jump to navigation

The best book I’ve read on the radical changes in the Church…… November 27, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Liturgy, Papa, priests, religious, sadness, scandals, secularism.
comments closed

…….since Vatican II is The Desolate City: Revolution in the Catholic Church by Anne Roche Muggeridge (we are probably related on the Frenchy side!).  Written in the depths of the post-Vatican II collapse of the mid-80s, Muggeridge goes through in great detail to look at the beliefs (or lack thereof) of the radical priests, religious (especially), laity, and few bishops who planned, organized, and executed the revolution against the traditional belief and practice of the Faith beginning in the early 60s.  There is so much in this book I would like, and plan, to share. Each time I read it (I’m not quite done) I underline and make notes on whole new passages, many of which I hope to bring out here. I had planned to try to present things systematically, going through the topics as the author did, but now I think I’ll look at things thematically.  One thing that has really popped out to me, is how radical the revolutionaries were, even well before the Council.  Many, like the execrable Canadian Gregory Baum, no longer even believed in the Incarnation, Resurrection, or Real Presence by the start of Vatican II.  And yet, even though he was very public in his apostasy,  married while still a priest (and was excommunicated for it), and was finally laicized, he STILL TAUGHT THEOLOGY AT A MAJOR SEMINARY FOR DECADES AFTER THIS. Thus, the Church in Canada, which is in much worse shape than the Church in the US, if you can believe that.

The crisis in the Faith is a crisis of bishops.  The bishops allowed the revolution to get a foothold at Vatican II in exchange for the carrot of gaining power at the expense of Rome under the rubric of “collegiality.” 

The irony, so delicious, is that the bishops actually wound up losing power to the vast lay apostolates they had to create to fill the power vacuum created by collegiality.  After Vatican II, the bishops, by and large, had no idea how to plan, create, and staff the myriad bureaucracies that had to come into existence with the power transfer from Rome. The revolutionaries filled all the new positions at the national (say, USCCB), regional (Texas Catholic Conference), and local chancery levels and gained almost total control of the Church.  So, when you think “why doesn’t the bishop do something about this?,” the main reason is that they are afraid to challenge or offend the generally very progressive staff in their diocese or at the USCCB by enforcing doctrine. Progressives, historically, having a habit of lashing out violently when crossed.  This is beginning to change, and in a very few places has changed, but for the most part is still reality to one degree or another.  When Muggeridge wrote the book, the progressives had total control over the Church bureaucracy in the US.  Things are somewhat better now, but much of the bureaucracy, from the USCCB down to the parish staff, is still largely made up of aging progressives, clinging to their little niche of power, refusing to leave for fear that someone more orthodox might come along to undo their life’s work.

But, there has been hope of a counter-revolution since John Paul II.  I had wavered quite a bit in my enthusiasm for JPII prior to reading this book, and I still wish he hadn’t done a number of things he did, but my overall appraisal is back to being much more positive, seeing what he had to fight against and the very substantial inroads he made against the revolution. We the faithful are tremendously in the debt of the tandem of Popes JPII and BXVI……I pray the counterrevolution continues after Benedict departs from this life.  Long may he reign!

Some quotes below. I hope to provide much more tomorrow, and on ensuing days for a while. Begin quotes:

…..But the Catholic Faith cannot begin to be restored unless all the bishops speak with one voice and act in practical directions to disengage themselves from the revolutionary parallel magisterium they themselves created. The cold truth is that if the Catholic Faith and order are to be restored, the whole of the revolutionized post-Vatican II bureaucracy has to be repudiated and replaced, or, better still, dismantled[How I pray for this!  I so totally agree, I pray that the entire, massive, post-Vatican II bureaucracy created in the Church may be obliterated!] But by now the revolution is so strong, so established at every level of Catholic life, so ruthless in self-preservation and savage in attack that bishops not unnaturally quail at the prospect of attempting to dismantle it.  Yet if they do not, all is lost anyway. A society that is not prepared to defend itself by the use of force does not deserve to survive.  At the moment, it is only too obvious that even good and orthodox bishops don’t have the nerve to act against the revolution since it is grounded in their local administration. [The fox is in the henhouse, and yet is the farmer’s pet.  And the farmer wonders why his chickens keep dying…….]  Yet, as the revolutionaries themselves charge, nothing could be more destructive than the present episcopal solution of teaching the traditional faith [well, maybe…..occasionally……..softly…..] while tolerating  and even protecting its revolutionary contradiction.

