jump to navigation

Expectations-setting and the Council January 12, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, paganism, Papa, scandals, secularism, self-serving, SOD.
comments closed

In light of the previous post on the Synod being used as a prybar against the locked chest of Dogma, perhaps now is not a bad time to take another trip down memory lane to the mid-60s and examine another excerpt from that compendium of correspondence between Evelyn Waugh and Cardinal Heenan called A Bitter Trial.  On the Feast of the Purification, 1964, Cardinal Heenan attempted to head off objections towards the Council through a pastoral letter read in all the parishes and chapels of the Archdiocese of Westminster.  Parts of that letter are presented below.  One might ruminate on how Cardinal Heenan chooses to frame things, the various concerns he references, and how that compares with what we see occurring in the Church a few scant months after the first session of the awful Synod concluded.  I get quite the foreboding sense of deja vu’ reading the below, it seems rather similar to the kinds of apologias for the revolution we keep hearing today:

“…….The faithful also feel strongly about these questions [regarding changes in the Church]. I know that from your letters.  Take, for example, changes in Holy Mass.  Some of you are quite alarmed.  You imagine that everything will be changed and that what you have known from your childhood will be taken away from you.  Some, on the other hand, are all for change and are afraid that too little will be altered. [On a scale of 100, with 0 being no change to the Mass as it existed in 1962, and 100 being its complete dissolution, how far did the reform-cum-revolution go?  Or was the scale of the change less important that the subtlety and cleverness of the changes made?  As for how many wanted change, always keep this in mind, from 13 years after the Council: a 1978 Gallup survey found that 70% of US Catholics would have preferred to go back to the TLM in 1978!!]

Both of these attitudes are wrong.  The Church will, of course, make certain reforms.  That is one of the reasons why Councils are held.  But nothing will be changed except for the good of souls.  With the Pope we bishops are the Teaching Church.  We love our Faith and love our priests and people. We shall see that you are not robbed.  Loyal to Pope John and Pope Paul, the Council will bring all in the Church closer to Christ, and the world itself closer to the Church of Christ.  [Sooo…..how many false statements in that paragraph?]

The Church believes in freedom and while a Council is in progress all are encouraged to speak freely.  It is a time for priests and people to make their voices heard. Some of the views expressed, are, of course, extraordinary.  A few Catholic writers criticize so bitterly that you might think they forget that hte Church is their mother.  But at heart they really do love the Church. [Other parts of the book make clear +Heenan was speaking of the modernist faction’s incredibly hostile criticisms of the Church, meaning Her traditional doctrine] Perhaps they exaggerate to draw attention to their views. But they might easily mislead you. So let me tell you plainly that the Church has no power to alter the law of God.  What is wrong and immoral can never become right.  Nor can any doctrine of the Catholic Church be changed…….I want to assure you, my dear children in Jesus Christ. The Church, the Kingdom of God upon earth, is founded upon a rock. It will not fail you.  For your consolation I repeat the words of Our Lord: “Fear not, little flock, for it hath pleased your Father to give you a Kingdom” (St. Luke XII:32). 

The Church will emerge from the Council stronger than ever. [Indeed, hindsight is 20:20, but this must go down as one of the most wrong predictions of all time.  It was very common during the Council to baldly proclaim this as fact, even while theologians like Msgr. Fenton were saying the Council might fail] We must prepare ourselves to be worthy of that great hour………”

———-End Quote———-

Several interesting points of comparison with contemporary times.  I didn’t include this in the text above, but Cardinal Heenan makes the same statement that we hear so often today, that “things” have somehow changed, and the Church just “has to act.”

Today is a bit different, however, with unprecedented opprobrium being heaped on what are derisively termed “traditionalist” views, but which are nothing more than the constant belief and practice of the Faith.  Never before, in modern times, at least, have we seen a sitting Pope heap scorn on his own curia.  One might not unreasonably fear that rhetoric this heated might be in preparation for something big.

It seems that 50+  years ago, there were the same factions, fighting over the same concerns, with many a prelate in the middle basically trying to not get caught openly rooting for the wrong side.  History may not repeat itself, but human nature is more or less fixed, and historical situations do recur.  Especially when people of enormous influence are determined to make them recur.  All of which indicates that the next year or so will likely be what you might call rather interesting, or exciting, or terrifying, depending on where you sit.

But, then again, who am I to judge?

