jump to navigation

How to properly receive the Blessed Sacrament February 12, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Eucharist, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Don’t know where this is originally from, but I got this from JP Sonnen:

communion

In case the picture is not clear, that’s eyes closed head back a bit  tongue out.  If your eyes are open it looks wierd and you tend to move.

When will feminists learn….. February 12, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
comments closed

…….that women are more than their sex organs?  The radical feminist/lipstick-lesbian group Femen has been scandalizing those with even an iota of decency about them for the past couple of years.  Desperately seeking attention, they glom onto other events by running around topless and spreading their message that women should always be objectified and are only notable for their sexual appetites.  So, guess what?  What was the big news story yesterday?  Pope Benedict’s retirement!  So, they went to Notre Dame de Paris and ran around topless, witnessing to the world just how profoundly screwed up they are:

Eight feminists flashed their breasts in the heart of Paris’s Notre Dame cathedral on Tuesday to celebrate Pope Benedict XVI’s shock resignation announcement.

The members of the Femen movement entered the Gothic cathedral dressed in long coats which they whipped off inside while ringing three bells near the altar.

“Pope no more!” they cried. “No more homophobe” and “Bye bye Benedict!” [It’s not the Pope they hate, it’s the Church]

Scandalised visitors voiced their disapproval.

“This is a sacred place, you can’t strip here,” said a Frenchwoman.

The Femen women’s power group has been making headlines since 2010 for topless feminist, pro-democracy and anti-corruption protests in Russia, Ukraine and London.

The protestors were dragged out of the cathedral by security but remained outside for some time shouting “In gay we trust” and “Get out homophobe.”

I bet they wouldn’t be quite so brave and transgressive in a mosque. Their silence in the face of islam’s very open repression of women and homosexuals is deafening, and reveals them for the attention-craving hypocrites they are, seeking only safe targets.  Let them try this in Clichy-sous-Bois.

But the ultimate hypocrisy is what I stated at the top – modern “3rd wave” or whatever it is feminism has now gotten so radically off its trolley that these women imagine behaving like complete tramps is somehow “empowering.”  Good luck with that.  Like all radical movements, eventually the revolution not only eats its own, but devours itself and winds up becoming what it originally revolted against – or at least revolted against in theory.  I would argue that feminism was very off-base to begin with, trying to improve women’s condition by becoming more like men was always a fundamental error, but it’s amazing how successful they’ve been.

For those who don’t know, there is a long history with this Femen group.  They’ve interrupted Mass in Orthodox Cathedrals in Russia, toppled Catholic monuments in Ukraine, and just general behaved by spoiled teen brats wherever they appear.  They pulled thier little shenanigans during the huge marches in defense of marriage in France, and got chased down the streets for their trouble.  But as the culture becomes increasingly hostile to Christianity, expect this kind of foolishness to occur more and more.

And even though these women do very ugly things, they are very deserving of prayer.  Inside the silly bluff exterior lost in sexual depravity, there is a lonely and sad soul.

 

A most interesting article on growing traditional (but faithful) opposition to Vatican II February 12, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, error, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society, Tradition.
comments closed

Sandro Magister periodically writes most interesting commentary in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica.  He wrote recently about a new book by a noted theologian – Enrico Radaelli – which also contains quotes from another very well respected theologian, Fr. Divo Barsotti, both of whom are extensively critical of Vatican II and the changes that have occurred in the Church since.  I add a little commentary, and highlight some important points (h/t reader Dismas):

In a new book sent to the printing press in recent days, Professor Enrico Maria Radaelli – philosopher, theologian, and beloved disciple of one of the greatest traditionalist Catholic thinkers of the twentieth century, the Swiss Romano Amerio (1905-1997) – cites three passages taken from the unpublished diaries of Fr. Divo Barsotti (1914-2006).

In them, this brilliant and esteemed mystic and spiritual master – who in 1971 was called to preach the Lenten exercises to the pope and to the Roman curia – expressed strong criticisms of Vatican Council II.

Fr. Barsotti wrote:

“I am perplexed with regard to the Council: the plethora of documents, their length, often their language, these frightened me. They are documents that bear witness to a purely human assurance more than to a simple firmness of faith. But above all I am outraged by the behavior of the theologians.”

