jump to navigation

Hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them onto you December 18, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Art and Architecture, awesomeness, Basics, blogfoolery, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, Liturgy, scandals, secularism, silliness, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition.
comments closed

I am ripping this video off from Fr. Blake lock, stock, and barrel.  He deserves a complimentary hit.

It’s a video of photos of old churches, old liturgies, old Sacraments, old devotions from all over the world.  The pre-conciliar world, that is:

I already what know what Dismas is going to say.  Should I even make a comparison?

No, it’s not quite a fair comparison. The worst of post-conciliar abuses against what was standard faire before.

Still, after seeing the latter, this is me:

GAME OVER, MAN!

GAME OVER, MAN!

 

This s— ain’t fair!  And I was getting short!

I’m not even original in this regard.  Great gag, Mr. Bougis.

Now for some soothing music

Speaking of getting short – almost time for my glorious annual Christmas break.  I will blog sporadically at best from tomorrow 12/19 through the Epiphany.  I’ll try to jump on and soothe your jones from time to time if I possibly can.

Don’t be shocked when it happens: it’s just about certain Communion will be granted to divorced/remarried Catholics December 18, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, error, Eucharist, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, horror, Our Lady, Papa, sadness, scandals, shocking, sickness, Society, SOD.
comments closed

That is the point made by Dale Price in this post at Dyspeptic Mutterings.  I am going to take more of the post than I should, because Price covers several items I have not addressed on this blog, most notably Pope Francis’ interview in the radical Argentine journal La Nacion last week.

I have to say, I briefly felt some elation and relief and the seeming “failure” of the progressives at the first half of the Synod to get their radical program enacted.  It has to be said, Pope Francis has indicated in myriad ways his support for this program.  But after some weeks of reflection, I have come to feel that whatever “defeat” was suffered towards the end of the October Synod proceedings was minor, at best, and that the progressive forces will continue driving towards the conclusion they want until they get it.  That brings me to the other item I have not covered on this blog: the “lineamenta” or survey of questions for the bishop’s conferences for the second half of the Synod (have things changed much in a year since the last survey?!?) is much more full of progressive bias and loaded, leading questions than even the previous one.  This lineamenta was produced by the Pope’s hand-picked secretary, and contains like this one below:

38. With regard to the divorced and remarried, pastoral practice concerning the sacraments needs to be further studied, including assessment of the Orthodox practice and taking into account “the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances” (n. 52). What are the prospects in such a case? What is possible? What suggestions can be offered to resolve forms of undue or unnecessary impediments?

Sorry folks from the declaration at the beginning to the way the questions are worded to what is left out, this is an answer begging for a question, or, even more, a diktat to its recipients: get on board, boys, if you want a future in the Church.

Price quotes the following from yet another episode of the Magisterium of left-wing newspaper interviews:

[Q:] In the case of divorcees who have remarried, we posed the question, what do we do with them? What door can we allow them to open? This was a pastoral concern: will we allow them to go to Communion?

[A:] Communion alone is no solution. The solution is integration. They have not been excommunicated, true. But they cannot be godfathers to any child being baptized, mass readings are not for divorcees, they cannot give communion, they cannot teach Sunday school, there are about seven things that they cannot do, I have the list over there. Come on! If I disclose any of this it will seem that they have been excommunicated in fact! [I mean, really, they only persist in a manifest state of mortal sin, they have very likely gravely damaged the lives of their children and quite possibly their former spouse, massive divorce is incredibly harmful to society at large, but how can they not be godfathers or EMHCs?  I mean, everybody should be able to casually handle the Lord and Master of the Universe, right?]
Thus, let us open the doors a bit more. Why cant they be godfathers and godmothers? “No, no, no, what testimony will they be giving their godson?” The testimony of a man and a woman saying “my dear, I made a mistake, I was wrong here, but I believe our Lord loves me, I want to follow God, I was not defeated by sin, I want to move on.” [Now, to me, a mistake might be getting drunk one night, or getting into a fight.  Divorce is quite a bit more than just a mistake. But the much more significant problem is this: such people living as concubines with someone not their spouse are in an ongoing state of grave sin and give ongoing scandal. According to the inspired and inerrant word of God in Sacred Scripture, doing such constitutes the gravest sacrilege. Regularizing divorce in this manner goes directly against the Word of God spoken directly by Himself. There is no mention at all of that reality by Kasper or in the text above]
Anything more Christian than that? And what if one of the political crooks among us, corrupt people, are chosen to be somebody´s godfather. If they are properly wedded by the Church, would we accept them? What kind of testimony will they give to their godson? A testimony of corruption? [Ugggh. This is a really weak argument.  It’s special pleading and scapegoating]
Things need to change, our standards need to change.

That’s the point. That’s the entire point, and it represents evidence of a progressive mindset. I’m sure you’ve heard someone say, when arguing in favor of some special treatment for themselves, or for some progressive pet social project “hey, come on, it’s the 90s now.  It’s not the 50s anymore!” Or “it’s 2014, not 1920!”

