very refined tastes. I loved the movie.  I thought it was fantastic, on every level, but I didn’t go in with a huge pacifist bias, nor, perhaps, a preconceived distaste for the Cristeros.  And she’s wrong, the movie plainly addressed the moral problems of priests bearing arms.  That came up more than once.

Christ Child Luncheon coming Nov. 17 October 11, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, awesomeness, Basics, contraception, Dallas Diocese, fun, General Catholic, Glory, Interior Life, North Deanery, priests, sickness, Society, Virtue.
comments closed

The annual Christ Child Luncheon supporting the Catholic Pro-Life Committee and crisis pregnancy centers will take place Saturday, Nov. 17 from 9a-2p at the Doubletree Hotel at the SW corner of US75 and Campbell Rd. in Richardson.  Individual tickets are $30 and a table for 8 is $240.  There is also a silent auction of items that usually make great Christmas gifts and raise further funds for CPLC and White Rose, etc.  You don’t have to pay to go to the auction/gift market.  You only have to pay for the luncheon from 11:30-1.  The auction/gift market is open to the public.

The featured speaker this year is Fr. Jason Cargo.  He’s a good young priest, he should give a good talk.

You can find more here, or call 972-267-LIFE to purchase tickets.

Please support this key pro-life fundraising effort!