jump to navigation

Episcopal Dean of National Cathedral: it’s sinful to oppose sexual depravity October 9, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

I have been reading a book regarding the history of the Protestant Reformation in the British Isles.  The  book dates from ~1830.  The author, William Cobbett, was a protestant of the Church of England.  He argues extremely persuasively that the protestant revolt against the Church was born in lust and driven primarily by greed and desire for power, and that it is protestantism and the thinking that undergirds it that has led to the massive disparities in wealth we see in modern society, disparities that did not exist in earlier, Catholic times.  There are several ways to critique his argument, but I am fairly convinced his main thesis – greedy rapine as the prime motivator for the English “reformation” – is quite correct.

I mention that as an aside, because the Episcopalian Dean of the (not really) National Cathedral just said not only is the sodomite agenda acceptable, it’s now a SIN to oppose it. I am reminded how barely 20 years elapsed between the 1930 Lambeth Conference, whereat the Anglican church became the first Christian body to sanction the use of contraception, and the late 40s, when Anglican academics began claiming that not only was contraception acceptable, it was a sin not to use it!  Malthusian tendencies run deep in the church of Malthus:

The dean of the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. claimed during his weekly address this past  Sunday that it is a sin to oppose homosexuality.

The message was part of a weekend tribute to the homosexual youth at the National Cathedral, and a commemoration of the death of Matthew Shepherd, whose slaying [Matthew Shepherd is a false martyr for the sodomite agenda. His killing was simply a meth spree gone wrong, and had nothing to do with his sexuality.  But never let the truth stop a leftist agenda]  sparked the passage of the federal “hate crimes” bill signed into law by Barack Obama in 2009. During his speech, Gary Hall blamed churches across the country for influencing American beliefs about homosexuality.

“We must now have the courage to take the final step and call homophobia and heterosexism what they are. They are sin. [This is the fruit of protestant private interpretation. I don’t like, society doesn’t like, those icky things the Bible says about certain depraved behaviors, so, we’ll just toss those aside. Just as protestants don’t like John 6 or Matt 16:18] Homophobia is a sin. Heterosexism is a sin. [No, sodomy is a sin. Defending marriage as it has existed for thousands of years is not] Shaming people for whom they love is a sin,” Hall asserted.  [HEY!  I LOVE JESUS CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH! I LOVE AND BELIEVE WHAT CHRISTIANS HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED. HOW CAN YOU SHAME ME FOR WHOM I LOVE?!?  Leftist hypocrite] “Only when all our churches say that clearly and boldly and courageously will our LGBT youth be free to grow up in a culture that totally embraces them fully as they are.”

He proceeded to claim that churches that oppose homosexuality produce a culture that is harmful to children.

“It’s more than tragic—in fact it’s shameful—that faith communities, especially Christian ones, continue to be complicit in putting our children at risk and abetting the attitudes that oppress them, thereby encouraging the aggressors who would subject our children to pain, humiliation, and violence,” Hall stated  [Huh, so, I guess the Catholic Church should just let all the boy rapers back into clergy?  After all, we don’t want those priests with desires to rape boys to feel oppressed.]

It is always tragic and pathetic to see a man who has traded the applause of the world for the Truth Christ has always revealed through His Church.  But, then again, that has been the Anglican way since it was founded.

What modernists (and neo-modernists) believe, pt. 1 October 9, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Bible, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, self-serving, the enemy, the return.
comments closed

I have been asked a couple of times by commenters to define this “modernism” thing I talk about so much.  Just what is modernism, or what do modernists believe?   In brief, modernism was a movement that grew out of enlightenment rationalism in the late 18th or early 19th centuries, where the inevitable fruit of “private judgment” eventually began to lead minds to reject the veracity of Sacred Scripture.  Especially after Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859, more and more protestant rationalists began butchering Christian belief in an attempt to reconcile Christianity with the alleged “refutations” of same from then recent scientific developments.  Essentially, all modernists have much more faith in “science” than they do in Divine Revelation, be it from Scripture or Tradition, so when they try to reconcile the two, they assume the claims of science are correct and they butcher Christian belief to satisfy scientific advancements.  Even more, all these modernist exegetes accept the ludicrous claims of rationalist philosophers like Kant and Hegel, meaning they reject that there is a Divine Truth, or any “truth,” to be known, and that all we call “truth” are simply the vagaries of the human mind.  The film The Matrix is actually an extended allegory on this whole line of thinking (especially after Neo leaves the Matrix, and Morpheus explains to him that “reality” is just electrical signals interpreted by the brain – modernism).