 

Welcome to the “Spirit” of the Synod January 12, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, SOD.
comments closed

Following the same tactic honed by decades of use/abuse, Church progressives are already calling on the “spirit of the Synod” to put forth shameful, dangerous, heretical views.  And I am not speaking of lay people writing in the Heretic Reporter, nor even grey and bent hippie priests with shaggy ponytails, but even bishops of the Church, heirs to the Apostles.   Just as we have been told for 50 years that, even if the documents of Vatican II did not call for this heresy or that abuse, the “spirit” of the Council certainly did.  We also suddenly found the Church with millions of confused souls suddenly possessed of the incredible ability to divine exactly what the Holy Spirit demanded of the Church at a particular moment, even when the alleged spirit was blatantly contradicting its previous promptings.

Bishop Robert Lynch of Tampa Bay-St. Petersburg has long been reported – not rumored, but reported – to have had a series of adult male lovers while in office, upon whom he likes to shower many gifts and expensive trips at the expense of the souls of his diocese.  I suppose we should not be surprised, then, when he takes the misleading and false declaration of the mid-term “Relatio” of the most recent synod, and runs with it to his own prurient ends in a recent op-ed responding to Florida’s approval of sodomite simulation of marriage (emphasis from link, my comments):

“However, together with Pope Francis and in light of the discussions at the recent Extraordinary Synod on the Family held in Rome, I also recognize that the reality of the family today, in all its complexities, presents the church with pastoral challenges as the church strives to accept people in the specific circumstances of their lives and support and encourage them in their search for God and their desire to be members of the church. [The problem with the “meet the people where they’re at” mentality which has been predominant in the Church over the past 50 odd years, is that while sure, some people are met in their sinfulness and fallenness, they are never challenged and certainly not required to improve in any substantive way.  This is not what Christ taught, he didn’t teach his Apostles to leave the people in their sins, but to lift them up to conversion and change of life.]

Therefore, I do not wish to lend our voice to notions which might suggest that same-sex couples are a threat incapable of sharing relationships marked by love and holiness and, thus, incapable of contributing to the edification of both the church and the wider society[So now we are to be taught about love and holiness by the example of sodomites, those fallen into the sin which God has constantly said in Scripture cries to Heaven for vengeance?  See what I mean about leaving people in their sins?  And how has that unthreatening, indifferentist mentality worked out for the Church over the past 50 years?  Has all this false mercy resulted in millions of converts, or has it convinced people the Church has nothing worthwhile to say?  How has even more eager and thorough embrace of modernist indifferentism worked out in episcopalianism and other sects?  Are they thriving?  This is a fast train to a dead and useless Church]

“In the midst of changing societal definitions and understandings of marriage, there may no doubt be some confusion. However, with patience and humility, our church must continuously strive to discover what the spirit is saying and respond to the Synod Fathers’ suggestion to discern what pastoral response faithful to church teaching and marked by respect and sensitivity might be appropriate for same-sex couples, even as God’s creative designs for and the church’s sacramental understanding of marriage are affirmed.” [You can just sense the glee in this guy’s writing.  Validation at last!  Not that he has been particularly ashamed about his behavior.  Don’t you like how only now, 2000 years in, is the Church finally “wise” enough to discern what the “spirit” is saying?  That’s pretty convenient for his side, is it not?  Witness how this self-serving prelate bends the truth, claiming now that the Synod positively embraced the dastardly comments inserted in the Relatio regarding sodomy, when those comments were in fact not approved by the Synod bishops for inclusion in the final report of the first session.  But those noxious statements, at Pope Francis’ behest, wound up in the final document anyways, so as far as the vast majority of people are concerned, there is some basis for Bishop Lynch’s claims.  We will never be rid of those statements, until some future, holy pope formally repudiates them. Like, 10,000 years from now.  Lord, have mercy.]

The above is really important, as is what I am about to say.  For the purposes of the modernist-leftist cabal in the Church, the Synod has already been a resounding victory.  Even if the second session accomplishes nothing more in terms of radical opposition to constant Church belief and practice, there is now an official document from a Church Synod (whose authority is open to question, if it has any at all, but they’ll never tell you that) stating incredible things and redolent of the  most diabolical errors.  It’s even better than Vatican II in many respects, they can point to this thing forever as being the lodestar for the direction the Holy Spirit – according to their own faulty interpretations – wants demands the Church go.  We’ll never be rid of it: it’s already happened, and we’ll be seeing prelates, priests, and laity throwing out the statements of the Relatio as an ideological trump card for years to come in their battles to change the Church into something She cannot ever be.

What has also already happened is that Pope Francis put those terribly dangerous and destructive parts put into the final report of the Synod – even though they had not gained the approval of the bishops present! – as a sort of appendix.  So they have that added level of “authority.”

