jump to navigation

The Fruit of the Sacrifice of the Cross August 7, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in attachments, Basics, Eucharist, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Holy suffering, Interior Life, martyrdom, priests, reading, sanctity, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

There are many, many such Fruits, but I will share a few below, from Fr. Nicholas Gihr’s The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Dogmatically, Liturgically, and Ascetically Explained, pp. 63-4. Modernists within and without the Church are really modern Arians. They believe Christ was just a man – 61FQkwNppjL__SL500_SY346_perhaps not even a particularly special man, just the leader of one particular sect of Jewish zealots whose followers somehow – it is never explained how, given the absence of Grace this disbelief in the Incarnation implies – and that the Sacrifice of the Cross, if it even occurred, was just an ordinary execution, which Christ’s followers later mythologized into some kind of divine event.  The arch-heretic Kung – inexplicably still a priest –  espouses beliefs almost identical to the above.

I’m short on time, so, Fr. Gihr:

In addition to and after our reconciliation, the other chief fruit of the tree of the Cross is our restoration to Grace. The sacrificial death of Christ had not merely the character of atonement, it was, at the same time, in the highest degree meritorious. Christ by His death on teh Cross obtained for us not only forgiveness of sins, but also superabundance of life (Jn 10:10) and entrance into the Sanctuary of Heaven (Heb 10:19). He restored the kingdom of God, teh supernatural order of Grace. It is to the redeeming death of Christ that we owe all and every Grace we receive from God – the grace of prayer, the vocation to the true faith, victory over crucifixion-cano.jpgtemptations, conversion of the heart, the observance of the Commandments and final perseverance. To each of these graces there is attached, so to speak, a drop of the Precious Blood of Christ; for at the price of His Blood has He purchased all graces for us – from the first enlightening of the understanding adn the least moving of the will to the consummation of the glory of Heaven. Christ has merited for us not only the plenitude of actual graces, but also sanctifying Grace, the infused virtues, the gifts and fruits of the Holy Ghost, the heavenly transfiguration of soul and body, – in short, the whole glory of Grace for the children of God, which here below is concealed, but which hereafter shall shine with unending brightness.

The inexhaustible treasure of Grace, the riches of heavenly blessings, the establishment of the Church and its endowment with all the gifts and means of salvation, are fruits that proceed from the tree of the Cross. Thus has God, through the merits of Christ, presented us with the greatest and most precious promise (1 Pet 1:4). Filled with holy joy and gratitude, the Prince of the Apostles thus exultingly exclaims: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has regenerated us into a lively HOLY_T~1hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead – unto an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that cannot fde, reserved in Heaven for you” (1 Pet 1:4)……

…..It was by the death of Christ, that the redemption ofthe human race, the restoration of the supernatural kingdom of God on earth, were accomplished. On the Cross “the handwriting of the decree that was against us” (Col 2:14) was blotted out and destroyed: then God was appeased and the irgor of His justice satisfied, so that the stream of His mercies could again flow without hindrance; then were sin and the curse of sin taken away, and Grace and glory once more restored; then was death swallowed up in victory and life resuscitated; then was the power of darkness broken and mankind delivered from ignominious captivity; then was the abyss of hell closed and the gates of paradise reopened; then Heaven and earth were again united in peace (St. Thomas Aquinas 3,qu. 49, a.5.)

———–End Quote————

Hopefully this excerpt will help dispell any notions of my traddy-induced Pelagianism!  I, for one, know that ANY little good thing I do comes only because I cooperate with Grace!  That is the best we can do in any circumstance: cooperate with Grace.  Those who regularly cooperate with Grace and eschew sin will become Saints.  That is our Faith.


Fr. Ray Blake surveys the loss of “Catholic” in the Church August 7, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, priests, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, the return.
comments closed

Fr. Ray Blake has an interesting post up that examines the nature of the Church, or, to be more precise, just what constitutes being “Catholic.” As I have also noted on my blog, St. Vincent of Lerins defined the term “Catholic” as: “catholic is that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.”  Fr. Ray Blake notes the existential crisis in the Church – the vast majority of Catholics simply no longer believe not only what their forefathers in the Faith once did, but what the Church today proclaims to be true. He also notes that those two things no longer seem the same, even if it requires squinting one’s eyes, and holding the paper just right, one can get the various documents of VII and, even more so, various post-conciliar statements, to align with Tradition.  But to many people in the pews (or not), the content of the Faith seems to have changed a great deal.

Fr. Blake (I add emphasis and comments):

If the worship after 1968 could be changed, so could the content of ‘the faith’ and if the changes were enforced from above, from Rome then surely this is also the source of ‘the faith’, Again, if the liturgy could vary so widely from Mass at the High Altar of Brompton Oratory, with traditional vestments and music and in Latin to Father X sitting on a bean bag wearing just a stole making it up as he went along, why could ‘the faith’ not also be variable [This gets back to Fr. Rodriguez, and many other traditional priests, stressing Lex Orandi Lex Credendi – we believe as we pray.  When the Mass was changed, it was inevitable that the belief and practice of the Faith in other areas would change, as well.  Coupled with the terrible timing of the Council and it’s changes viz a viz the revolution in the culture (both occurrred at the same time), the change in the Mass left not a small window, but a yawning maw, in the Church by which revolutionary ideas could enter and be adopted en masse.  The “aggiornamento” wound up much less with the Church influencing the world, than the world influencing the Church.] Despite its intention VII taught, subliminally at least, especially through the liturgy, that Catholicism was what Ratzinger would define as ‘Relativistic’, most importantly of all by Father quite literally turning his back on that which was held holy by past generations, if not smashing it with a sledgehammer[I think we really, really need to get past looking, as a Church, at the Council as some untouchable, sacrosanct event.  All previous councils are studied, argued about, and criticized.  VII has to be appraised honestly, understood in context of Tradition (esp. via formal clarifications), and then propely disseminated through formal, priest-led catachesis.  This is utterly vital to arrest the collapse in orthodoxy and orthopraxis.]

‘The faith’ post VII, was not the faith of the previous generations, it was in a state of flux [Can this statement be seriously refuted? And if not, does not this fact alone cry out for formal clarification of all that was unleashed on the Church in the period ~1953-1973? How many cardinals do we have to quote saying “Vatican II was deliberately ambiguous,” or “all the documents are 100% dogmatic,” followed by “no they’re not! Only a few are, and only when they confirmed prior dogma!”  All the above have been stated by cardinals in the past year!] The movement of the Blessed Sacrament in some diocese from the centre of the apse to a side chapel or a tabernacle in the corner of the sanctuary and rubrics restricting the genuflections of the priest, said what we believed yesterday about the Real Presence is not what we believe today, similarly the change in funeral rites from sombre black, the Dies Irae, intercession for the dead to Mass in thanksgiving for the life of the dead person brought in a serious undermining of one of Catholicism most important certainties about death and judgement, again it said what we believed yesterday, we do not believe today.……

  …….The curriculum in seminaries and houses of formation were often aimed at rooting out that which was passed on, hence scripture was more about teaching the untrustworthiness of scripture, moral theology became how to get around traditional Catholic morality, liturgy became a justification for ditching past practices, theology rather than deepening faith tended to undermine it, theology tended to emphasise rupture and to be based not on the liturgy but non-Christian philosophical notions, Rahner supplanted Aquinas. [Pretty much all of which is true, or was true for a while. I pray things are better today.  Given the above, perhaps we should thank God pur priests are as good as they are, or not nearly so bad as they could have been.]  An apparently new theology with apparently new set of doctrines alienated many clergy. The great boom in vocations in the fifties ended with a whimper in the sixties, and I suspect left many clergy traumatised, trying to explain something which they didn’t understand or necessarily belief in, to people who didn’t understand or want what was now offered.

————-End Quote————-

Look, it can be said 400 different ways, but, in essence, a revolution was executed within and/or against the Church by a limited cadre of Her own members.  This revolution had been a possibility since the disastrous idea of “personal judgment” trumping all became widespread in the latter half of the 16th century, and became increasingly likely as the protestant-revolt inspired endarkenment transpired in the late 17th and 18th centuries.  When materialist evolution and the religious expression of that, modernism, began to spread like wildfire in the late 19th century, the possibility of revolution became a probability.  Only extreme vigilance and, probably, severe measures of the type taken by Pope St. Pius X, could have continued to stave off the revolution in the culture from entering into the Church. But as the 20th century developed, and more and more in the Church began to absorb, consciously or not, certain “enlightened” ideas like “tolerance” (meaning indifference) and “the rights of man” (as against the rights of God), there was less and less support for such strong action, and more and more voices opposed to such “cruel,” “totalitarian” measures.  By the late 50s, the Church had a large cadre of priests, heads of religious orders, and even some bishops, who were thoroughly modernist and just itching for a chance to radically change the Church.  They got that chance.

I’m not saying the documents of VII themselves are revolutionary, but those seeking to upend the Faith and replace It with a wholly different paradigm, a much more humanistic paradigm, certainly took advantage of them to their own ends, and did play a role in making those documents quite open to interpretation.  So, to Fr. Blake I would say, the reason why you and others were taught so very differently in seminary is because that was the conscious intent of those who desired to force the Church into some kind of accord with modernist, endarkenment beliefs.

But this “Church makeover: modernist edition” was always doomed to fail, and terribly.  So long as the Church continues on this path, She will continue in ever-deepening crisis.  The Church cannot be what She is not: a worldly institution that accords with the anti-Catholic, humanist, materialist ideals of the present culture.  The Church has to be what she is, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, the only vehicle of salvation, and the source of all Grace and Light in the world. It has to stand athwart the culture and shout “Stop!”  It has to tell an increasingly broken and amoral world the Truth, which more and more souls will eventually respond to as they realize the hollowness and emptiness of the falsities that underly the present culture.  The Church, in short, has to be Her historical, traditional, mystical, Sacramental, Papal, priestly, Eucharistic self.  That is what God intends, and He will not be fooled.

I think I have found……. August 7, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Art and Architecture, Basics, Christendom, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society.
comments closed

……the world’s ugliest church!  It’s certainly in the running.  Behold Saturn V Launch Complex 39, errr, I mean, St. Mary Queen of Peace parish in Ulysses, KS:

Mary Queen Of Peace Catholic Church Ulysses

After that, how about a palate cleanser.  Most of the below are from Ars Orandi:

St Mary Major_Pozzo

St Mary Major altar and dome



How in good Heavens did the Church ever decide, more or less collectively, to abandon the glory above, and replace it with Starship McChurchyplace?

There actually is an answer.

More scandals from Rio August 7, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, disaster, episcopate, error, Eucharist, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the return.
comments closed

Fr. Z, Pertinacious Papist, and others are showing some photos of how the Blessed Sacrament was distributed in Rio to the millions of, one hopes, faithful souls in the state of Grace, who received Our Lord in the Eucharist.  Fr. Zuhlsdorf asks how even a semblance of proper reverence and respect for the Blessed Sacrament could be maintained under the conditions prevailing in Rio.  It appears the Body of Our Lrod was distributed in disposable plastic cups, and there were often mad scenes to receive the Blessed Sacrament.  I wonder how many Hosts were dropped and subsequently trampled into the sand/mud?



I don’t know if this is more disturbing, or less, but it is being in German Catholic media via Tancred at Eponymous Flower that the man who Der-Choreograph-der-Kreuzwegmeditationen-225x300choreographed and subsequently led the Brazilian Bishops in that ludicrously inappropriate and irreverent dance practice (subsequently repeated at Mass), which got such wide coverage on Catholic blogs here in the States, has posed nude in various Brazilian homosexual porn mags.  And, his name is “Fly.”  I really, really pray that was years ago and he’s subsequently repented of all that, but he apparently is still guilty of very bad judgement, as revealed through that brain-melting episcopal dance.

It’s fun to stay at the Y-M-C-A!  (Village People dance?  Could he be any more obvious?)


Official spokesman for Franciscans of the Immaculate confirms, minority of “dissenters” responsible for action against TLM August 7, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, disconcerting, Four Last Things, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, persecution, priests, religious, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the return.
comments closed

I know I may sound like a broken record, but these official statements from the FFI’s duly appointed leadership must be noted.  They must be noted because they are so counter to the impression certian parties – it seems more and more, from self-interest – managed to spread in brief hours after the announcement of the canonical action taken against the FFI, denying them their right under Summorum Pontificum to offer the TLM as any priest, religious or not,, is normally permitted to do.  They also must be noted because they stress that the line “this is not about Summorum, it’s only about matters internal to the FFI” looks more and more untenable.  It IS about Summorum Pontificum.

Below, via Rorate (I have to say, as this matter has developed, Rorate’s initial analysis of the apostolic intervention has proven to have been quite, quite accurate, in spite of all the fire directed their way), is a further interview with the FFI leadership, in this case, the official spokesman and Procurator, Fr. Alessandro Apollonio.  His statements – at least from the perspective of the FFI’s leadership – confirm much of what I’ve said on this blog, and refute the statements of the false spokesman, almost certainly aligned with the small, progressive, aggrieved faction, which dominated the coverage of this matter last week.  I add comments:

Why did the Vatican decide to send an apostolic visitor to your Institute?
“Because a few of the friars who don’t agree with the founding Father and Minister general’s style asked for it. They also disagree with his eagerness to promote the Vetus Ordo within the Institute, alongside the Novus Ordo, in accordance with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae.”  [This is very different than “imposing” the TLM on all.  It could be one of two things: either an honest mistake, people consistently and over a period of years misinterpreting the words, action, and intent of the founder, or it could have been a plot to change the direction of the order irrespective of the action of the founder/leadership team.  I suspect which it was will come to light, eventually.]
To what extent did the issue of the use of the old missal influence the decision to send an apostolic visitor?
“It had a big influence on the decision because the group of friars I mentioned before accused the founding Father of imposing the Vetus Ordo on the whole Institute. Although the accusation is completely unfounded, people believed it and our attempts to prove it was false proved futile. This false accusation has spread like an oil slick, with various newspapers and news agencies passing it on. This has seriously harmed the good name of the Institute’s founding Father.” [Which, if true, is an unfair and wicked calumny. The claims made by the leadership point to calumny]
Traditionalist blogs and websites have reacted to this news – and to the decision that prior authorisation will have to be obtained before the Institute can celebrate Mass according to the Old Rite – by saying that these decisions disavow Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio. Do you agree with this interpretation? What can you say about these decisions?
“Fr. Lombardi has clearly stated that the decisions taken regarding our Institute are not a disavowal of the Motu Proprio. However, we are still waiting for an authentic interpretation of the Holy See’s liturgical provisions for our Institute. For example, it is still unclear who exactly the “competent authorities” who will give the aforementioned authorization, are. [This is enormous. We are only 4 days away from when the FFIs will have to stop offering the TLM or praying the traditional breviary, and they have no idea to whom they can appeal to restore the traditional Rite? As I said earlier, whether this matter is really about Summorum, or just about internal FFI politics, will be revealed by how easily permission to offer the TLM is obtained.  From the looks of things at this point, with the FFIs completely ignorant of even who will make that decision, it looks much more like the former]  Will it be the commissioner, the Congregation for Religious, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the local ordinary, one of these or all of these? We hope this is just a temporary disciplinary provision and that we will soon be given authorisation to celebrate according to the Vetus Ordo also, as we have always done. Without all the current restrictions which – unless a better reason can be given – deprive us of the universal right granted to us in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae.”
Have any members of your Institute played a role in spreading the above interpretation?
“No.”  [This is an amazing statement. Because, plainly, some members of the FFI have been putting out interpretations in marked contrast to what the leadership has been putting out in the past few days.  In fact, much of the content of these recent statements seem directed at refuting, directly, the impressions put out by unapproved, unofficial FFI “spokesmen.” Does that mean those who did so are no longer members of the FFI?  Does the FFI leadership still have the ability to make those kinds of decisions, given the apostolic intervention they are under?]
When you have asked for clarifications regarding some of our articles, you have always stressed that you did not only use the old missal and that all decisions were taken bearing in mind the provisions of the Motu Proprio. Is it true that before the apostolic visit, the “Ecclesia Dei” commission had cautioned the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate to be prudent in their use of the old missal?
“Yes, we tried to be as prudent and discreet as possible in exercising our special right which gives the General Chapter in session “supreme authority in the Institute”, in accordance with the Constitutions (§ 81). The last General Chapter held in 2008, established that the General Council (that is, Fr. Stefano M. Manelli and his five advisors) was to draft a protocol for the Vetus Ordo to be introduced in our communities. This was done in the form of a letter sent on 21 November 2011. The Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” considered this letter carefully, taking account Benedict XVI’s thinking, but this official judgement was not taken into consideration during the developments in our case. We do not understand why and are greatly saddened by this. We entrust our cause to Our Lady Queen of the Seraphic Order.”  [What does not get directly mentioned above is that the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei approved the FFI’s implementation of Summorum Pontificum and their intent to remain bi-ritual. But apparently, according to Fr. Apollonio, that recent judgement (from May 2012) was not even considered in this case.  That, my dear readers, is very, very revealing. I believe it means there has been a sea change in thinking regarding Summorum Pontificum at the highest levels of the Church.]
————————–End Quote——————————
Sorry if all this coverage beats you down, but I think it is very significant for the entire Church.  I am certain there will be much more in the days and weeks to come.  Judging from how various dioceses around the world that had TLMs offered by the Franciscans of the Immaculate are reacting, they believe it’s going to be a looong time before the FFIs offer the TLM again.  Well see.