[arguing that bishops will never effect change or restore the Faith until they proclaim loudly and repeatedly that contraception is gravely, gravely sinful]…. Until bishops go back to the beginning, until they anchor their Catholic cosmology once again on the point where man and woman and God combine in creation, they will continue to get everything wrong. [Everything]  They must go back to the beginning because it is the beginning; one cannot take a stand halfway along the line of the Catholic argument, at homosexuality, or at abortion.  [and, yet, that is what many bishops have tried to do, and continue to do.  But their efforts to oppose things like fake gay marriage, or abortion, or divorce, are doomed to fail until they deal with the elephant in the room, contraception. And the longer they wait, the worse the problem becomes]

At present, the behavior of many bishops suggests that they no longer operate from any coherent Catholic world view……the original episcopal loss of nerve over Humanae Vitae paralyzes the Church in those areas where the “truth about Jesus Christ, about the Church, and about man and his dignity” is hardest to affirm and to practice in the circumstances of modern secular culture in the West.  The hard truth of the indissolubility of Christian marriage, for instance, has become too onerous to maintain, and “divorce Catholic-style” is reaching scandalous proportions. [remember, this was written almost 30 years ago.  Tragically, nothing has changed here, the enormous scandal of Catholic divorce by another name continues] In 1968, the year Humanae Vitae was issued, 338 annulments were granted in the United States; in 1983, there were approximately 52,000. [and for so long as the bishops continue not to preach against contraception, so long as they continue to look the other way at the large majority of Catholics using contraception (and possibly damning themselves if this use remains unconfessed), those numbers won’t change. Nothing will change]

…….Before the Council, Catholic marriage was amazingly resistant to modern secular pressures; today, it is completley demoralized, and the blame for that demoralization has to be laid at the door not of the dissenting theologians but of the bishops, by Christ’s appointment the principal pastors and teachers of the Church……..

…….the laity can pray, the laity can offer penance, the laity can suffer, but the laity cannot enforce doctrinal integrity.  That function can only be accomplished by the bishops……..

….if an angel allowed me one suggestion as to what more than anything else would most quickly restore the sense of the sacred to the Mass it would be this – to do away with Mass facing the people [Oh, I so agree!  I’m a convert, and even I recognize that nothing has been so destructive of the proper understanding and offering of the Mass than Mass facing the people!  This, and Communion in the hand, are the twin abuses, completely unmentioned by the Council, that must be stopped immediately] …..it may surprise even Catholics that the turning around of the altar (or, rather, of the priest) was not legislated in any Vatican II documents or in any document since. The only remarks pertaining to the versus populum (facing the people) mode of the altar and Mass are to be found in the Instruction on the Liturgy (Oct 16, 1964) issued hot off the mark by the [extremely] radical Cardinal Lercaro, president of the new Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, after the Constitution had been passed, stating….”It is proper that the main altar be constructed separately from the wall, so that one may go around it with ease and so that celebration may take place facing the people.” (V. 91, my italics)…….

——————————-End Quote—————————–

Well, we all know what happened there. “May” became “must” in the revolutionary “spirit of Vatican II,” so that even glorious high altars paid for by the blood, sweat, and tears of mostly poor Catholics, the labor and love of generations, were callously ripped out and turned into parking lot curbs.  There are photos of bulldozers doing their unseemly, I would even say evil, work, inside cathedrals.  But that was always the intent.  The revolutionaries got the most extreme legislation they possibly could into the conciliar documents, but always intended to take the frequently nebulous statements (like the word “may”) and run with them to execute the revolution against the constant belief and practice of the Faith, claiming the council had established a radical new set of beliefs.  It did not, for the most part, but it was so very nebulous, contrary to every preceding council.  And that lack of clarity, coupled with the virtually complete collapse of papal authority under Paul VI (tell me again why he’ll soon be made a blessed?) was enough.

Great, great book.  I’m almost through my year long penance of reading books about the Council and its aftereffects, and many of the conciliar documents themselves. If you’re ever having trouble sleeping, have a go at Guadium Et Spes.   It is so utterly vital that the Church give a conciliar pronouncement about the operation of Catholic movie theaters, no?  And radio stations.  And to tell the world that labor is a necessary part of man’s condition.  And that doctors perform a vital service.  Thank goodness they had a

If you are not praying and offering works of penance for your bishop, you must start!  It is absolutely critical that all bishops have a vast team of faithful Catholics at their back, sending down great cascades of Grace to work on them!

