jump to navigation

Bishop calls for new syllabus, Pope Pius XII Coronation, Lutherans reject “Lutheran Ordinariate” January 22, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, Papa, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

I guess this is video Tuesday.  Two quick videos – one of Bishop Athanasius Schneider renewing his call for a new syllabus to condemn the errors that have arisen since Vatican II (and what a great step this would be – so long as the same people responsible for propagating the many errors prevalent in the Church don’t have a say in the development of this new syllabus!).  h/t to reader TB

SORRY, fixed the video!

The original syllabus was promulgated by Pope Piux IX in 1864 to squash the errors that had developed in the Church as a result of the French Revolution and other rationalist, “enlightenment” type ideas.  What Bishop Schneider hopes to achieve – and it is a laudable goal – is in essence, the sort of interpretation of Vatican II in the light of Tradition that Pope Benedict XVI has been calling for.  I’m afraid that’s going to be easier said than done.

Next video is a classic from JP Sonnen, the coronation of Pope Pius XII.  Unfortunately, it’s in Italian and there are no subtitles, but the Habemus Papam rings clear!

I tell you what, they knew Catholic back in the day.

Finally, I saw over the weekend that late last week, Archbishop Gerhard Muller, Prefect for the Holy Office Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, opined that there could one day be a “Lutheran Ordinariate” modeled on the Anglican Ordinariate.  Leaving aside the fact that Lutherans are far different from Anglicans, especially high Anglicans, the Lutherans themselves are rather non-plussed at the idea:

The General Secretary of the World Lutheran Federation has expressed serious misgivings about the prospect that the Vatican could establish an ordinariate for Lutherans entering the Catholic Church.

Rev. Martin Junge said that the creation of a Lutheran ordinariate—similar to the Anglican ordinariates that are already in place—would have “serious ecumenical repercussions” insofar as it would signal the Vatican’s encouragement for Lutherans to leave their Protestant communities. Such a move, Rev. Junge said, “would send the wrong signal to Lutheran churches.”

Don’t Rev. Junge’s comments give us a very firm idea just how falsely inspired and counter-productive the “new ecumenism” is?  Junge has been deeply involved in ecumenical “dialogue” with the Church for quite some time. He apparently has developed the idea that ecumenism has nothing to do with formal union with the Church.  How could he have developed such an erroneous view?  It’s not possible that his Catholic confreres have helped form him in that view, assuring him that the best way for Catholics and Lutherans to achieve “true union” is for Lutherans to be better Lutherans, is it?  Rather like Taize?

True ecumenism means formal, open union with Rome. As for “retaining legitimate traditions” the Lutherans have developed, just which ones would those be?  I’m at a loss.

I note in passing that Archbishop Muller participated in an ecumenical prayer service with a Lutheran “bishop” wherein they jointly blessed those in attendance.


Answering some questions about the Traditional Latin Mass January 22, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, Latin Mass, North Deanery, priests, sanctity, Tradition.
comments closed

A very long time reader – I think she was one of the people reading back when I had 6 page views a day! – asked some questions offline about assisting at the Traditional Latin Mass.  In this case, she means specifically Mater Dei in Irving.  That being one of the few TLM parishes I have personal knowledge of, I’d like to address her questions directly.

  1. Do all women wear a veil at Mater Dei?  Do they have to?

    The answer to both questions is no.  Most women do, but there are a fair number who do not.  And there are a few women who wear doilie type coverings which I’d prefer to just go bareheaded, but that’s just me.”

    You can obtain a veil in a number of places.  Mater Dei actually has some “loaners” they keep washed for women who don’t have one but want to wear one. You can buy them online. My wife actually uses long scarves that I think look very elegant.  Not sure if any of the Catholic bookstores around here have any.  But if you just want to check out the Mass, you can do without a veil the first time if you want.

  2. What kind of faith formation do they have at Mater Dei?

    There is little formal instruction. There is no RCIA in the Tradition of the Church.  Traditionally, candidates for conversion would meet with the priest of a given parish, and that priest would make recommendations to the candidate on how best to proceed.  Having said that, there are classes Tuesday night in Catholic spirituality which are incredible.  I haven’t been able to go much this year, but they are great.  But these are not RCIA, specifically.  I would suggest any person interested in receiving any of the Sacraments meet with one of the priests.  All their contact info is available on website and the weekly bulletin.  I don’t want this to sound like there won’t be help, or formation – just assisting at Mass will be the best formation you’ve ever received.

There were some other items I wanted to bring up that I think have some relevance for newcomers to the TLM.  Taylor Marshall had a post the other day about preconceived notions people have regarding the TLM and the people who go there.  I want to give my experience.

