jump to navigation

“Freedom of religion” was always intended to mean “suppression of the Church”… August 16, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, Christendom, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, history, manhood, persecution, scandals, secularism, Society, Tradition.
comments closed

….by the instigators of what I demeaningly call the endarkenment, because, in many ways, it absolutely was.  A blogger posted at Catholic Lane a rebuttal to Simcha Fisher’s diatribe against Putin which was very similar to my own, although with not near so much depth, panache, and style.  Heh.  Anyways, Mrs. Fisher replied with this:

Yep, you heard it here first:  The Catholic Church has longstanding contempt for liberal ideals, such as “freedom of speech” and “freedom of religion.”

If John Paul II were alive today, he’d be punching Philip Primeau in the back of the head when no one was looking.

In reality, prior to Vatican II, the Church most certainly did have “longstanding contempt” for such enlightenment ideals as “freedom of religion.”  For most of the history of the Church, the dominant belief and practice viz a viz heretical sects and government support for same was “error has no rights.”  There was a massive double standard, absolutely, and no Pope wept over it. The Church, being formally instituted by Christ as His Body on earth as the ONLY vehicle of salvation for all humanity, was expected to be supported, endorsed, and embraced by all virtuous government. That was simply Her due as the Body of Christ.  Examples of this Church-state alliance included government serving as the enforcement arm of ecclesiastical law, the use of government force against heretics, and the massive aid and prestige given to many entities of state by their formal association with the Church.  This form of culture, of politico-ecclesiastical organization, was not without its problems and drawbacks, but it was, for well over 1000 years, the established order of Christendom.

But when the protestant revolt permanently destroyed this established order through their damnable ideas regarding “private interpretation” (I can make Scripture say what I want……weeee!) and their slow but steady chucking of constant Christian morality (divorce was approved of by all protestant sects almost instantly, which helped both the Lutheran and Episcopal sects get off to a strong start with government force at their backs, provided by German princes and English kings), Christendom began to break down.  The initial protestant sects tended to model the Catholic system of a state religion for each state, but soon that hideous error of private interpretation led to more and more new sects of protestants, the “dissenters.”  These dissenters were initially weak and fragmented (because they could not agree on anything, with 50,000 little popes!) However, through a confluence of events, the dissenters actually came to power in England for a brief period in the mid-17th century, which period featured huge amounts of fratricidal bloodshed and the cutting off of one king’s head.  Another king was forced from office under foreign invasion, again at the behest of the “dissenters.”

When the dissenters (also known as Puritans, Anabaptists, and others) wanted to vilify a king or any other opponent, they accused them of papist tendencies.  It was in this dissent-dominated milieu, with all manner of perverse ideas floating about regarding Sacred Scripture, orthodox Christian belief and practice, and steadily declining morality, that the “enlightenment” thinkers first appeared in England.  Thomas Hobbes, Sir Isaac Newton, and John Locke were all adherents to the most liberal of the dissenting protestant sects.  They reviled ordered religion. In fact, their beliefs were really deist.  Deism was the dominant belief pattern of all the leading enlightenment thinkers.  Deism posits, at most, a God who sort of set the universe in motion, and then stepped back and just lets it take care of itself. Deists also believe God has no care over human sin, except, maybe, corporate sins, such as those that might persecute enlightenment philosophers, or sins which offend against the rights of the secular state (I am not making this up) .  If this sounds very similar to leftist attempts to co-opt Christianity for themselves today, it should, because they are simply fulfilling the basic liberal theory of the enlightenment.

As I said, Hobbes and Locke, very explicitly, set about creating a new philosophy and a new political system that would accomplish three things:

  1. Permanently sunder the link between religion and politics, by….
  2. defining a God that did not care a whit about “right” or “wrong” belief of practice of the Faith, which would
  3. lead to the crushing of established religion and its replacement with the most liberal, inconsequential practice of the “faith” possible.

Ultimately, all the above was intended, directly or indirectly, to crush the “tyranny” the Church supposedly exercised over men through her alliance with the leaders of various nations and principalities. Locke, Hobbes, Newton, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Jefferson, et. al., were all violently anti-Catholic.  It is not fair to say that they envisioned their philosophies and political systems solely to destroy the Church, but it was certainly an aspect of the errors they proclaimed that they both foresaw, and relished.

In order to achieve this end, Hobbes, Locke, and all the other enlightenment types pushed their very liberal, unorthodox, and deist views on all their readers and adherents.  They constantly attacked and ridiculed any orthodox beliefs (such as, the Real Presence, the idea of Sin, the Incarnation, atonement for sin, the 10 Commandments, etc), all the while selling to very confused minds in England and France (minds already led badly astray through adherence to protestantism, or being fallen away Catholics), the idea that their views were somehow up to date, backed by “science,” and based on “reason.”  Both Hobbes and Locke belittled Scholasticism at every possible turn.