You get the point.  Progressives have an unshakable faith that society must progress, change, and move forward, and that each progressive advance leaves society better than the last.  This is as fundamental a part of progressive belief as their focus on sexual libertinism.  And that is the only real argument put forward by Pope Francis above: times change, society must advance, and this “liberalizing” of Communion for those in a state of grave sin, even public sin, is a required advance for a more “just” (meaning equal, meaning lowest common denominator) treatment of these people.  Tolerance is the highest, and just about only, virtue.

Price closes really well with this:

Those of you who are Anglicans will have seen this movie before: dialogue does not end until the proper result is reached. Then it becomes the Laws of the Medes and Persians, hater. [Dang right. As I showed in the post on Marquette U, once the progressive achieves his goal, further argument becomes illicit and one must simply accept the progressive advance. In that sense, the first half of the Synod was a rousing success, as the progressives got their radical views out in public, with most people now either believing that the Church has “changed its teaching” or that it is at the very least strongly considering doing so.  These people never move backwards. They take what they can, regroup, and attack again]

Given what the Vatican just issued, the most recent interview shows the Pontiff’s mind quite clearly (not that it was particularly opaque before). Throw that in with the papal power-invoking rhetoric in the wildly-overpraised speech he gave at the conclusion of the 2014 Synod (reinforced by more explicit authority to depose), and I think it’s more likely than not that he forces through some variation on the Kasper proposal in 2015.

As do I.  Naturally speaking, I’d say it’s a lead pipe cinch.

But let us pray that may not happen.  Prayer can work great miracles, and perhaps prayer helped galvanize what opposition there was in 2014.  Things are very far from over, yet.  With God, all things are possible.

And as Noah said in response to my previous post, I’m afraid we are going to have to get used to taking up our cross and enduring some difficult trials for the foreseeable future.

 

In this crisis, it may be up to the laity? December 18, 2014

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

Pertinacious Papist has some interesting quotes (some of which may have come from Church Militant TV) about times of extreme crisis, and the preservation of doctrinal integrity falling on the laity.  The quotes below, and then I add a bit of text expressing my concern about relying on the laity for a “solution” to the crisis:

“I was pleased to see that some Catholic journalists and internet bloggers behaved as good soldiers of Christ and drew attention to this clerical agenda of undermining the perennial teaching of Our Lord.”
– Bishop Athanasius Schneider, speaking on the October Synod of Bishops

“It was mainly by the faithful people that Paganism was overthrown … the body of the Episcopate was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was faithful to its baptism …”- Blessed John Henry Newman, addressing what transpired during the Arian heresy of the 4th century

“Treachery like that of Nestorius is rare in the Church, but it may happen that some pastors keep silence for one reason or another in circumstances when religion itself is at stake. The true children of Holy Church at such times are those who walk by the light of their baptism, not the cowardly souls who, under the specious pretext of submission to the powers that be, delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions which are neither necessary nor desirable.”
– Abbot Guéranger, commenting on the Nestorian controversy
in the 5th century, in The Liturgical Year, IV, p. 380.

I fear we are in a situation disconcertingly analogous to the Arian heresy, when the vast majority of priests and bishops embraced the heresy of Arius (save for Jerome, Athanasius, and some other great bishops).  However, from what I have read, in that heresy, and some others, either the great Mass of the people remained faithful, or there was at least some geographical redoubt which was spared from the heresy, where orthodox Catholicism was maintained by people and hierarchy alike (I refer here to the protestant revolution).

Having said that, we are faced with a much different problem today.  The vast totality of the hierarchy has seemingly fallen into severe error and even diabolical disorientation/reprobate sense, and probably even a higher percentage of the laity has, as well.  I think it very safe to say that less than 10% of the hierarchy would be regarded as orthodox if magically transmitted back in time 100 years, and probably more like 97-8% of the laity is the exact same way. Similarly, there is no geographical region where orthodox Catholicism is still intact.

And this gets to my greatest concern: how small is the faithful “Remnant?”  Who can be included in that group of still faithful souls? Does it even number a million?  If we exclude neo-Catholics and the SSPX (or, from their point of view, everyone outside the SSPX) and many others, that number must be vanishingly small, well under a million.  How can so few work a conversion on a Church and world so much larger, and so far gone?  Yes, we have (or we pray we have) God on our side, and Gideon with 300 overcame tens of thousands, but that case was basically an enormous miracle of Grace (and even still – 1 million faithful Catholics versus 6 billion lost souls are much longer odds than 300 versus 100,000).

Soooo…….if the natural odds are so enormously against us, do we just focus on prayer and God working that miracle we all long for?  But what about maintaining hope and keeping people’s spirits up? I know from experience that many souls have a profound need to feel we at least have a distant chance of seeing the Church drastically improved in orthodoxy in their lifetimes, or they fall pray to despair.  I have been told as much many times, anyway.