The people at traditonal parishes have been really welcoming and open.  Wherever you have hundreds of people come together, you’re going to get all kinds of personalities, but overall, I’d have to say that I’ve never felt at home in a parish as I do at Mater Dei.  It’s not even close.  So many parishes are so huge that it’s hard to find a place.  And even if you do, you’re just kind of off in your little group and, outside of that, just another of thousands.  At a smaller parish, that kind of outsider status is less of a problem. That doesn’t mean there aren’t grouchy people – there are a handful that are sort of hard to deal with, especially if you have fussy little kids at Mass – but that’s the exception. The rare exception.  For the most part, folks at Mater Dei are very, very pleasant, and the socials after the Sunday Masses make it very easy to meet many, if not almost all, of your fellow parishioners.

I’ve never really run into a busybody, or some holier than thou type that comes to “correct” you (or maybe, that’s me!……..uhhh…..), or any of the stereotypes those who have an axe to grind against the traditional Mass try to perpetuate. Belonging to a traditional parish has been an overwhelmingly positive experience for me AND  my family.  It’s been transformational in our whole lives, and I know a number of other people who claim the same.

That’s why I keep imploring people on the blog to try the TLM out.  The TLM parish – if you are lucky, and can find a traditional community that is in full union with the Holy See – is more than just the Mass, which is of course the best and by far the most important part, but it’s a microcosm of a truly Catholic community.  It’s a group of people trying to live their lives FULLY in accord with the Faith.  For many folks, the parish becomes the center of their lives, or the second center after their own homes. And there is great comfort in having that.

If y’all have any more questions or thoughts or even derogatory comments about the TLM, I’ll do my best to answer/rebutt what you’ve got.  I cannot encourage being involved regularly at a traditional parish enough!


Michael Voris on the disappearance of men January 22, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, blogfoolery, Dallas Diocese, disaster, error, General Catholic, persecution, sadness, self-serving, sickness, Society.
comments closed

I think one of the reasons Michael Voris is so controversial with many in the Church today is that he embodies an unabashed masculinity many have simply rarely, if ever, experienced.  As has been noted on this blog before, one of the most prominent effects of the changes in the past 50 years has been a great shift away from a masculine Church to a Church which embodies far more feminine qualities.  The Church has either led the culture in this, or gone along with the general trends in the culture to find masculine trends undesirable, untenable, even dangerous and forbidden.  With regard to Voris, some of his most vicious critics are mommy bloggers.

But in the culture at large, the collapse of the masculine has had a disastrous effect.  Amazingly, this collapse in true masculinity has been intentional, or very nearly so.  So many cultural trends today tell me not to be men.  Boys are drugged to a benign stupor in schools to quell their natural gregariousness, women outnumber men on college campuses 3:2, women outnumber men in the workforce, more and more young men have no interest in marriage as they see it as all cost to them with little upside (and, besides, obtaining sexual satisfaction has nothing to do with marriage anymore, in their experience), so many young men grow up today with no fatherly influence, so they never develop the positive characteristics of masculinity – these and so many other factors have led to a bunch of men running around that are, frankly, overgrown boys.  It’s one of the prime drivers in the collapse of Western Civilization.

Another important factor to consider, is that fathers have an overwhelming influence on the religious observance of their children.  Children with fathers who are highly active in their practice of the Faith are far, far more likely to maintain their own faith into adulthood.  It is the single strongest predictor of future religious observance.  It is also a father’s prime role – to instill the Catholic Faith into his children.  Sadly, many fathers fail to do so.  Yet another thing to pray for…….

The altar boy is not a trivial role… January 22, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Latin Mass, Liturgy, North Deanery, priests, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

….it is in fact a role of great import in the Mass.  It is absolutely not something to be trivalized or played around with, nor performed by extremely bored children wearing tattered sneakers and shorts under their unisex robe.  The altar boy helps communicate the Mass to those present, and the degree of reverence and attention to detail in the altar boy can go a long way towards making a reverent, uplifting Mass.

This used to be widespread knowledge.  Unfortunately, many in the Church in the past few decades have forgotten just how critical a role the altar boy plays, and how, in spite of recent papal indulgences granted under duress, the altar server is a distinctively male role:

If you see a young man filling this important role at Mass with distinction, be sure to thank him!  It will not only be gratifying to the young man, it may also help spark thought of a vocation.  The ranks of the altar boys have always been the prime breeding ground for priests.  But many young men today shy away from the unisex role and close proximity with girls.  Bring back the all-male servers!