Below is presented a modernist “creed” from 1894, a total transposition of orthodox Catholic faith with the tenets of modernism.  All the essential tenets of modernism are contained below, as taken from Fr. Dominic Bourmaud’s 100 Years of Modernism:

I believe in the objective value of the idea of God, of an absolute and perfect ideal, distinct but not separate from the world which He draws and directs towards the Better [Thus, “god” is in all of us and in all living beings, which is pantheism. It is also immanentism, or the belief which claims god flows forth from human consciousness, which is certainly cozy and nice for an elite academic to believe, that HE is the source of “god”]  …….one and three, for He can be called: infinite activity, intelligence, and love. [God does not exist, he is “becoming” God] And in him in whom the union of the divine and human natures was achieved to an exceptional, unprecedented degree…..Jesus Christ, whose brilliant superiority dazzled simple hearts and was symbolized for them in a supernatural conception  [Christ really isn’t God Incarnate, He is simply a human being who accorded with the ill-defined, always changing “divine ideal” of that moment and place in history to a greater degree than anyone else – thus, Arianism, for Christ is really just a super-perfect human being] ….whose powerful action after death…….determined in the minds of the Apostles and the disciples certain visions and apparitions recorded in the Gospels and was symbolized by the myth [Thus, where Kung gets his “new idea” that the Resurrection was dreamed up by over-zealous Apostles after their lowly itinerant preacher was murdered by the state for fomenting an insurrection – if you don’t believe in the Resurrection, all of Christianity becomes a lie, a fantasy, and I daresay anyone who holds to these dated modernist conceptions, especially those who present these century-plus old claims as something “new” and “bold,” as Kung does, is not just a total apostate but a hypocrite and a liar]  of a liberating descent into hell and an ascension into the upper regions of Heaven..I believe in the Spirit of love (one of the aspects of the triple ideal) which vivifies the soul……..I believe in the Holy Universal Church, visible expression of the ideal communion of all beings  [thus, the Church is not THE Church, but only part of the “becoming” universal pantheist one world new age “church”……which is where we get ecumenism from] …….I believe in the survival of that which constitutes our moral personality; in everlasting life which is already present in every soul living a superior life [like modernist academics…….they are Oh So superior!  But note the overtones of Pelagianism, of people working their way to Heaven by living “superior lives”]  ……..and which the popular imagination has symbolized with the resurrection of the body and eternal happiness.  [if Christ wasn’t resurrected, neither will you be, bible-humper]

End quote. No wonder Pope St. Pius X called modernism “the synthesis of all heresies!”  Sheesh!  Just in that one statement, which was widely popular with modernists of the 1890-1910 time frame and obviously still resonates with neo-modernists like Hans Kung today, we see pantheism, immanentism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Manicheanism and Albigensianism.  Impressive!  Synthesis of all heresies, indeed!  And run absolutely amok in the Church today, to boot!

More below in part 2.

What modernists (and neo-modernists) believe, pt. 2 October 9, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the return.
comments closed

As I discussed in part 1, modernism is an outgrowth of the protestant error of private judgment, which eventually gave way to endarkenment rationalism and transmogrified into modernism, a system of belief which rejects all truth, but especially Divinely revealed Truth, as unknowable.  It should go without saying that such ignorantist belief is directly counter to what the Church has always believed, which is that Divine Revelation is open to analysis by reason and that we can come to understand, better and better over time, many aspects of the many Divine Mysteries.  Previously defined Dogmas cannot change, they certainly cannot be rejected or passed over, but they can be better understood with time.  But modernists pretend such is impossible, as they frequently rationalize their personal failings away as some “false” Dogma imposed by a Church not divinely inspired, but created and controlled by men.

