jump to navigation

Cardinal Burke summoned for papal audience? January 14, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, General Catholic, Holy suffering, manhood, Papa, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, shocking, Society, SOD, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

I’m not sure if summoned is the right term. It could have been simply that he had an audience with Pope Francis.  Nevertheless, that is what Eponymous Flower is reporting via the German site Katholisches. I should note that most of the article simply goes over the recent struggles and sufferings Cardinal Burke has endured, as well as his seeming opposition to the direction the Church has taken in the past 22 months.  I will forego repeating much of what has already been covered here, and simply get to the new stuff:

Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, Cardinal Patron of the Sovereign Order of Malta , was received on Thursday by Pope Francis in audience.

Just two months after the demotion, Pope Francis is to receive his critic. Prior to the drastic personnel decision, there was no discussion between the Pope and the Cardinal.  Pope Francis had only  granted one audience, which took place on 11 June-2013. The content of the yesterday’s meeting is unknown.

I have no idea what that last sentence is supposed to mean.  I don’t know whether it means that Pope Francis has only had one previous audience with Cardinal Burke, or what?  It would seem inconceivable that Pope Francis has had only one other audience, period.  We already know of several other “audiences” he has had: with Cardinal Brandmuller, with the Argentine national soccer team before the World Cup, with various religions, etc.  So I can guess it must apply to Cardinal Burke?

There are a lot of comments at Eponymous Flower.  Many of those are of the sort that say: “Cardinal Burke is the greatest prelate in the Church!”  “No, he’s a poseur and johnny-come-lately!”

I would say that, to the extent there is opposition in the Church to the radical changes in doctrine and practice (for the two are inseparable) being put in play, Cardinal Burke is doing as much work as any major figure to lead that opposition and encourage it.  That doesn’t mean he’s necessarily our savior, and certainly not that he’s perfect now or was in the past.  Like so many Church leaders (and the rest of us) who grew up in the post-Vatican II environment, it has taken time for Cardinal Burke to learn about and embrace the Church’s great Tradition.  I would say that, at least among leaders in the Anglosphere, Cardinal Burke has embraced and extolled that Tradition as much as any have.  But I’m sure he has his deficiencies and, like almost all of us, has absorbed beliefs that are accepted by virtually all Catholics as basically true, even if those same beliefs would be quite radical to a Catholic of 100 years ago. We all swim in this mess, and it is difficult not to have bits of wreckage cling to us.

I love and respect Cardinal Burke a great deal.  There are other things I know about him, things I am sworn not to reveal, publicly, that confirm for me that he understands the plight of the Church and is taking many steps to fight both the ongoing revolution and somehow return the Church to sanity.  It is perhaps true that this realization has come a bit later in life for him that it has for others, but his contributions should not be slighted on that basis. Like Pope Benedict, he is very much a man who seems to be growing into the role God called him to, even if he may not be everyone’s perfect ideal. I think he does deserve our aid and support in his efforts to fight the revolution and uphold the Faith.

I pray this audience/meeting bodes well for Cardinal Burke and his apostolate to serve God in His Church. I pray this meeting was not an unpleasant or difficult one for him.

I guess one thing we might observe as time goes on is whether Cardinal Burke’s tone changes, or whether he ceases giving so many forthright interviews.  That might give us some indication of what this meeting was about, but I suppose speculation on my part is bad practice.

May God protect and defend him.


A brief lesson from St. Peter Julian Eymard January 14, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Eucharist, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, manhood, priests, religious, sanctity, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

I can’t believe I’m almost through the Eymard Library, the compendium of most (or all?) of St. Peter Julian Eymard’s works.  I’m on the final volume. When I read the following, I thought it worth sharing. The Apostle of Blessed Sacrament was surely a great and wise Saint. His words certainly have enormous meaning on our own time, as they did in his, as well.  For such a concise exegesis, it conveys so much truth and wisdom.

———Begin Quote———-

O my God! How is it there can be even one sinner on earth, one ingrate!  There is no other reason but that men do not know Thy love. They dread knowing it too much.  They keep away from it, because they are slaves to creatures or to self-love. They make a god of their body; they court the love of the world; they long to share its pleasures, to enjoy the sound of its praise and glory; in short, they want to eymard.jpglive for their own selves.

Christian souls, have nothing to do with the slaves of the world who are chained to is triumphal chair. Declare war on the enemy of your God; sacrifice your self love to Him; submit to His law of love, and yours will be a happiness that you have never tasted before. Virtue will become a sort of need, almost as second nature; its combats will be a delight and its sacrifices a pleasure. Love is God’s triumph in man and man’s triumph in God.