In addition, I have a great work in mind.  I think it’s great, anyway.  I know a few are interested in doing this.  But I want to do it big.  I want to make a scene. A ruckus.  I want to get in trouble. More later.

Why don’t we see this in Dallas anymore? November 27, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, Eucharist, fun, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, North Deanery, sadness, sanctity, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

A friend and reader sent these photos in from the Dallas Public Library History and Archives Division.  These were taken of a Eucharistic Procession in Oak Lawn, near Holy Trinity Parish and the present Chancery, during what I think is the mid-50s.  Why don’t we see Processions in this Diocese, led by the Bishop?  Look at all the people!  But I suspect that many could be had, again.  How glorious to march in public, witnessing to our Faith and showing the world the Source and Summit of our Faith, the instrument of salvation for so many, many souls:

[DANGIT I HATE IE9!!!  Stupid Microsoft!  I had the 2nd photo and a whole blurb get eaten for no reason on the my first atempt at posting!]

Why don’t we see this anymore? Don’t we love the Eucharist as Catholics did in time past?  Don’t we want to give the world the great gift of this witness, to display the Lord and King of all people, not just Catholics, to the whole world?  I love visiting Jesus in the Tabernacle, but sometimes He deserves to get out and see some sunlight!  And let people see him!  Marches for Life are fine, and probably have some good effect, but I know getting Our Eucharistic Lord out into the world will do a great deal of good, far more, I believe, than a March for Life.  Until Catholics know and adore their Lord in the Eucharist, being proud to walk publicly with Him, all the Marches for Life and other attempts at converting the culture won’t be terribly effective.

Why is it only 2 parishes in Dallas ever have Eucharistic Processions?  Please……..we’re not that busy.  Give. me. a. break. [A commenter says 2 other parishes have Corpus Christi processions – I don’t know which parishes those would be.  But, grant that………OK, four, out of, what, about 80 parishes?  So, five percent?]

Why don’t Catholics love the Eucharist as they used to?  The reasons are many, but they all come down to the revolution that has afflected the Church in the last 50 years.

When I see things like this, it puts to the lie the claim made by so many since Vatican II that the Church before the Council was moribund.  Please.  Look at that photo. On second thought, I’m not sure you could get so many souls in this Diocese for a Procession.  At least not without heavy promotion and explanation of what it is.

Non-sequitur: no, one nuclear device would not “blow up the moon” November 27, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, secularism, silliness, Society.
comments closed

I promised myself I wouldn’t do this today, as I really don’t have the time and have so many things I need to blog about that are actually important, but I couldn’t resist.  CBS Washington is reporting that the US looked at initiating a nuclear device on the moon as a demonstration against the Soviets during the early space race, describing it as “blowing up the moon:”

 Would Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin even had a moon to walk on if the United States had its way in the 1950s? [Good Lord….]

During the height of the Cold War, U.S. officials debated whether to detonate nuclear bomb on the moon in order to send a message to the Soviet Union, the Asian News International reports.

The secret project dubbed, “A Study of Lunar Research Flights” and nicknamed “Project A119,” was seriously being considered until it was scrapped because military officials were worried it would hurt the people on Earth.

The reason why this so annoys me, is that there are many people, millions of them, who in spite of history and reason believe that the initiation of one nuclear device would mean the destruction of the entire world.  Or, in this case, the moon. This is just sheer……lunacy.  I’m not sure what effect the military was worried about such an event having on the people of earth, as a surface burst would have raised a pretty good cloud of dust but I doubt any would have achieved escape velocity.  So, it would have just drifted around the moon for a while and then settled down.

This is not just an odd item.  Many of these same people who, in spite of Hiroshima and Nagasaki not ending the world, in spite of hundreds of above-ground nuclear tests in the 40s and 50s not ending the world, so fear anything “nuclear” that they are violently against nuclear power as they feel an accident would result in the devastation of the planet.  We can thank decades of environmentalist scare-mongering and general cultural ignorance and hyperbole for that – a major, very clean source of power with great scalability and few down-sides almost totally denied.  The level of ignorance is so great that a reporter for a major media outlet would actually question whether there would be “any moon left” after a missile warhead was initiated on the surface of the moon.  Please.