What they managed to sell to people was enlightenment deism as a replacement for Christianity, the hinge for which sell was “tolerance.”  They pointed back to the Thirty Years War, the strife England experienced due to the rampages of the protestant dissenters (their own ilk!), and other examples of religious motivated bloodshed, to “prove” that religious orthodoxy was unreasonable, ignorant, and prone to violence. Far better, they claimed, was enlightenment “tolerance” (and doesn’t that echo with us today!), which envisioned the sundering of the Catholic-state alliance, and its replacement with a government founded on “liberty,” a government which would insure “the rights of the people” through the reduction of Christianity to an utterly inconsequential, deist rump religion.

The key to selling this enlightenment reason was the prospect that, in exchange for insuring the rights of God (as the then-current construct of Christendom did), the new Leviathan “liberty” state would insure the rights of man.  Thus, “liberty” was sold as the alternative to Church-state “tyranny.”  Locke posited a government that would be determined by majority vote (a concept that came back to the fore in the Renaissance, as ancient Rome and Greek were held up by elites as somehow superior to the established Christendom), thus giving people the illusion of power and control over their destinies. This new system promised, according to Locke, prosperity, peace, and liberty. Liberty meant many things to different people. Some saw it as freedom from traditional sexual morality.  Some saw in it a license to drink.  Others saw that they could pursue their fondest dreams of avarice, without recourse to a Church-inspired conscience.  In short, “liberty” came to mean for many people freedom to do whatever they most desired, and the shucking of traditional morality.  And in the protestant environments from which this enligtenment thinking sprang, it spread like wildfire.  The English North American colonies, perhaps the most protestant-dominated entity on earth, would be the first place these ideas reached their fruition.

Locke himself created the concept of “freedom of religion,” in which numerous different religions, all well under the thumb of the libertine super-state, would “tolerate” each other by being indifferentist as all get out.  Basically, anyone who wasn’t a deist, had to keep his religious practice completely private. They might let you go to church, but don’t come spilling out of that church clamoring for your Romish God. Thus, “freedom of religion” was always an enlightenment concept intended not to protect religion, but to drive it from the public sphere, minimize its influence over men’s lives, and insure the supremacy of the secular state over every aspect of religion.  If this sounds familiar to our present circumstances in this country, it should.  We’re simply reaching the end stages of the process of “enlightenment” as intended by its creators.

Thus, it is hardly surprising that, for centuries, the Church most strongly opposed concepts like “freedom of religion,” and why the #1 complaint, without question (well, ok, after the Mass), regarding the novelties introduced at Vatican II from Catholics, was the seeming chucking of the centuries old belief and practice regarding “freedom of religion” in Dignitatis Humanae and Guadium Et Spes.  That this chucking was done under the strongest of pressure from the American contingent, highly infected with the condemned heresy of Americanism, and that it was only achieved through subterfuge and guile by blocking the signatures of several hundred Council Fathers who wanted the offending portions of the document changed, has only added to the frustration of many Catholics since the Council.

There is really no better issue to highlight the massive divide that was introduced into the Church at the Council, than this one of “freedom of religion.” From the very concept being condemned, formally, in the Syllabus of Errors (1854) to it’s being proclaimed as a “fundamental right” under the “primacy of conscience” at Vatican II, there is no single item that shows the great difficulties that will be involved in developing a “hermeneutic of continuity” between the perennial belief of the Church, and the novelties introduced at VII.

Regarding “freedom of speech,” I would simply say that such has always been a huge misnomer, as the same “tolerance” – required at Leviathan government behest – which has helped drive religion from the public square, means that “freedom of speech” has always been rather strongly limited.  I would also say that, given the present assaults against freedom of speech in this country, where just about every single one of our electronic communications is recorded, audited, studied, parsed, and filed away, I would advise Mrs. Fisher once again to perhaps consider that long in the eye of liberty, before she concerns herself with whatever is bothering the eyes of Vladimir Putin, or the state of Russia.  I would not consider the present state of “free speech” in this country something to be proud of.  I would also remind, that even “free speech” has been considered problematic by the Church, since, again, error, for most of the Church’s history, had no rights.

Finis.  I want to finish by saying I’m not a monarchist, or anything else-ist. I’m not sure what I am, other than increasingly skeptical that all the rah-rah we’ve been propagandized with our entire lives regarding “freedom,” the USA, the Constitution, “liberty,” etc., are far, far from being the best, or even acceptable, forms of government with respect to the right practice of the Faith. And this is an enormous change for me. Even a couple of years ago, I was 100% Mr. Jingoist American, ready to bomb our enemies and expressing complete fealty to the “American experiment.”  More and more, it looks like that experiment will end in disaster, so I’m not sure quite what I am.

The numerous proofs for the Mass as Real Sacrifice August 16, 2013

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

I have been continuing to read Fr. Nicholas Gihr’s excellent The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Dogmatically, Liturgically, and Ascetically Explained (and thanks to Fr. Jordan for the link to the free online copy!).  Fr. Gihr spends quite a bit of time establishing proofs for the Catholic belief that BIRD AND CROSS SPOTL copythe Mass is a real, true Sacrifice, in which Christ’s once for all time Sacrifice on Calvary is re-presented to His Father by Himself, in the form of the priest acting in persona Christi.  This is the same Sacrifice that is also, via Hebrews and the Apocalypse, always being offered to the Father by the Son (Lamb) in Heaven – the Mass, in a sacred sense, brings Heaven and earth together, so that the earthly Sacrifice ties into, and draws its efficacy from, that Heavenly Sacrifice.

Fr. Gihr establishes numerous proofs from all the above from Sacred Scripture (John 6, of course, the Last Supper depictions in all the Gospels, numerous Old Testament sources prefiguring the Mass, 1 Cor chapter 11, etc., etc), the tradition, and the writings of the early Church Fathers, quoting numerous Saints writing about the Mass as Sacrifice from circa AD 100 up until the 6th century.  There are dozens such quotations, proving that the earliest Church always viewed the Mass as THE Sacrifice necessary for salvation AND the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Going even further, Fr. Gihr establishes the Mass as Real Sacrifice through its universal depiction as such in ALL the various liturgies that 0 Rdeveloped in the ancient Church – Coptic, Greek, Chaldean, Gallican, Mozarabic, etc,. etc.  Here I will quote Fr. Gihr, from p. 110, on this subject:

The foregoing passages from the Fathers are a sufficiently valid proof of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. Annexed to these is another proof, which, if possible, is still more clear and more convincing. We allude to the proofs from the venerable ancient documents and monuments of ecclesiastical liturgy. They contain a rich treasure of the truths of salvation ; they are veritable mines of gold with respect to Catholic dogma. Doctrine constitutes the root and the soul of both ecclesiastical life and its worship. There is no point of external life in which the truths of faith are more directly and more distinctly revealed than in the liturgy of the Church. [All of which is to say, the Mass is the heart and soul of our Faith, not just liturgically, but theologically, dogmatically as well. The Orthodox know this very well, but I think this has been forgotten, to a shocking extent, by large sections of the Church.  This is from the baleful influence of protestant and Jesuit] Hence these truths can often with certainty be known and recognized therefrom according to the maxim of Pope Celestine Legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi “The liturgical form of prayer becomes the standard of faith.”  [Note, NOT “we pray as we believe, as is so often presented erroneously, which error led directly to the belief that the Mass could be butchered so long as it was somehow theologically “correct” (which it wasn’t anyways!), but CodexAureusCanterburyFolios9v10rwe believe as we pray – the Mass will dictate what we believe, which is why the Mass should never be radically changed in top-down impositions, a la 1969.]  With special reference to our subject, there are a vast number of both Eastern and Western liturgies and directions for the Mass. By these are meant collections of formulas of the prayers and rites 8 , according to which the Eu- charistic Sacrifice has always been celebrated. These liturgies are in their essence and substance decidedly of Apostolic origin. They are composed in different languages, and they were for centuries in daily and public use in various places and among diverse nations and, consequently, they denote the universal and constant belief of Christendom. Now, however variously they may otherwise be. framed, all these liturgical formulas agree perfectly in essentials, so that they represent in their whole contents the Eucharistic celebration as the true Sacrifice of the Immaculate Lamb, Jesus Christ

CROSS BLOOD SHEEP copyIn these liturgical formulas of prayer the Eucharist is designated a sacrifice, a perpetual sacrifice, a holy sacrifice, a heavenly sacrifice, a divine sacrifice, a tremendous sacrifice, a sacrifice deserving of honor, a reasonable and unbloody sacrifice, a sacrifice for the living and the dead, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving ; and especially a sacrifice of propitiation and petition…….[those are just some of the exalted terms used to describe the Real Sacrifice of the Mass in various liturgies.  Next, some concrete examples…]

……In the Liturgy of St. James, for instance, it is said: “Let all mortal flesh be silent, standing there in fear and trembling, let all things of earth vanish from our thoughts; for the King of kings, the Lord of lords, Christ our God, is about to be sacrificed and to be given as food to the faithful……”…….The Coptic liturgy of St. Cyril directs the priest to say: “Make us worthy, O Lord, to present to Thee this holy, reasonable, spiritual and unbloody Sacrifice for the remission of our sins and for the pardon of the faults of Thy people…..”  [The liturgy of St. James is thought to date from the 4th century, as is that of St. Cyril.  As Fr. Gihr notes, while there are variations in these liturgies, in all their Crucifixion_Christ in Agony on the Cross_GRECO, Elessentials, they are nearly identical, and all are explicit regarding the Mass as Sacrifice]

Going through Fr. Gihr’s book, it just blows my mind that protestants were ever able to convince anyone that the Mass was anything but a sacrifice, but they did. I guess it just shows how ignorance of the Faith has always been one of the biggest problems for the Church, and adequate catachesis something that has always been badly lacking.  I think there might be another aspect, though. I think throughout the Church’s history She has been afflicted with  just a whole bunch of bad, fallen people who became priests, bishops, whatever, and they twisted the Faith to justify their bad behavior.  I know that was very widespread at the time of the protestant revolt.


Homosexual priest attacks Church…… August 16, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, Bible, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity.
comments closed

…..but also points out the problems with the current catechism’s equivocations on the subject.  Fr. James Alison is a self-professed homosexual priest (and, frankly, I would be shocked if he is chaste), who tok part in some pointless festival of leftists pretending to the Christian.  However, I think some of this arguments deserve some parsing, because they point out some broader problems.  Via CMR, with my emphasis an comments:

Catholic teaching about the “intrinsic evil” of homosexual acts was inconsistent, Alison argued, with the understanding that the attractions themselves were not sinful. [This man manages to get quite everything wrong.  He could have made a valid point, but missed it.  No, it is not a sin to be tempted.  But those temptations are disordered, and, even more, if they form part of what has become the homosexual “lifestyle,” they probably are very sinful.  More below.]

“Most Catholic bishops know being gay is a regularly occurring non-pathological variant condition,” Alison asserted, equating homosexuality with being left-handed. [He doesn’t know this at all. He may be right, I pray he is not, but even if he is, so what?  The Church has always had lousy bishops, and always will. We simply happen to be in a very low period for the Church, which has cycled through many periods of glory and depravity in her history.] The evil, Alison maintained, is how the left hand is used, not the using of the left hand itself. Listing group rape and pagan orgies resulting in self-castration, Alison suggested that these were in fact what scripture warned against when forbidding homosexual practice.  [Bulls–t. I just found another denunciation of homosexual acts in Judges earlier this week. Judges chapter XIX is all about homosexual depravity, not forced group rape. This is ludicrous, and anyone with even a semblance of HONEST, unbiased, un-agendized Scripture knowledge would know this.  Haydock goes through the Greek very clearly in his exegesis on Judges, and, let me tell you, the Greek is clear.  It is the act of SODOMY that Scripture describes repeatedly as profoundly depraved, a sin described in Judges XIX as WORSE THAN MURDER.]

Fr. Alison, who appears to normally wear secular clothes, could have made a point about the lack of clarity in the current catechism, which is much better than the 1990 catechism on this subject.  First of all, we have to note that a catechism is not an authoritative statement of Dogma, but is a compendium, an explanation of Dogma for the use of the faithful.  It is useful, but not authoritative.  The 1990 catechism equivocated over homosexuality rather badly, seeming to imply that homosexual acts themselves were only disordered, not sinful, and further stating that the lifestyle itself was just peachy.  Thank goodness, then Cardinal Ratzinger got that at least somewhat fixed, and put more back in line with the perennial belief of the Church, in the 1997 version. This version describes homosexual acts – sodomy – as always and everywhere sinful (yes, for male-female couples, too), while claiming the inclination towards acts of sodomy (the attraction) disordered.

The problem is, that disorder can cross over into sin very easily.  And I think the less than completely clear statements in the recent catechisms, even the “cleaned up” version, has caused a lot of confusion, especially over regarding what constitutes “inclination” or even “lifestyle.”  To further add to the confusion, the US bishops issued their own document, “Always Our Children,” which equivocated even more, and went even beyond equivocation into seeming to have so much “compassion” for sodomites that their acts were tolerated, at least with a wink and a nudge.

Historically, there was no homosexual “lifestyle.”  There were sodomites, and acts of sodomy, and all were roundly, rightly condemned.  Those with a temptation to such acts were counseled to live lives of strict chastity.  I don’t think the Church has, yet, responded well enough to this notion of a homosexual lifestyle, and whether such can be condoned only so long as one does not partake in acts of sodomy.  That is to say, I’m not sure a pronouncement that the lifestyle is “disordered” is enough. I’m not sure people know what that means.  I think, in the tradition, even the lifestyle would have been condemned as sinful, as well.

In closing, I must make plain that there is a significant difference between those who are afflicted with temptations of lust for those of the same sex, and who do all in their power to resist those, and those who sort of play around with those temptations, partaking in some aspects of homosexual culture while resisting (maybe) acts of sodomy.  There is a certain writer at First Things I have in mind when envisioning the latter, but I can’t recall her name at the moment.

Gots to go.