The 200 year leftist de-construction of Mexico January 22, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
comments closed

I’ve been reading the book Blood Drenched Altars by Bishop Francis Kelley. Written shortly after the accord between the Vatican and the nightmarish fascist/socialist government of Plutarco Elias Calles which ended the Cristero Rebellion (and subsequently led to Calles reneging on the amnesty and killing tens of thousands of Cristeros), it’s an amazing book. Not amazingly well written – in fact, it’s rather poorly written and at times hard to follow. But for all that, the information conveyed is incredible, if for no other fact than it is so little 51H5WRSBE1L__SS500_known even in the United States, Mexico’s tormenting neighbor.

Mexico is a state where the horrific ideals of the French Revolution have been more institutionalized in the government than anywhere else on this continent.  For almost 200 years, ever since radicals eager for plunder and a continuation of the failed French “experiment” ripped Mexico away from Spain, the government of Mexico has been dominated by far left ideologues and, more harmfully, convinced Masons.  Bishop Kelly takes a good deal of time to point out that there are very different varieties of masonry.  While those of England and English-descended countries tend to be very mild and rather ecumenical, if still indifferentist, those descended from France, Italy, and Spain tend to be extremely radical and thoroughly, violently anti-Catholic.  That is the type of Mason Mexico has been stricken with for nearly 200 years.  A small cabal of Masons – which included the worst persecutors of the Church: Calles, Carranza, Obregon, Villa, et. al. – has dominated the highest echelons of Mexican governance essentially since independence.

Worse still, in addition to being masons and having a demonic hatred for the Church, which was especially evidenced in the 1917 “constitution” and the governments that followed, the small cabal of hooligans that dominated Mexico from the 1820s up until today (they hide it much better today) are thorough-going leftists, whose policies have broken what was once the most culturally advanced nation in the western hemisphere and left it a third-world nation which is constantly dependent on the United States for its general welfare.  Along the way, the leftists dominating Mexico’s government have been aided and abetted by the government of the United States, which has always sought to keep Mexico weak and easily controllable.  Mission accomplished.

Of course, the very worst period of persecution was from 1917-1945, roughly, after a “Constitution” approved only by the cabal of leftists themselves (there was no free vote over the Mexican constitution, as there was in the United States in the late 1780s) put in place all the provisions necessary to crush the Church.  Calles was the very worst of a very bad bunch.  He and his red cohort – for he was the most completely communist president in Mexico’s sad history – actually put in loyalty oaths for teachers in state-run schools (more later) which required them to solemnly swear (not to God – to whom?  satan?) that they would do all in their power to crush the Church and destroy the Jose-Sanchez-Card_Full_1“fanatacism” of the 97% of Mexico that was practicing Catholic.

About that huge percentage of Catholics – why did they not revolt, or revolt more effectively?  Even though the vast majority of Mexicans at that time hated the government, Mexicans as a whole were not much inclined to revolution.  They just wanted to live their lives in peace and worship their God.  And, the Church in Mexico was always very much on the side of never giving into violence, no matter how dire the provocation – I think that goes back to the heavy Franciscan influence in Mexico.  During the Cristero rebellion, the Church leadership was very divided – some supported the revolt as necessary to stop the horrific persecution, but many others – probably the majority – were opposed, and eventually negotiated the deal that was supposed to end the worst aspects of the persecution.  Of course, the Mexican government, being lying leftists, reneged on that deal, so that by the mid 1930s the number of active priests in Mexico had fallen by over 90% and many states, like Tabasco and Yucatan, had no priests at all. There were other reasons – the fact that the US government invariably sided with the most extreme radicals (supposedly, to support “democracy”) and denied arms shipments to any but them, even going so far as to institute blockades to keep weapons and ammo out of the hands of the vast majority of the people – , the general lack of organization, education, and communication among the great mass of people, which kept them ignorant as to what was going on – there were many reasons.  But int the end, much of seemed to come down to a certain passivity and sense of futility that seemed to dominate the masses of Mexico, especially that huge number descended from the native population – “indians.” They simply did not have that Anglo-Saxon outrage at injustice – they just did the best they could under the circumstances.Altar Mejico cristiada-No esta aqui.jpg

Mexico in 1810 was probably the most well developed country in the western hemisphere. Three centuries of Spanish rule had generally been very beneficial, overall.  Almost the entire population were faithful, practicing Catholics, the Church operated schools in virtually every parish, and even tiny villages had a parish, there were colleges and universities in the larger towns, most all of which was free to the mass of peasants that made up the population at that time.  The quality of Mexico’s universities was superb, much higher than existed in the US at the time, and there were all manner of scientific research and advancements.  In addition,  in the liberal arts of language, history, philosophy, and the sacred science of theology, Mexico in 1810 was, in some respects, equal to the most advanced nations of Europe.  Economically, Mexico had been growing very rapidly for over a century by 1810, was totally self-sufficient in most areas, had large exports or raw and finished material, and was rapidly making the first steps towards the same industrialization occurring in Europe.  If Mexico had stayed on that course, with the very gentle hand of the Church generally guiding and shaping the culture and the people, Mexico – which at that time included most of what is now the western US – could have been the great power in North America, or at least the equal of the United States.  That, of course, would not do.