“The Council is the supreme exercise of the magisterium, and is justified only by a supreme necessity. Could not the fearful gravity of the present situation of the Church stem precisely from the foolishness of having wanted to provoke and tempt the Lord? Was there the desire, perhaps, to constrain God to speak when there was not this supreme necessity? Is that the way it is? In order to justify a Council that presumed to renew all things, it had to be affirmed that everything was going poorly, something that is done constantly, if not by the episcopate then by the theologians.” [I agree with the last sentence, but I’m not certain every council was called due to dire necessity.  I’d have to go re-read some history, but I seem to recall some medieval councils that may not have been held in “supreme necessity.”  For that matter, was Vatican I and the definition of papal infallibility a matter of supreme necessity? But, then again, those perhaps not completely necessary medieval councils weren’t extraordinarily successful or impactful.  The most important councils have, I think, been called due to grave necessity (Nicea, Chalcedon, Trent…….)

Nothing seems to me more grave, contrary to the holiness of God, than the presumption of clerics who believe, with a pride that is purely diabolical, that they can manipulate the truth, who presume to renew the Church and to save the world without renewing themselves. In all the history of the Church nothing is comparable to the latest Council, at which the Catholic episcopate believed that it could renew all things by obeying nothing other than its own pride, without the effort of holiness, in such open opposition to the law of the gospel that it requires us to believe how the humanity of Christ was the instrument of the omnipotence of the love that saves, in his death.”

These words of Fr. Divo Barsotti are striking in two respects.

First of all, these criticisms come from a person of profound theological vision, with the reputation of sanctity, most obedient to the Church. [Why is there the implicit assumption that anyone who has concerns regarding Vatican II must be unholy, ignorant, lacking vision, or disobedient?  There are so many assumptions built into that statement, as if it is incredible that a holy, devout, learned individual could dare to raise concerns over Vatican II]

And in the second place, the criticisms are not aimed against the deviations following the Council, but against the Council in itself.

They are the same two impressions that can be gathered from reading the new book by Radaelli, entitled: “The tomorrow – terrible or radiant? – of dogma.”

*

In Radaelli’s view, the current crisis of the Church is not the result of a mistaken application of the Council, but of an original sin committed by the Council itself.

This original sin is claimed to be the abandoning of dogmatic language – proper to all of the previous councils, with the affirmation of the truth and the condemnation of errors – and its replacement with a vague new “pastoral” language.

It must be said – and Radaelli points this out – that even the scholars of progressive orientation recognize in pastoral language a decisive and distinctive innovation of the last Council. This is what has been maintained recently, for example, by the Jesuit John O’Malley in his widely-read book “What Happened at Vatican II.”

But while for O’Malley and the progressives the new language adopted by the Council is judged in an entirely positive light, for Radaelli, for Roberto de Mattei, and for other representatives of traditionalist thought – as for Romano Amerio before them – pastoral language is stigmatized as the root of all evil. [Well, don’t the authors have much evidence to support this claim?  I would imagine they do?  From this statement, however, it appears the rejection of the pastoral language of Vatican II could be merely a preference or a naked assertion.  The criticism of pastoral language, as I understand the critique, is that it leaves open great opportunities for misinterpretation and error.  The belief is that it is the vague statements of Vatican II that opened the door for all manner of radical interpretations to, essentially, define a new, rather liberal protestant, vision of the Church.]

According to them, in fact, the Council presumed – wrongfully – that the obedience due to the dogmatic teaching of the Church also applied to pastoral language, thus elevating to unquestionable “superdogmas” affirmations and arguments devoid of a real dogmatic foundation, about which instead it is said to be legitimate and obligatory to advance criticisms and reservations. [Adherence to statements written in a vague and sometimes even self-contradictory way has proven quite difficult. The Council was, and I don’t think I’m stating anything revolutionary here, a clash of two radically disparate philosophies of faith, and the documents produced reflected that with so many “buts” and “ors” interjected that individual statements often seem at war with themselves.  That is why so many traditionalists say “if there be a hermeneutic of continuity, please show us or help us formulate it,” because it is not always readily apparent in the documents themselves.]