This is all about smoke and mirrors, spreading confusion, and advancing the ball a few yards further in the progressive-modernist cause. While you and I and the relative handful of other well-formed Catholics know that Lynch’s claims, and the incredibly foul statements from the Relatio are nonsense, contrary to Doctrine, and so bereft of authority they can be completely ignored, the vast majority of Catholics don’t know that.  For modernist priests and bishops, the Relatio is a gold-mine, the gift that never stops giving.  It will take decades of orthodox presentations and refutations from future popes and others to even begin to undo the damage (just as years of Ratzinger’s/Benedict’s efforts only barely managed to undermine the post-VII errors) – if we are blessed enough to have a future pope who desires to do so.  It is incredible how far just these few brief statements go in advancing the modernist agenda.

And who knows what the future holds?  They’ve only really begun, they have a whole second session upcoming and we can be sure the deck is being stacked to insure there will not be even the relatively weak opposition encountered at the first session.  There is opposition building, there was a small setback in the first session, but the modernists at this point hold the whip hand and can manage events to their liking.  And, as we see above, they have already gotten a document produced that lets them attack the Church’s entire approach to morality.  So there is much to be concerned about.

We had all better get ready to start refuting all the errors that are going to be promoted en masse, using the Synod as a hook upon which to hang them as somehow authentic, just as they have been doing with Vatican II for 50+ years.  And we have to refute them, we can’t just pray for conversion, there are too many souls that are going to either fall into error or into severe temptation as a result of just this kind of false exegesis above. And we have to point out the errors and their source no matter where that leads us, even to the highest level of authority in the Church. Charity and justice demand those with the ability to do so make clear where heresy lies and what the Church really believes.  We cannot let these errors be promoted and expounded without rebuttal. The cost is simply too high, the risk too great, to allow these errors to stand without contradiction.

We are in for the most trying of times.  I cannot recommend recourse to deep prayer, meditation, and penance enough.  Many who are now solid in the Faith will be led astray, and we will be shocked at some who fall away.  Stay strong. Stay close to Our Lady, she will see us through this.  Constantly appeal to God’s mercy, beg Him to strengthen you for the trial to come.

h/t FCA, who notes the lunacy of Lynch’s second paragraph.  Can you imagine the same applied to other sins and perversions?

Ghandi beer elicits mea culpas, “Sweet Baby Jesus” beer is just fine January 12, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Christendom, damnable blasphemy, error, foolishness, General Catholic, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society.
comments closed

It is not easy to be Christian.  Our Blessed Lord counseled us to bear the insults and blows of the world by turning the other cheek, to return hatred to love. Doing thus is certainly contrary to our fallen nature.  But it is what Our Lord demands of us.

I do wonder, however, if one reason why the culture and especially those given to leftism enjoy bashing and mocking us so much, is because they know it is safe to do so.  We have recently had great evidence from France, Nigeria, and the entire Mideast that mocking islam can be extremely dangerous to one’s health.  Our media has learned the lesson so well they not only refuse to mock islam, they attack those who do, and even go so far as to excuse islamic atrocities in response such mocking of their false “prophet.”

And, although we don’t see as much coverage of this in the Western press, hindus have also been known to go to extremes of violence in the name of defending ostensibly sacrosanct aspects of their religion in the recent past.   There is a good deal of hindu persecution of muslims and Christians on the subcontinent, with various forms of violence being quite regular.  Perhaps that played a role in a small New Hampshire brewery beating their breast and exclaiming their sorrow at having caused offense over their relatively innocuously named “Ghandi-bot” beer:

“For nearly five years we’ve been brewing Gandhi-Bot,” the company said in the post. “In those five years we’ve proudly served it to people of all backgrounds. Until this week we’ve never received a single negative comment regarding the label but after a recent article it has come to our attention that the artwork has clearly offended some people.

“We are a very small company that is passionate about brewing beer and have never had any intention to offend anyone but rather share wha we do with anyone interested,” the post said.

“We are working on finding the best way to amend this situation in a manner that both is respectful to those who are offended as well as a way that is manageable for our small company,” the company said.

New England Brewing posted its original apology on Saturday, at about the time criticism began mounting.

It should be noted that Ghandi was just a man.  He is of course lionized by many for his ostensible works of peace (but also has many critics, and those critics have more than a few valid points) and is revered by many hindis, but it’s not like someone bashed “shiva” or whatever.  Nevertheless, the brewery quickly cowered before any criticism.