I presented a modernist creed in part 1.  Now, in part 2, I will present 20 key elements of modernist belief, or lack thereof (and I add comments):

PHILOSOPHY:

  1. Thomistic philosophy is outmoded and false: It was definitively supplanted by the philosophy of Kant and Hegel [extreme liberal rationalists who cannot in any way be considered Christians, even protestant Christians.  Both Kant and Hegel reject almost the entirety of Scripture as human-created myth and fantasy]
  2. Things do not exist: God is not; He is becoming. There is a swallow’s flight but no swallow.  [I would hope reasonable people could see just how asinine this is……only an academic could come up with such]
  3. The principle of non-contradiction admits of certain exceptions: A dog can both be and not be a dog. [In fact, all of Catholic modernism is founded on these “exceptions,” which are so numerous as to be the rule.  For instance, Catholic modernists claim that according to Faith, Christ was resurrected, but according to history and science, He was not.  According to faith, transubstantiation occurs, but according to science, it does not, etc.]
  4. Truth is not speculative. It is moral, an affair of the heart and not of the mind.  [Thus, every man has a different “truth” according to the vagaries of his mind and experiences, the time he lives in, etc.  Perfect relativism.  Sound familiar?]
  5. Truth is subjective and evolves: It is the mind’s conformity with itself and with life. [As I said, perfect relativism.]

REVELATION:

  1. Revelation does not transmit an intelligible truth: It is only an experience, an impression and a religious sentiment, preceived by every man in the depths of his consicence.
  2. Revelation is fallible: It is a spontaneous emotion which generates a fallible image [So, the Apostles were wrong about the Resurrection, they just imagined it in a fever of distraught emotion.  Basically all the Dogmas of the Faith are similarly made up.]
  3. Revelation is human and subjective: It comes not from God but from man, who speaks to himself.
  4. Revelation is utilitarian: It spreads not truth but life. [Good grief, whatever that means]
  5. Revelation is individual and incommunicable: The Revelation of Jesus was formally valid only for Himself.  [We all have our own “truth,” and the conscience is inviolable, ergo, we’re a world of 7 billion little popes running around. It is obvious where all the apostasy in the Church comes from.]

Dogma:

  1. Dogma is a symbol: It is a symbol which means nothing to the mind but speaks volumes to the heart. [Because the only “valid” religious experience is the emotional one.  This is how new age got started.]
  2. Dogma is changeable: It varied between the naive faith of the Apostles and the speculation of the Greeks.  [This is an age-old claim made by pagans and gnostics 1800 years ago, and ably refuted by early Church Fathers.  But modernists like changeable dogma because it allows them to believe whatever is most fashionable in the academic community from moment to moment]
  3. Dogma spreads not truth but life: It is a practice truth, leaving the believer free to choose.  [Again, the genesis of the crisis in the Faith should be markedly apparent]
  4. All of the dogmas of contradictory religions are essentially the same: The various systems of belief are all true since they all nourish the soul.  [This one is ludicrously false. No other religion, for instance, claims all other religions to be false as the Catholic religion does.  Nor did any other religion ever posit a Trinity, God as suffering Servant, etc.  Only the most surface knowledge of other religions could lead one ot make such a silly claim.  What the modernists actually meant is that they found other, non-dogmatic religions, like Buddhism, more attractive.]
  5. Dogma is a fallible approximation: Definitions of dogma are often false. [And all “truth” is relative, blah blah blah]

The Church, the Rule of Faith, the Sacraments:

  1. The conscience is the rule of faith: No external authority may ever come between God and the believer to interpret his faith.  [straight up protestant private interpretation]
  2. It is not necessary to believe in dogmas: No one can be forced to believe in a fallible dogma.  [ditto]
  3. The sacraments are symbols which resurrect past emotional experiences. [what can one say to such utter garbage?]
  4. The Church is only a beneficent institution designed to transmit the religious experiences of the past [and do worldly good deeds, like any other NGO]
  5. The Roman Church is not sufficiently Catholic: in the religious evolution of humanity, the Church is but an awkward attempt at universal communion. [and thus an ecumenist one world religion must ultimately replace the Church, just as Christianity replaced Judaism.  The fatal flaw in this modernist argument is that…….there is no new Messiah. There is no Son of God, Word of the Father made Incarnate to announce the termination of the Old Covenant and the institution of the New.  Unless, of course, modernists really do believe that pantheistic, immanentist “god within them” is that Messiah, which is so sad a conception I don’t even know what to say]

I hope these two posts adequately establish for readers just what modernism is.  I hope they make clear how completely contrary to 2000 years of Christian practice and belief it is.  As I have said in the past, if you hear modernist code speak, if you hear priests speak of evolving belief or an evolving Church, my advice is to run, screaming, the other way. History has proven that modernism is one of those heresies of intellectual pride that are almost never reformable – once an individual falls into this heresy, that is it.  That’s why it is critical not to fall into this system of errors.

It’s also why we must always be on guard for those who advance modernist opinions…..no matter who they may be.