From the two opposed languages, dogmatic and pastoral, Radaelli sees the emergence and separation “almost of two Churches.” [boy, I think that is pretty profound]

In the first, that of the most consistent traditionalists, he also includes the Lefebvrists, fully “Catholic by doctrine and by rite” and “obedient to dogma,” even if they are disobedient to the pope to the point of having been excommunicated for 25 years. It is the Church that, precisely because of its fidelity to dogma, “rejects Vatican II as an assembly in total rupture with Tradition.” [ok, that’s a bit over the top for me]

He assigns to the second Church all of the others, meaning almost all of the bishops, priests, and faithful, including the current pope. It is the Church that has renounced dogmatic language and “is in everything the daughter of Vatican II, proclaiming it – even from the highest throne, but without ever setting out proof of this – in total continuity with the preconciliar Church, albeit within the setting of a certain reform.” [I think the concern is that the hermeneutic of continuity sounds wonderful in theory, but in terms of reality there is question as to whether some of the more peculiar portions of Vatican II can be aligned with the preceding Magisterium.  Hermeneutic of continuity, in essence, is more of a naked assertion than anything else]

How does Radaelli see the healing of this opposition? In his judgment, “it is not the model of Church obedient to dogma that must once again submit to the pope,” but “it is rather the model obedient to the pope that must once again submit to dogma.[Hmmm…….]

In other words:

“It is not Ecône [editor’s note: the community of the Lefebvrists] that must submit to Rome, but Rome to Heaven: every difficulty between Ecône and Rome will be resolved only after the return of the Church to the dogmatic language that is proper to it.” [This is a pretty SSPX-like position to take.  This seems a direct quote, I wonder if it was made in context]

In order for this goal to be reached, Radaelli presupposes two things:

– that Rome would guarantee to the Lefebvrists the right to celebrate the Mass and the sacraments exclusively according to the rite of St. Pius V[this should be no problem]

and that the obedience required for Vatican II would be brought back within the limits of its “false-pastoral” language, and therefore be subject to criticisms and reservations. [this is of course the entire Vatican-SSPX issue in nutshell.  So much hinges on whether Vatican II was really just pastoral, or doctrinal. Or which parts are which.  There is so much debate, even among Curial Cardinals, as to which parts are doctrinal and which advisory or pastoral, that it is very difficult to make sense of the entirety of Vatican II from a doctrinal perspective.  There have simply not been the defintions made that need to be made to clarify it’s content. But I don’t think the entire lot can be declared pastoral, much of Vatican II just re-affirmed already existing Dogma.  But the key point, as I’ve blogged about for some time, is that even among those closest to the Pope, there is wide opinion on which parts of Vatican II hold some doctrinal authority, and to what degree.  How can a mere layperson, then, comprehend the whole and put it into practice in the light of Tradition?  Most people will need a great deal of help to do so, while the SSPX and others argue that it is essentially impossible for a regular person to comprehend such fine distinctions, which is why Church Councils and documents were written so clearly in the pre-Vatican II past]

But before this culmination – Radaelli adds – two other requests would have to be granted:

– the first, advanced in December of 2011 by the bishop of Astana in Kazakistan, Athanasius Schneider, is the publication on the part of the pope of a sort of new “Syllabus,” which would strike with anathemas all of the “modern-day errors“; [Schneider is not the only one. Magister seemed to think this impossible, but I don’t see any reason why there cannot be a repudiation of the rampant modernism, save for the very “pastoral” mentality that pervades so much of the Church. If such a mentality is so pervasive as to prevent clear condemnations of error, then the criticisms made regarding the failures of pastoral language are accurate]

– The second, already proposed by the theologian Brunero Gherardini to the supreme magisterium of the Church, is a “revision of the conciliar and magisterial documents of the last half century,” to be done “in the light of Tradition.” [this would be a huge undertaking. But it will happen, in time.  It is already happening.  It’s simply not yet being acknowledged as “official.”]

*

With the matter put this way, it is to be thought that the reconciliation between the Lefebvrists and the Church of Rome is anything other than easy and near at hand. As proven by the stall in the negotiations between the two sides, which has now lasted for many months.

But even with the traditionalists who have remained in communion with the Church – from Radaelli to de Mattei to Gherardini – the rift is getting wider.  [more on this later] They no longer conceal their disappointment with the pontificate of Benedict XVI, in which they had initially placed some hopes. In their judgment, only a decisive return of the magisterium of the pope and the bishops to dogmatic pronouncements can bring the Church back to the right path, with the resulting correction of all of the errors propagated by the pastoral language of the Council.

Errors that Radaelli lists on a page of his book as follows, calling them “real and proper heresies”:

“Ecclesiology, collegiality, single source of Revelation, ecumenism, syncretism, irenicism (especially toward Protestantism, Islamism, and Judaism), the modification of the ‘doctrine of replacement’ of the Synagogue with the Church into the ‘doctrine of the two parallel salvations,’ anthropocentrism, loss of the last things (and of both limbo and hell), of proper theodicy (leading to much atheism as a ‘flight from a bad Father’), of the meaning of sin and grace, liturgical de-dogmatization, aniconology [??? – must be a mistranslation], subversion of religious freedom, in addition to the ‘dislocation of the divine Monotriad’ by which freedom dethrones the truth.”

—————————-End Quote—————————

Books can and have been written on all the above subjects.  It is an extensive list.  This post is already too long.

A final note: Magister implies says the rift between those with concerns over Vatican II and those who hold different views (anywhere from radical interpretations of a new church coming into being in 1965, to those who adhere strictly to whatever the hermeneutic of continuity means to them) is growing. I don’t know about that, I think he’s just becoming more aware of the position of “traditionalists.”  I will say this: I think the ranks of those who have concerns or even lack of understanding over Vatican II and how it relates to the preceding Magisterium is growing.  I think it’s much larger than is generally known. I don’t know how many folks there are that look at some portions of Vatican II and say “hmmm…..,” but I think it’s quite large…..and growing.

 

I’ve said atheism is just a rabidly anti-Christian religion…… February 12, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
comments closed

…..and now, to prove the point, they’re having atheist church services!

Last month I stumbled upon an article about an atheistic “church service” in London. I didn’t even read the whole thing before I decided I had to go.

The Sunday Assembly, as the group is called, meets once a month at The Nave in North London for “anybody searching for a sense of community, to meet and ‘turn good intentions into action.’”

It is, all things considered, an atheistic church.

The article itself is a very long review of the entire service, which the author attended.  They had songs, a “minister” of sorts leading the congregation, and even a sermon. It was, in essence, a sexular pagan church service.

The very sad thing is, most of the people in attendance seem to be former Christians how are missing the “music and community” of the church of their youth, and are attempting to fill this misdiagnosed aching with a simulacrum of the real thing.  The real aching, of course, is for God and the life of Grace, but it seems doubtful these folks were ever well formed in such incredibly fundamental Christian beliefs.

I came away from the article with the conclusion that this is the horrifying effect of decades of liberal protestantism and Catholicism masquerading as same, of spirit-less churches and the stultifying effects of anthropocentrism and materialist emphasis.  How many of these now self-professed atheists were once practicing Catholics, or raised in Catholic homes?  What made them lose their faith?  This distrubs me so very greatly, because we know in this country alone tens of millions of Catholics have walked away from the Faith and I am completely convinced – and have a good amount of anecdotal evidence to confirm – that many have left because they found the modernist materialist conception of the Faith practiced in so many parishes/dioceses totally unedifying.  Or, they were simply never exposed to anything transcendent and life-altering in their parishes.  So, why bother?  If religion is about nothing but community – as evidenced by the description of the Novus Ordo Missae as the “Lord’s Supper” and not the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass – there are many better ways to achieve community, especially from a worldly point of view.  The Church has no chance to compete on this basis.  Souls will simply wander away.

I must say, among atheists, this church service is extremely controversial.  But I think it’s very revealing of the base nature of current-day atheism, which is practiced with a fervor and spirit of evangelization which is most religious in nature. It’s simply a return to paganism. There is already explosive growth in nature-based religions, new wiccans and druids, for instance. Much of this will all merge, and sexual license of the most gross kind will be a key component.  It will make for quite an alluring alternative for souls, backed by government preference and intimately bound up in all kinds of cultural positive reinforcement loops.  A worldly concept of the Faith won’t stand a chance, only those deeply spiritual, transcendent presentations of the Faith as a radical, countercultural alternative will move souls.  Just as it did in a very similar cultural milieu during the Roman Empire.

Ummm…… February 12, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, General Catholic, Papa, priests, sadness, silliness, Society.
comments closed

……I know! This occurred last night, apparently.

Lightening+strikes+the+Vatican

A lightning strikes the basilica of St Peter's dome

At the very least, I’d be feeling very much less confident about any major decisions I’d made if such were to happen at my house, for instance.

I know someone is going to produce a different photo that shows the lightning striking some little garage behind St. Peter’s.

On a related note: this, I think…….has some merit.  I have quite a bit of sympathy with this view – you were elected, by the express action of the Holy Ghost, your office is one of obedience like any priest/religious.  Only Pope Benedict knows how grave his physical condition might be, but I will say it takes an extremely grave reason to let go of any office so obviously given by the Holy Ghost, especially this one.  I don’t think I could do it, but I know it’s easy for me to say and I’ll never know what burdens even a parish priest carries.  But it might look a bit odd if Pope Benedict winds up living another decade or more.