It also plays to the progressive ideology that man is so all-powerful, so existentially dominant that even relatively minor actions on our part can obliterate the universe.  It’s the same mentality that looks on Obama, the lowest of men, as their “lord and savior.”  Good grief.  Where do we even start, dealing with a culture so intentionally dumbed down as this one (for, dumber people are easier to manipulate and control)?

We start with prayer!  Then penance!

Bad advice from the Diocesan Office of Worship? November 27, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Liturgical Year, Liturgy, Tradition.
comments closed

I have made, gentle reader, some mistakes on this blog.  One of my biggest mistakes EVAH was to confuse the identity of the Dallas Diocesan director of the Office of Worship, a Patricia Hughes, PhD, with another Patricia Hughes, PhD, who is a raving radical.  Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.  That was a bad mistake.

This time I’m on surer ground.  In the Texas Catholic Dallas Diocesan newspaper for 11/23/12, our Patricia Hughes, reflected on Advent.  She did have some good things to say about trying to take time to reflect on the incomprehensible Gift of God becoming Man in the Incarnation, and about adding some fairly basic, but perhaps for many people “extra,” devotions.  That’s nice. But it’s what she said at the beginning of the piece (once again, not online, as Texas Catholic never puts content online) that is causing me to scratch my head a bit.  There were three things, really.  Some excerpts:

Although the appropriate liturgical color for Advent is purple – tending toward a blue rather than a red-purple – the season is anything but pentitential.

Ummm…..first of all, blue is not a liturgical color.  Blue vestments are, in fact, an abuse.  I don’t know about “blue-purple” rather than “red purple,” and what that specifically means, but I do know that blue vestments aren’t valid with respect to the tradition and practice of the Liturgy.  Secondly……Advent is not a penitential season?  When did that change?  Because, when I read the Saints or Dom Prosper Gueranger’s seminal work on the Liturgy and all its seasons and dates, Advent is most definitely viewed as a penitential season.  It has in fact been a great loss to the Church in the past several decades that Advent has been treated like a great feast time, with many people scheduling parties, lavish dinners, etc., in what is supposed to be a time of preparation for the great Feast to come.  Most all great Feasts are preceded by periods of penance and preparation…….this makes no sense at all.  Continuing:

Subdued by not somber, we can clearly visualize Advent when our worship space [modernist alert – using terms like “worship space” as opposed to church or nave/sanctuary (not that those are distinct anymore in most parishes) is a strong indicator of acceptance of certain progressive beliefs regarding the liturgy. Not a certain indicator, but a strong one.  Can’t we just call it the church or sanctuary?]  gradually becomes alive with fresh greens and strong hints of Christmas environment to come. Practically speaking, the beginning of the new church year seems to be an excellent time to discard the old and refresh the environment. [Yes, let us discard ugly, modernist, iconoclast churches for ones with a proper Catholic embrace of fine liturgical art) Although the season is one of moderation, we should shed any notion of severity that leads to a “surprise” of a poinsettia-bedecked sanctuary that was transformed literally overnight.

This year……..it might be wise to focus on the coming of Christmas season with floral arrangements that are gradually initiated around the time of the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Dec. 12.

So, there is no question in my mind that Hughes is calling for a melding of Advent and Christmas into one indistinct liturgical season.  Or, at least, to transfer strong elements of the Feast of Christmas into the penitential time of Advent.  As if people are not already confused enough about the meaning and emphasis of the two seasons!  Already, I have heard several priests of this Diocese give sermons for years stressing the fact that Advent is a time of preparation and, yes, PENANCE!, and that the time for parties and general festivities does not begin until Christmas Day.  Does Hughes not accept the traditional fast on Christmas Eve?  This program she is advocating with cause more confusion and cause more souls to be ill-prepared when Christmas actually arrives. It is a further meddling in areas that need no meddling (stick to tradition!), and a further dimunition of the Church’s glorious, proven, immensely beneficial liturgical practices.  I really hope this is not a directive, but a bit of advice that can be safely ignored.

On a more positive note with regard to Texas Catholic, there have been some pretty good op-eds by Auxiliary Bishop Doug Deshotel in the paper’s series on the Year of Faith. The effort from the previous (Nov. 9) edition was particularly good.

A final thought – is it endemic of people in positions like director of “Office of Worship” that they must change things, to leave their mark, to justify their existence?