So, it was all smashed.  The state of Mexico has never, even to this day, fully replaced all the educational institutions stolen from the Church, looted for quick gain by political cronies, then left abandoned.  Bishop Kelly toured through Mexico extensively and reported seeing what had been great univesities with very advanced science labs empty, burned, and abandoned.  Gorgeous architectural works, churches, schools, etc, were ruined or left to decay and collapse because they had been founded and/or operated by the Church.  The only real care for the poor and indigent, the aged and infirm, came from the Church – that was all destroyed.  For decades, Mexico had Mexiko_Erschiessung.jpgessentially no such services for those most in need, because the government never had money.  It should have, but the wealth of generous souls transferred to the Church over centuries to build hospitals and orphanages was squandered in payoffs to members of the political cabal and disappeared, never to return.  Such an immensity of wealth was squandered that Mexico quickly fell from the first tier of nations to being an undeveloped, broke, ruined backwater by the latter half of the 19th century.  Can you see why I love leftism so?

Even today, the suffering continues.  I have spent a good deal of time reading blogs and news sites that cover the narco-war in Mexico.  Many sites, especially those in Spanish that are utterly ignored by our media, provide copious evidence that the horrific drug war ongoing in poor Mexico has been stirred up by the PRI – the “Institutional Revolutionary Party”, the party of Carranza and Calles and Gil and Obregon, the worst demons of Mexico’s heart-breaking history – in order to attack and discredit their main competitor, the PAN, or National Action Party.  PAN is no great shakes, itself, as most all major Mexican politicans are either masons, leftists, corrupt, or all three. But it was less hostile to the Church – under PAN, the ban against wearing clerics in public was rescinded, along with a few other minor restrictions. But even today, the Church in Mexico has almost no rights – there can be no Catholic newspapers or magazines, whether owned by the Church or not, no Catholic broadcasting (thus, the reason for EWTN shortwave), and there are tight controls on any public role for the Church outside worship.  It is possible, although I don’t know for certain, that PRI and PAN are just modern incarnations of the 1 - Burla y profanaciones sacrilegas. Mejico 1927.jpgold leftist fight between two competing brands of radical masonry – the Scottish Rite and the York Rite (again, the Mexican masons are far different from American ones), which fight drove many of the “revolutions” in Mexico from 1820-1920. But nevertheless, it is known in Mexico that PRI is very close to several drug cartels, that PRI receives large “donations” from the cartels, and that the effort by PAN to fight the cartels and the violent reaction from them had a great deal to do with politics.  As usual, the US appears to be involved, with many reports indicating the US is supporting the PRI-backed Sinaloa cartel in an effort to crush all rivals.

Oh, one final aside: we see in our parishes today a great deal of things “Aztec.”  “Aztec dancers” feature at many parish events, especially in parishes with large Hispanic populations. We are told, this is because Mexicans and Hispanics in general want to honor their heritage.  But in point of fact, there was no adulation of the satanic Aztec empire in Mexico from its (blessed) destruction in 1521 until the 1920s.  At that point in time, seeking to find an alternative source of reverence and cultural attachment for the people, Calles and his co-revolutionaries resurrected the cult of Aztec as a distraction for the people.  It was done in a very clever way, which Bishop Kelly briefly discusses in his book, but the main point is, this is an astroturf movement. Not today, but in its history, it certainly was.

Reading the history of Mexico is as sad and sordid a tale as can be read. Only the general destruction of the traditional practice of the Faith worldwide since Vatican II makes for sadder reading. Mexico was a land of great promise.  More importantly, it was a land of immense faith.  It is not nearly so today.  Yes, many Mexicans still practice the Catholic religion, but it is often a deformed, twisted, secularized and worldly version of the Faith.  It is not the faith that produced so many thousands of martyrs.  Worse still, the history of example of Mexico should be a warning for us in this country.  The same elements that so badly disfigured Mexico are at work in the United States.  And we must understand that even the very fabric of this country, it’s orientation as a secular democratic republic, is conducive to the kind of persecution which developed in Mexico.

I highly recommend the book, even though Bishop Kelly’s prose is uneven and he at times assumes we know things we don’t – it was a book written for his contemporary audience in 1935, an audience which apparently knew quite a bit of what was ongoing in Mexico.  You should definitely check it out.

Via the great Transalpine Redemptorists, here is a bit of history of one Mexican martyr: