jump to navigation

Don’t lose faith! October 2, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Christendom, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Holy suffering, Interior Life, martyrdom, sadness, Saints, sanctity, Tradition, Victory, Virtue.
comments closed

I have read from a number of commenters how desperate and lost they feel in the wake of the great scandal that has afflicted the Church in the past few weeks.  I certainly share that sense of scandal.  However, I have read some comments that might imply a sense of giving up, or of stopping participation in the life of the Church.  In short, some souls have expressed that they are being scandalized out of the Faith.  Don’t, under any circumstances, let that happen.

I read a piece by Rod Dreher today, I won’t link to it, but the gist was, as an ex-Catholic, the Holy Father’s notorious interviews have only confirmed for him why he left. Now, I did not go through what Dreher went through, he was a reporter that deeply investigated the mass problem of homosexual priests abusing boys,  but I’ve always sort of had the sense from him that his Catholicism was tenuous.  Maybe I’m wrong.  I know Dreher is privy to a number of things that have still not come to public light, as bishops negotiated with prosecutors to keep their malfeasance private. He also knew a great deal about the private lives of some prelates which are horrifically scandalous and immoral.  Still, it seems like Dreher has always had a need for a Faith that conforms well to his predispositions. We all have that desire.  I probably fall for that far too much, trying to make the Faith conform to my wants and desires.

But that’s not what Christ showed us.  He showed us that the Faith is a cross to be born.  We had some relatively good years, perhaps, with Pope Benedict.  At least, there were signs of hope.  Now, many of those hopes may seem dashed.  In point of fact, I think many of those hopes were illusory – I think under Benedict, some of us, myself certainly included, were able to fool ourselves into thinking the Church was, if not getting better, nearer to turning the corner than it really is.  But modernism is still rampant in the Church. The revolutionaries still hold most all the levers of power.  It was pretty much inevitable that having a Pope that embraced much of that dangnable “spirit” of Vatican II would come to power.  Now, it’s happened.  We shall have to do our best to suffer through it.

When Christ died, he was utterly rejected, completely defeated by human means. But that defeat proved the greatest victory in the history of the universe. That defeat is what provides us the ability to be saved!  And these much smaller defeats, if they are that, can do the same for us. They can be sufferings we offer up that are incredibly efficacious of Grace, if we are disposed to receive it.  We must persevere. It will likely be incredibly painful at times. We may feel lost and alone – which is exactly how satan wants us to feel. He wants us to give up. He wants us to be dejected and defeated.  Well, forget that. I’m not going to give up. I’m going to keep fighting and doing the best I can to know, practice, and share the Faith as it was known, practiced, and shared by my Catholic forefathers for centuries.  I’m going to fight to improve things wherever I can. I’m going to try to lead souls to oases of Catholicism where they exist – and they do exist, in almost every Diocese, there are orthodox parishes. We may have to drive a ways to get there.  It may be an inconvenience, even a cross. But they exist, and if they get large enough, not even the most radical of radicals will be able to shut them down.  And from there, we can pick up the pieces of this broken Church and start putting Her back together again.

I know I, in the shock of events yesterday, mentioned SSPX in one comment, but that was a mistake. Really, it would take some truly radical, and pretty unimaginable, things to come to pass for me to even seriously consider going that route (sorry, JB).  I just don’t see it.  Unfortunately, while I think the SSPX is completely right on Dogma and Tradition, their situation is irregular.  Their Confessions are not valid.  That would truly have to be a last result in a total Church apocalypse.

But, I won’t let that happen, because I’m going to pray and mortify myself so Grace will flood into souls (principally, my own, I pray!) and help restore this great, glorious Church of ours.  The Faith is bigger than one man, than any man, even a Pope.  It’s greater than a great, saintly pope, and it’s sure as heck greater than a lousy one. Thus far, there has been nothing said or done that touches one Dogma or Doctrine in the slightest.  So don’t lose heart.  Learn the Faith through books, through all the tremendous online resources we have now, through friends, radio…….there are a ton of sources. We’re not nearly so cut off as faithful souls were in the original outbreak of revolution in the 60s and 70s. We will get through this.  We will survive.  And eventually, perhaps long after we’re gone, things will be back to normal in the Church*.  I know it.

God bless you!

* – unless, that is, this is the great apostasy Christ forecast before the parousia.

“Blessing of the pets” Friday at St. Mark in Plano October 2, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, North Deanery, pr stunts, priests, sadness, scandals, secularism.
comments closed

Alright, I guess I was just grumpy and possibly quite wrong on this one.  I still don’t think pets should have anything to do with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but if you want your dog or cow or bird blessed, be my guest.  I still maintain what I say about the modern reconstruction of St. Francis as a hippy:

…………. reduces the sublime mystic and founder of a great religious order, St. Francis, into a tree hugging new age hippy.  Please.  Yes, St. Francis loved Creation as evidence of the majesty of God and His love for us!  Yes, some of his miracles involved animals!  Yes, he sang paeans to “Brother Sun” and how creation reflects God’s glory. But he also did so much more.  He strictly upheld every Doctrine of the Faith, and demanded his followers do so, as well.  He practiced mortification, meditation, and deep prayer to an extent that most Catholics today would find not amazing, but disturbing, fanatical.  He deserves much better than to have his memory betrayed by turning him into some caricature at the service of modern psychoses.


Attempts to “de-mythologize” Sacred Scripture have been going on for nearly 2000 years October 2, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Bible, catachesis, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, priests, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the enemy.
comments closed

I am reading at present two books on modernism and the modernist heresy.  One is Partisans of Error by Michael Davies, and the other is One Hundred Years of Modernism by Fr. Dominic Bourmaud.  Of the two, Fr. Bourmaud’s is far more heavy hitting, really going into depth on all the erroneous protestant-derived rationalist and humanist errors that gave birth to modernism.  One area he examines in detail is the history of what is called modern historical criticism of the Bible, or the “historical-critical” method.  In doing so, Fr. Bourmaud exposes the fundamental errors that undermine this entire form of Scripture scholarship, although, a fairer term might be, Scripture-destruction.  For the historical-critical method contains assumptions which basically attack the efficacy of all Scripture.

The main assumption is that Sacred Scripture, including the Gospels, is false, a fairy tale, and that any “contradictions” found within Scripture are the result of its being nothing more than the codifying of verbal legends that spread in believers, generally recorded centuries after the fact.  That is why modernist Scripture scholars try to push the dates for the Gospels way out – at one time, back in the 1800s, they tried to claim the Gospels were written in the 2nd or even 3rd centuries, in order to provide time for legends to develop and then be recorded as “fact.”  Later evidence has exploded that possibility, so now modern scholars try to date the Gospels to after AD 70, in order to be able to explain away Christ’s prophecy regarding the destruction of Jerusalem as an after-the-fact addition by overzealous Apostles, men apparently little concerned with the 8th Commandment.

Unfortunately for the modernists, more and more data points of recent vintage are pointing to the original and constant Catholic claim that St. Matthew’s Gospel was written first, that it was written very shortly after the death of Christ, and that the other Gospels followed shortly thereafter, save for St. John’s which was always known to be last and later.  Fr. Bourmaud references the finding in a cave in Qumran of a fragment of St. Mark’s Gospel positively dated from around AD 50 and possibly as early as AD 40.

Without bogging down too much in detail, Fr. Bourmaud reveals that much modern Scripture scholarship is deranged in both its assumptions and its motives. The foundational assumption, the starting point, is that the Scriptures could not possibly be true, that all the fantastical claims regarding Christ and His miracles had to be made up, and so they look for evidence to prove that thesis.  But the modernists have had to change their story repeatedly as evidence repeatedly contradicts their own claims.  The motive is deranged in that many of these Scripture scholars have it as their goal to attack and undermine traditional Catholic belief.  They don’t set out dispassionately searching for the facts, they start with the assumption that all that Jesus stuff is bunk, and they try to find ways to prove it.

In acting on this thesis, the modernists are not engaging in brave, new scholarship, posing challenges to Christianity and the Sacred Scripture it is founded on in heretofore unknown and “unanswerable” ways.  No, in fact, the modernists are merely dredging up the same tactics used by many early heretical or pagan sects and individuals, including the Manicheans and the Gnostics.  St. Irenaeus wrote about these early attempts to “de-mythologize” Scripture, or to remove the “lies” immoral and disreputable Christians added to the “real” account of the Christ’s life in order to turn an itinerant Palestinian preacher into the literal Son of God, way back in roughly AD 180.  The tactics used by the pagans and Gnostics and Manicheans were much the same as those used by modern pagans and Gnostics and Manicheans to try to destroy the truth about the Son of God made Incarnate:

Deform the texts: invent new ones;  throw out the Gospels or Epistles that are disagreeable; say that we have to grasp the deeper meaning, since the obivous meaning is only symbolic; [like how protestants pretend that Jesus Christ was speaking figuratively in John 6]  conjure up new texts; work with the translations, saying that they were not correctly rendered. Use a pompous vocabularly full of abstruse, pseudo-scientific terms; [boy, that nails today’s Scripture scholars]  dissimulate your heresy and pass yourself off as a Christian; claim that since the Gospel was written after an oral tradition, we should believe what the Gnostics say about it rather than taking the Gospel literally; but in the same movement reject the Tradition of the Church and the Apostles; affirm that the Apostles did not preach the Gospels according to the truth but according to their listeners; and, finally, affirm anything and everything with an air of authority as though you were yourself an eye-witness of the events. (St. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, ca AD180-190).

————End Quote—————–

I cannot tell you how much this attacks so many tenets of most all “academic” Scripture scholarship conducted since at least the mid-1800s. There is nothing new under the sun.  Fallen men have been trying the same devious schemes and methods to attack Catholic belief through the efficacy of Sacred Scripture for literally 2000 years.  Almost all the arguments we hear today from militant pagan atheists were made 2000 years ago by………militant pagan atheists.  But Christianity won over an empire not only because of the charity and good behavior of early Christians, but because the truths the Church proclaimed then and still holds now were and remain eminently sensible and irrefutable. As developed and expounded by the early Church Fathers, this Truth proved an impregnable bulwark against all assaults of error for 18 or 1900 years. It is only in the past few decades that this bulwark has been pulled down, and error allowed to run rampant in the Church.  But the Church’s past, the Faith of our Fathers, contains all that is needed to refute the modernist, post-modernist, or any heresy that is thrown against it. We only have to remember it, and be willing to use it.


The generalissimo of the permanent revolution has arrived October 2, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return.
comments closed

I tried, in spite of the mounting evidence, to believe that all the gloating of the progressives like Leonardo Boff and Roger Mahony was misplaced, that they would be surprised and disappointed.  But as events have transpired, maintaining that fleeting hope has become increasingly impossible.  I do not, pace Deacon Keith Fournier, judge whether Pope Francis is “sufficiently” Catholic.  I would hope the good deacon would realize what having to even make that statement says about the reinging pontiff. Good Lord, he’s the Pope! And it’s even debateable?!?!?  But, in reality, it has been debateable for the past 55 years.

Louis Verrichio, I think, has long understood the nature of what we face.  What we have in our midst is the generalissimo of the permanent revolution which the surprise election of Pope John Paul II derailed (while certainly doing little to roll back the massive novelties of the preceding 20 years) in 1978.  No more.  It’s full steam ahead, says Louis Verrechio.

Reading the pope’s comments in his interview with Eugenio Scalfari is enough to make a more innocent person wonder if it is not perhaps a hoax. It’s as if the man speaking in Francis’ name is not even Catholic much less the pope.

I write this with a very heavy heart and in all sincerity.

The unfortunate truth, far too unsavory a reality for many to admit, is that the current pope is the long awaited generalissimo of the humanist revolution that was unleashed in earnest in 1958.  [I would ask Deacon F, and the others trying to pretend the Pope’s words do not matter, how we can effectively evangelize the culture while the Church continues to collapse?  How can I even talk a mother out of an abortion now, with the very Pope’s words used against me, let alone talk her into the Church, when most people have been led to believe- rightly or not, the press did not stretch his words that much – that now even militant atheists are saved by the “not-Catholic” God.  Sorry, Deacon Keif, you can pretend about a new evangelization all you want, but all the statistics point to continued collapse, and those statistics have been driven by the, apparently, rather mild modenism inflicted on the Church heretofore.  What will those statistics say when we get the full dose modernism here in the next few years?  You talk of a new evangelization, but the Church can’t even form or keep any but a tiny percentage of her own!  And yet, we’re to convert the world on this pablum?!?  And please stop pretending the early Christians were basically a group of kumbayah hippies who ran around handing out flowers and love beads.  Ever read St. Irenaeus, or many of the other early Church Fathers? See a bit of fire there?  What about the veritable war between the Judaizers and St. Paul and his followers?  Do not pretend doctrine was not important in the early Church.  In the Great Commission, Christ Himself demands that we not only go and baptize the world, but that we teach them ALL He taught us, including those “bits” about not sinning, the need for mortification, etc.  I am amazed how deeply this deacon has imbibed the modernist error of the “corruption theory,” basically a version of the protestant critique, which claims that the early Church was pure and holy but was corrupted by rules and dogmas and all that. I guess the intervening 18-1900 years of doctrinal development and revelation count for nothing. But even then, the early Christians are twisted into compliant tools of modernism, rarely if ever threatening the dominant sexular pagan agenda.  Here is my question to the pollyannas – what Truth will you not sacrifice in order to maintain the illusion of that this pontiff is perfectly orthodox?  Sorry for the rant.]

The infantrymen of the revolt, the modernists who were in the previous century cosigned to operating clandestinely, were set free to move about in the light of day the moment Angelo Roncalli assumed the throne of St. Peter.

After decades of war planning, the rebels were by far the more prepared of those who took to the battlefield known as Vatican Council II, masterfully outwitting the Miles Rex (the faithful Soldiers of Christ the King), sealing in the conciliar text the terms of their bloodless takeover.  [Boy, is that true. I was shocked to read Cardinal Ottaviani actually WANTED a council!  He thought he would run the show and crush the neo-modernists.  Instead, they laughed him off  the dais at the beginning of the first session. He was a broken man by the end.  The Catholics were utterly crushed by the modernists at the Council, with the conservatives at best managing to keep things from getting entirely out of hand.  I suspect that is why Pope Francis is moving so fast – he wants to implement his “reforms” before a conservative reaction can be organized in resistance.  Most of the damage was done in session 1 of Vatican II.]

With the coupe de tat thus brought to completion, the more unwieldy task of instituting the new ecclesial constitution fell to Giovanni Battista Montini, on whose watch the unsuspecting faithful were plunged headlong into the reality of a supposed new springtime, its harbingers ruthlessly determined to dispense with the Church of the Saints once and for all.

The papacy of Paul VI was akin to the dirty work of governing over a conquered nation upon which the occupiers were charged with enforcing a new culture against the wishes of the occupied. To be sure, he carried it out with remarkable aplomb save for the protection of the Holy Ghost that led to the promulgation of Humanae Vitae.

At the death of Paul VI in 1978, with the faithful as yet still reeling, Karol Wojtyla ascended to the throne, inaugurating a lengthy reign that, though innovative in its own right, was largely dedicated to the illusion of anointing with Catholic chrism the humanist new order under the guise of “conservatism.”

It was on his watch that the new church of man was sufficiently Catholicized in appearance as to establish a new baseline for “orthodoxy” in the minds of those who might otherwise mourn the Church of Christ the King. [Wow.  Care to argue that?  Cuz I won’t.]

For the most enlightened proponents of the rebel cause, the greatest disappointment of this papacy was John Paul II’s inability to configure the College of Cardinals is such way as to assure the selection of a suitable successor.

This opened the way for Josef Cardinal Ratzinger to ascend to the throne, a man who seemed to possess at once an awareness of the gravity of all that had transpired, and yet an ecumenist who was ever determined to glorify the inglorious Council. Pope Benedict XVI will go down in history as the pope whose love of liturgy brought him close to restoring the Church to order, but a man too weak to combat the occupiers head-on, ultimately waving the white flag of surrender in the form of an abdication.

A gentle and trusting soul by nature, Benedict lacked the cunning to stack the cardinalatial deck for a restorationist conclave, and so with rebel blood surging through its collective veins, the Cardinal Electors who assembled to choose his successor quickly decided upon Jorge Bergoglio.

At this, the generalissimo of the revolution has finally arrived.

———-End Quote———–

I saw a commenter at Verricchio’s site leave this very, very trenchant comment:

Reading through this interview, I was struck with a constant impulse to justify what this man is saying in Catholic terms.  With each challenge to the Faith, my mind tried to bend around what he was saying into some implied meaning that could be acceptable to a Catholic in a certain limited context.  But at the same time, I realized that this is exactly the trap Francis has laid for us.  All those who exercise themselves to find a Catholic  way to embrace what he is saying are actually undermining their own faith and soiling their Baptismal RobeHe is schooling us to stretch Catholicism around totally false precepts as if we should make cysts of these contradictions on the Body of Christ.   Those who drink this poison may loose their ability to disentangle themselves from these errors when, in the deep mystery of the coherence of our minds, our thought becomes entangled with them.

We be in some deep kim chee my friends.