But how to live, how to put ourselves in that state of love? It is very easy. Man is love. He does not have to learn how to love; he simply loves and then devotes himself. But it is the sight, the contemplation of the object loved, it is the truth known in its goodness and beauty, a goodness communicated to each one personally, that wakens love in man, fosters it, and raises it to the point of making it the noblest passion of his life.

Look at St. Paul.  After having seen Jesus Christ, and heard Him, and understood the love of the Cross, he exclaims: “Christ loved me, and He delivered Himself to death for me!” (Gal II:20)  That thought moves him to tears of tenderness: his heart expands under the powerful action of the fire of Jesus’ love. He wants to do something worthwhile for the love of Jesus, Who has loved him so much. And he has recourse to the hardest sacrifices. He defies any torture, any death, any power ever to separate him from the love of the Lord Jesus…….

……Do you then wish to love and to be happy in that life of love? Keep in mind the thought of the goodness of God, constantly renewed in your favor; observe in Jesus the work of His love for you. Start all your actions with an act of love. You will then experience delight in bringing your soul under the influence of the action of Jesus.  The reason why you never make much headway is htat your first thought is of yourself…….Love is the only door that opens the heart.

0802Eymard-thumb-244x351.jpgYou have a difficulty to fulfill? Before acting make a good act of love. “My God,” you may say, “I love You more than myself, and to prove it to You I will cheerfully perform this act of charity, of self-denial, of patience.”  The moment your heart has made that act of love, the difficulty duty is, as it were, already done in the eyes of God, and in your own eyes it will take on an altogether different aspect.

Self-love is what makes life hard for us, what feeds our distaste for duty and the practice of virtue.  Now the first effect of the love of God in a soul dominated by that love is to wage a relentless war on self-love, that is, on sensuality of life, on the ambition of the heart, on pride of the spirit, on the mind of the world, all of which are nothing but falsehood and egotism.

The stronger divine love is in a heart, the more militant that heart is.  It is not content with repulsing evil, but it goes a step further; it NHF_Augustlays the foundation of its virtue on mortification and self-immolation, which bring perfect emancipation and complete freedom from one’s self.

The love of God influences life continually; it is the unyielding and unswerving norm of every action.

What is Christ’s wish presently? Will this thought, this desire, this action please or glorify Him in any way?

That is the law of true love; it does not consider what it gives, but what the Beloved deserves.


———End Quote———

We must always try to keep focus on the love God has for us.  It is difficult in this world full of woe to do that.  It is difficult to see things falling down around us, inside the Church and out, and still keep that focus on love. But without feeling that love from God and returning it, we run a grave risk of letting our faith become about us, instead of about Him.  And that is one of satan’s favorite tricks for pious souls.  There is some truth in pharisaism. We don’t want to feel ourselves exalted over others.  Keeping our love for God and His love for us central in our lives is the key to the wisdom of the Saints and the right ordering of our own spiritual life.

Alas, too often I fail. But I pray the practical steps shown above may become a regular part of my life and insure I fail a lot less.

Lord, thank you for the example of our Saints!  They fill me with cheer and hope!

YHGTBSM: Muslim call to prayer to be chanted every Friday on Duke U campus January 14, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, error, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
comments closed

Islam is the official religion of the West. You cannot tell me otherwise when the ONE religion that gets preferential treatment from our elites is invariably islam:

In a new initiative to promote religious pluralism, Duke University will broadcast the Muslim call to prayer every Friday on campus. The call to prayer—also known as “adhan”—will be chanted by the Duke Muslim Student Association.

The prayer itself is set to start this Friday at 1:00 p.m. and will be broadcast and amplified from the Chapel bell tower on campus.

As campuses continue to foster political correctness, they use it as a way to favor religions seemingly at war with Western Civilization and Judeo-Christian beliefs. [Leftism is fundamentally hostile to Christianity, and fundamentally terrified of islam.  So, this is what you get]

Frequently, we see students fighting for their religious freedom on campus—especially [very nearly only] Christians.  We hope that Duke University will also allow equal opportunity for Christian students to gather to pray and respect their religious freedom. [Yeah, right.]

Duke University has a long history of fostering political correctness and hypersensitivity, from Chick-Fil-A’s removal from campus, to hosting a the national Palestinian Solidarity Movement conference [which is a militant front group for Hamas and other anti-Israel organizations], and to canceling a pro-life event in their Women’s Center on campus. [They’re rabid leftists. And they’re also so very proud of this (link warning)]

So do you think they’ll let the Catholics chant Vespers on Friday over the campus loudspeakers?!?  HAH!

Sorry folks, the West is finished. Kaput.  Done. Deader n’ fried chicken.  All that is left now is the tragic denouement.

Load up on ammo, water filtration systems/purifiers, and food.  I’m not a prepper, but you have to be blind to not see that this thing won’t hold together much longer.  We’re Rome circa late December AD 409, the barbarians are all over, and there is no one manning the final walls.  Worst of all, our own leaders look on the barbarian hordes as wonderful enlightened “others” to be catered to and pampered.


The “97% of climate scientists agree” meme is 100% false January 14, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, pr stunts, secularism, self-serving, silliness, Society.
comments closed

Alex Epstein at Forbes has done a great service digging into the source of the common meme of the cultural (and Church) left – that “97% of ‘scientists’ agree that climate change is ‘real'” – and finding it yet another total fabrication.  Epstein investigates the source of this claim and finds this claim, first of all, rests with the “analysis” of an extreme climate activist, and secondly, is essentially made up out of whole cloth.  Given the environment – ahem – we face in the Church, with the upcoming encyclical, there is some useful information you might want to place in a handy location to refute the errors we are sure to be bombarded with in the coming months:

Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea [the foundation upon which it rests], but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.

Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct. [Also known as, political activism masquerading as science, something we are seeing more and more of, to a disturbing degree, of late. Another important note from Epstein not included in the portion I’ve quoted: you will almost always hear it said that 97% of “scientists” – that is all scientists, in every discipline – believe that Anthropocentric Global Warming is real, caused for the most part by mankind, and poses a grave threat to our survival. The actual claim was that 97% of CLIMATE scientists believe such, but even that claim is completely false, as you will see below. I have to wonder if leftists/environmental activists have not entirely promoted this false claim entirely in bad will, but perhaps are simply too ignorant to understand the distinctions within the many, many branches of science, and the fact that the vast majority of scientists have no more authority to speak on this matter than you or I, as they are in totally unrelated fields.  In fact, I actually do have some authority to speak, because I am very well versed in computational fluid dynamics, which involves the use of the same type of analysis tools to create models of reality, the same kind of models upon which all this climate hysteria rests.  My familiarity with CFD analysis and its great limitations is one of the major sources of my climate-hysteria skepticism. That, and the fact that I have a brain, and this is about the 985th time the left has tried to scarify us into handing total control of the political-economic system of the entire world to them. Nice gig, if you can convince enough people to allow it. Nomenklatura, here we come!]

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges. [so this is not an unbiased source]

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” [Instant credibility gap: were papers that did not claim such deliberately left out?]

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming. [We fell from “97%” to 1.6% pretty fast]

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t. [Epstein then goes on to note that a number of scientists who had their papers included in the above categories protested their being labeled as part of the 97%.  In point of fact, it is absolutely impossible to prove, with the current level of technology, the degree to which human emissions of carbon dioxide may contribute to greenhouse syndrome, if they contribute at all.  At best, only the most rough guesstimates of the relative contributing factors can be made, which is why responsible scientists would at the very least hedge heavily in attributing any of this back to human causes.  But it’s all false, anyway, the earth has always warmed and cooled, and the “extremes” we are seeing now are nothing of the sort. The earth has been both much hotter and much colder than it is now. But leftists never let the truth get between them and a useful tactic to advance their agenda and, they hope, seize control of the levers of political and economic power]

I am reminded of another recent meme of the left, that “1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted on campus.”  Which, if even remotely true, thank you for confirming for me why I won’t send my kids away to college.  But it’s not true. It’s not even remotely true.  In fact, a detailed examination of the origin of that “1 in 4” meme showed that the real numbers were more like 1-2%, but that the activists who performed the “study” kept doubling and even quadrupling the estimated number, over and over again, based on incredibly spurious factors, until they arrived at a number suitably scary. Just as we see with the above with regard to climate change.

As I said, the info above may come in handy at some point. And it’s not just with regard to papal encyclicals, many elements in the Curia, the USCCB, many individual bishops, and many others are fully on board with this climate change evangelization.  It might be useful to keep this at info close at hand.

Snarky joke post January 14, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, sadness, scandals, secularism, silliness, Society.
comments closed

Well, it’s only sort of a joke, because it’s going to be true, as well:

22893209904823copyImage (1)

Text washed out there a little bit.  Oh well.

I, for one, do not look forward to the upcoming encyclical.  What’s next, one on GMO foods or space aliens?

Are we to look forward to the process of canonization for Juan and Evita Perón?














h/t reader D