But no matter how much reverence hindus may hold for Ghandi, Ghandi-bot is quite a bit more innocuous than the blatantly blasphemous “Sweet Baby Jesus” beer produced – which much mocking derision – by DuClaw Brewing Company of – get this – Maryland, the state originally founded as a refuge for Catholics persecuted in Jacobian England:

“Sweet Baby Jesus,” launched about a year ago, recently became one of DuClaw’s best-selling beers. Thanks to a recent plug from Uncrate, a digital buying guide for men, “Sweet Baby Jesus” beer is drawing attention from reviewers and expanding its appeal beyond Baltimore, into New Jersey, Virginia, and surrounding states. Critics call the ‘chocolate peanut butter’ porter beer “truly exceptional,” graced with a “creative name worth repeating.”

That “creative name worth repeating” just happens to be the name of the Lord.

No matter.

These days, taking a celebrity’s name ‘in vain’—without permission—to sell a product guarantees a public rebuke and litigation threats from the celebrity’s lawyer. But taking the Lord Jesus’s name in vain to sell a parochial brew passes for urbane wit and draws a cosmopolitan snicker. One Philadelphia reviewer honored the beer with a “Best Name” award, tittering over the fact that ‘Sweet Baby Jesus’ is “a tiny bit blasphemous.”

And Who could ever be offended by a tiny of blasphemy at the Holy Name, upon mention of which St. Paul tells us “every knee must bend?”  It’s only yet another sin against the 2nd Commandment.  No biggie.

To get an idea of this company’s gleeful irreverence, their tagline for the brew is “Put a sweet BJ in your mouth,” the double entendre being obvious.

Poor souls.  They have no idea what they do.  There have been complaints and criticism from Christians (mostly evangelical) over this product, but the brewery has rather rudely discounted the concerns of Christians. One may rest assured this very “brave” and “transgressive” brewery does not have the wherewithal to similarly insult the alleged “prophet,” nor the religion he founded.

With the growing atrocities against Christians worldwide, with the culture becoming increasingly hostile, and with the prospects of even blood persecution rising in so many locales, it does make me wonder if perhaps a more militant stance on the part of Christians would not be warranted.  For centuries, the Church convoked Crusades against the muslim and other infidel, Saints were canonized who were known for their martial prowess (San Fernando III, St. Juan de Capistrano, etc), and Christian nations defended the faith against blasphemy and heresy with sometimes quite harsh means.  Which is to say, even given Christ’s command to turn the other cheek, there have been many times in the Church’s history when she has not only tolerated violence in defense of the Faith and for the good of souls, but positively encouraged it.

Perhaps, as the former Christendom recedes more and more deeply into the past, and even great lands like South America which were once bastions of the Faith fall into heresy and indifference, and as we observe the threats to the Faith grow more and more menacing, there may come a time again when a more martial defense of the Faith may become necessary.  Some might even feel that time has not just come, but is long past.  Not that we need to behead brewers.  But a far more vigorous defense of the Faith in one area tends to have a spillover effect into others.  Silly-headed merchants seeking to score a quick buck appealing to similarly vacuous souls wouldn’t have dared to use even relatively innocuous blasphemy as their selling-point when Christendom was strong and robust.  Today, they believe it’s a win win – they appeal to the cultural atheism that is supposedly so hip and such a part of the self-anointed elite’s view of itself to sell more product, while they swat away any minor tut-tutting from Christians, who probably don’t make up much of their market, anyway.  But if the cost of doing so were higher, if they could expect a response more than just a few letters of complaints and very half-hearted boycott efforts, little cheap shots like this would not occur with any frequency.

Which situation is exactly the one islam has created for itself even in the formerly Christian nations – people fear the crazed response so much they won’t even point out islam’s obvious failings, let alone mock the “prophet.”  Look what happens to those who do.

Is there a lesson in there, somewhere?

Sorry about the comments logjam January 12, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, rank stupidity.
comments closed

Dear readers, from Friday on, it appears the occasionally hyperactive spam filter over which I have no control blocked a number of your good and valid comments. I apologize for this.  I have published them all.  It was about a dozen.  Even though for several of you I have taken steps to try to insure your comments are not blocked (adding you to safe lists, telling Akismet you are real people, etc), this continues to happen.  It is a glitch in the filter software that has never been rectified after years of complaints.  I do not know why it suddenly flags comments from long time commenters with stable IPs and no embedded links.  Those should pass with flying colors, but occasionally, don’t.

Please forgive this inconvenience. I know it is maddening to spend time on writing something out and then to have it never appear on the site.  No, I’m not mad at any of you, and no I haven’t blocked any of your comments, it’s just the filter software going haywire again.

Nevertheless, I feel very badly when it happens.