It’s a very difficult question.  Part of me says we should try to work for a big tent of the basically orthodoxish, including many folks we may have very strong disagreements with but who are, by and large, faithful, or at least much more faithful than the great mass of self-styled Catholics today.  But having argued a bit for that last week, I’m already feeling pretty dissatisfied with my argument and see many holes in it.  Neo-Catholics (which term I really don’t like) are a problem.  For one, they often pretend there is no crisis, or that it doesn’t include the hierarchy, or that this pope isn’t someone to be feared.

I don’t know what the answer is.  Michael Voris, God bless him, calls passionately for a “Catholic uprising” but we are so few in number, and seem to be facing massive internal pressure if not outright persecution at present.  I honestly think we will be amazingly fortunate to come through the next 5 or 10 years with the “gains” made under Pope Benedict intact.

I do not mean to sound hopeless. I do not feel hopeless.  I know that if I remain faithful, and cooperate with Grace, I may be saved and spend eternity with God in Heaven, where none of this will matter.  So I do not fret.  But I do think we face a monumental task.

And yes any great improvement in the Church would be God’s Grace working through souls.  But He has to have souls to work through, no?

Discuss, if you feel like it.

Marquette University suspends professor for upholding Catholic Doctrine December 18, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
comments closed

Most readers have probably already written Marquette University in Wisconsin (a university in the flamboyantly heterodox and neo-pagan Jesuit “tradition”) off their lists of even remotely reputable Catholic colleges, but if you haven’t yet, you might consider doing so now.  A professor has been suspended for the grave offense of saying it is ludicrous for Marquette to allow a different professor (a radical feminist) to declare topics like sodomite marriage and gerbal worming “out of bounds” for discussion:

Marquette University, the Jesuit school in Milwaukee, has shot itself in the foot again. Weeks ago in a “Theory of Ethics” class, philosophy instructor Cheryl Abbate listed several possible topics of discussion, but said one of them –gay marriage—could not be addressed because any opposition argument would offend homosexual students, and besides society has already agreed that gays can marry. This is a strong pattern for the campus left: topics they want to talk about (e.g., the Keystone pipeline, abolishing fraternities) are discussed endlessly, even in classes where the topics have little or no relevance. But topics they don’twant discussed are banned as “already settled” or as harassment[The left could not operate without the double standards it insists upon.  Leftism is not founded on rational argument, it is founded on naked emotionalism and even more naked use of force.  Thus we don’t have an immigration “debate” in this country, we have a president who acts lawlessly and unconstitutionally by just imposing his will like a banana republic dictator.  He learned well how to operate in the hallowed halls of academia, wherein he spent most of his pre-political career accomplishing precisely nothing]

Did Marquette overrule Abbate and say that gay marriage can certainly be discussed in class?  Or that Catholic doctrine cannot be off limits at a Catholic university? Well, no. Like so many other universities, Marquette passed on the free speech issue and went after a lone professor—John McAdams–who had criticized Marquette’s woeful reaction to Abbate in his blog, “Marquette Warrior.” The next step was very predictable: Marquette suspended McAdams, said he is under investigation and banned him from the campus, without listing any charges against him.[There are no better places than today’s universities to see how leftism operates.  The same lawlessness, double-standards, and hypocrisy that we see rising in politics at the national level, are standard operating procedure at universities and have been for  years.  Fall afoul of one of the leftist apparatchiks at university, and you are finished] Presumably the unannounced charge is harassment, since the letter from Dean Richard Holz to McAdams ended with a sentence saying “I am enclosing with this letter Marquette’s harassment policy….:” McAdams then wrote: “The fact that Holz sends the ‘harassment policy’ suggests that somebody thinks that merely blogging about questionable conduct by a Philosophy instructor constitutes ’harassment.’” He adds that Marquette “has again shown itself to be timid, overtly bureaucratic and lacking any commitment either to its Catholic mission or free expression.” Yes, it has.

No kidding.  Parents – and I speak for myself, as I have children nearing that age – we have a tremendous decision on our hands determining where or under what circumstances our children may matriculate at the collegiate level.  This is not an easy decision – there are a handful of fairly orthodox Catholic colleges (but only one that is overtly traditional), and they are very expensive.  For those of us with multiple kids, private school may not be an option, and those schools don’t exactly offer degree plans that offer a strong likelihood of a quick payback of any college loans.  But state university has it’s own risks.  You’re less likely to see the Catholic Faith attacked and undermined in so many ways subtle and gross as at most Catholic schools, but there will certainly be rampant leftism, anti-religious fervor, perversion, and numerous temptations to sin.

So I don’t know.  I know some parents who have encouraged their kids to live at home and go to local universities.  There are many options in the DFW area, thankfully.  I do sort of like that idea, they can jump through the societal hoop while not having to take the huge step of living on their own in a distant and alien place. I’m not sure that’s been a good idea for a long time, especially colleges consciously forsook their role as overseers for the still very young people in their charge.  I think our kids are onboard with that idea, too.

Did you get the irony of a professor of ethics declaring criticism of perversion out of bounds? These lefties, they certainly love their rhetorical tricks.

Marquette is in Milwaukee, an archdiocese long administered by radical progressives (Weakland), so it is little surprise that the local Jesuit university would have left the Faith long ago.