jump to navigation

Cardinal Burke: “I will resist.” February 9, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, error, family, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
Tags:
comments closed

I was wondering if Cardinal Burke’s audience with Pope Francis would have resulted in a demand that he cease speaking out publicly.  Apparently not.  Cardinal Burke has given an interview on French TV in which he is asked what he plans to do if Pope Francis continues with so-called pastoral approaches that have the effect of undermining, if not obliterating, the sacred deposit of the Faith on marriage, the family……heck, the entire moral edifice of the Faith is under attack.

The interview has already received broad coverage, but keeping with my typical day late and dollar short mode of operation, I thought I’d glom on and add a few piffling comments.

The comment that has received the most attention came after the interviewer asked Cardinal Burke what he would do if Pope Francis insisted on a promoting changes that cannot be reconciled with the timeless belief and practice of the Church, Burke responded:

I will resist. I cannot do anything else. There is no doubt that this is a difficult time, this is clear, this is clear.

Cardinal Burke also described the situation that Pope Francis is forcing as painful and worrisome.  Further, he made clear that the “pastoral approaches” being proposed have the effect – however they are described or implemented – of destroying Doctrine:

I cannot accept that communion be given to a person who is living in an irregular union, because it is adultery. On the matter of persons of the same sex, this has nothing to do with matrimony. This is a suffering that some persons have, of being attracted – against nature, sexually – to persons of the same sex. Those people, we must help them to live chastely. But there is no relation to marriage and family, it is a separate issue.

And yet by dragging the matter of sodomy into a Synod on the family, the progressives have already scored an enormous victory, getting wide areas of the Church discussing grave perversion on the same level as the rightly-ordered (by God) family.

Cardinal Burke also discussed the limits of a Pope’s power, and how even he cannot change solemn Doctrine.  Not that there is not a grave temptation to try.

This gets me back to one of my old warhorses, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.  If there is a Doctrine in the Church that has, for all practical effect, been “changed,” that is it.  I say that, because if 80+% of self-described Catholics fail to accept the Real Presence, and 90+% reject the intrinsic evil of contraception, I would hazard that 98 to 99 percent of the Church no longer accepts Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, even when rather liberally interpreted.  Yes, officially, that Doctrine – as well attested to and defined as any in the Church’s long history – remains “on the books,” but even very conservative priests and prelates so water it down that entry to Heaven is open to essentially anyone, when, in the past, the mass belief of the Church was the diametric opposite.

That is one major reason why I don’t feel tremendously reassured when I see people say “well, this Pope may do this or that, but we know he can’t change Doctrine, so don’t worry.”  Perhaps……but we have seen an absolutely key Doctrine (what could be more key than the conditions surrounding salvation, and the degree under which it can be obtained?) so radically minimized and ignored that the effect is essentially the same. I guess a fig leaf remains, but not much more.

Discuss. I am running very late.  I am a convert whose entire family remains outside the Church.  I pray for their conversion, as I pray daily for their salvation, but I am very concerned at the prospects of people I love very much.  This matter is most intimate to my concerns.  It would be so very easy for me to pretend that being outside the Church poses little or essentially no barrier to salvation, but I know that is not the case.  My sensus fidei – which I pray is well formed – tells me to pray and fast ever more for their conversion, that if I don’t………well, I hate to contemplate the eventualities.

I guess I’m just looking for that “doctrinal certainty” that self-seeking neo-pelagian disciplinarian legalist restorationists are always craving to calm our nervous tempers and chase away our insecurities.  Validation……that’s it.

Do you ever get the impression someone doesn’t like us very much?

Catholic groups urge Pope Francis to clarify views February 9, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, SOD, the return.
comments closed

And it appears the petition in filial love has gotten over 71000 signatures now.

The report below condenses some recent developments regarding the petition and other recent efforts to defend the Church’s perennial belief on matters related to marriage and the family.  Cardinal Burke has given strong support to the petition and all efforts to defend the Faith:

Disquiet among the faithful was raised a notch last month when Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, the chief administrator of the synod, told a conference that “dogma has its own evolution.”

One of the latest interventions has come from Archbishop Henryk Hoser of Warsaw, Poland, who has said the church has “betrayed” Pope St. John Paul II’s teaching through pastoral practice proposals presented at last year’s synod.

He told the Polish news agency KAI it is a “false assumption” to consider such topics as the positive aspects of same-sex unions, cohabitation, or opening Communion for remarried divorcees because they assume “God’s mercy without justice.” Hoser urged a re-reading of John Paul II’s teachings on the family.

Meanwhile, large numbers of faithful have signed a “filial appeal” asking Pope Francis to address a current state of confusion regarding church doctrine on these matters. The appeal asks the pontiff to reaffirm “categorically the Catholic teaching that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics cannot receive Holy Communion and that homosexual unions are contrary to divine and natural law.”

The petition, organized by Filiale Supplica, a group of “concerned lay Catholic leaders and pro-family organisations,” had received over 71,000 signatures by Feb. 5 and been signed by prominent Catholic figures such as Cardinals Raymond Leo Burke, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, and the head of the Center for Family and Human Rights, Austin Ruse………

………Asked why he put his name to the petition, Robert Royal, president of the Faith and Reason Institute, said the confusion “that is starting to grow” about church teaching on marriage and all things sexual “cannot be ignored.” He added these questions are just “too crucial” to everyday human life, let alone holiness……..

The report then reveals what Fr. Federico Lombardi, official Vatican spokesman, had to say about all these extraordinary interventions on the part of the laity with regard to the threats many perceive to the integrity of the Deposit of Faith.  As usual, it is a model of clarity and soulful inspiration:

Asked how the Vatican is responding to these concerns and whether they will be heeded, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said any requests should be addressed to the synod secretariat “which certainly reports to the Pope and acts on his behalf” and is obligated to “integrate” ongoing suggestions.

He referred to the Pope’s recent addresses on these issues, made in the Philippines and elsewhere. Lombardi further highlighted that Francis has often spoken about “correct spiritual attitudes and listening and trusting in the Holy Spirit,” especially during his speech at the conclusion of last year’s synod.With this in mind, the Vatican spokesman invited all those with concerns to listen to the Pope “seriously and with willingness” as they will then “probably find several answers to the concerns of which they speak.”

————End Quote————-

Well I would say the constant rebuttals of Cardinal Burke (among many others, like Cardinal Hoser above) and the increasingly desperate actions on the part of the laity to get the attention of the Holy See indicate “those with concerns” are not finding sufficient comfort or clarity in Pope Francis’ vision of the “correct spiritual attitudes.”  Or, at least, that vision which he is permitting to go abroad in his name.

It is a most difficult time.  Interregnums in midst of a revolution like this are never very comforting.  I do think there is a sort of opposition coalescing, but as to whether that will be too little, too late (or something else entirely) I really don’t know. I just keep offering more prayers and a paltry amount of sacrifice, trying to do my part.  Pray God the Church will not have to slip even further into oblivion before a true restoration may begin in earnest.  Right now, my weak faith tells me things will have to get worse before they get better.

 

More reasons why Obama’s comparison of islam to medieval Christianity was ludicrous February 9, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, error, foolishness, General Catholic, history, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
comments closed

When I briefly rebutted the muslim in chief’s conflation of Christianity with islam last week, I knew I was leaving out some important points.  The Crusades have been vilified as part of a deliberate strategy going back to the endarkenment, part of a broader process of painting the entire Middle Ages – and thus the Church – as a period of benighted ignorance, violence, and Catholic-fueled superstition.  To a very great degree, that vilification has succeeded: the Crusades are generally presented, and accepted, as being a very dark time when evil Christians attacked peaceful muslims for no other reason than to spread the Faith by the sword.  But as I pointed out last week, and as Professor Thomas Madden elaborates below, the Crusades were always a defensive reaction against a grave threat to the Faith, and were only called after decades (in the case of Albigensianism) or even centuries of attacks and provocations.

Very good points below, something handy to learn and be able to respond with:

……..people commit terrible deeds in the name of everything. The question isn’t whether humans can be evil, but whether those acts are consistent with their religious beliefs.…..[This is the crucial point.  There were many reasons for the Crusades, some of which we will see below, but the point of fact is that Christianity has never been a religion spread by the sword. But as Christians have lamented for centuries, and as Pope Benedict pointed out in his Regensburg address, islam has always been unique among the major world religions in being spread primarily by military conquest.  Even more, when Catholicism has been long established in an area, peace and the development of all the intellectual and artistic virtues almost invariably increase dramatically, whereas the muslim “ummah” has been, and remains, a vast locality where slavery, subjugation, the darkening of the intellect, and all manner of violence predominate.  This is painting with an enormous brush, there are many exceptions, but I don’t think the description off in those broad terms]

In any case, the Crusades and the Inquisition were in no way a distortion of medieval Christianity. Indeed, they were mainstream ideas with virtually no detractors. Both were initiated by popes, the unquestioned leaders of Western Christianity. Both were supported by generations of religious scholars and a complex infrastructure of canon law. The greatest kings of the Middle Ages, men like Richard the Lionheart of England and St. Louis IX of France, were ardent Crusaders and as a result were hailed as heroes.

Part of the problem here is that the president knows little, perhaps nothing, about the Crusades or the Inquisition. He is not alone in that, of course. Medieval historians have long lamented the gulf between fact and popular perceptions when it comes to these events. The Crusades were not brutal wars of colonial oppression or zealous attempts to spread Christianity by the sword. The First Crusade was called in 1095 by Pope Urban II in response to desperate appeals from the Christians of the Middle East, who had lately been conquered and continued to be persecuted by the Turks. And these were only the latest in more than four centuries of attacks on Christian peoples by Muslim powers. At some point Christianity as a faith and as a culture had to defend itself or else be subsumed by Islam. The work of the Crusader, who put his life at risk and underwent enormous expense, was to save Christian people and restore Christian lands. This was no perversion of Christianity. Christ had commanded his followers to be like the Good Samaritan, hurrying to bind up the wounds of their brother who had been robbed and beaten. This was the same Christ who said, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” That is how Crusaders honestly saw themselves following their Christian faith[Because that is how they were]

……..Of course, many Christians, like the president, may still consider the Crusades and the Inquisition to be a distortion of their faith. Yet they should at least accept that others can honestly disagree. Protestants and Catholics follow different versions of Christianity, but we would strongly reject a president who tried to tell us which was right. By the same token, the president has even less authority to discern true from distorted Islam. ISIS is barbaric, but there is no denying that its adherents believe they are true followers of Islam. And they can point to medieval Muslim rulers who were just as bloody. The Egyptian leader Baybars, for example, captured the Christian city of Antioch in 1268 and massacred its entire population. Even Saladin, who is generally well regarded today, estimated that he had killed or executed 40,000 European Christians after the Battle of Hattin in 1187. Were these men, who were universally hailed as champions of Islam, perverters of the faith? And, if so, is it the president’s job to decide that?

———End Quote———

That’s just a couple of examples.  Others include the constant pirate raids along the entire Mediterranean coast, which resulted in the deaths of thousands and the carting away of thousands more to spend their lives in slavery.  Why did the great orders of the Mercidarians and others have to come into being?  To find a way, some way, to buy back – whether with money or the lives of the religious – the millions of Christians taken into islamic slavery over centuries.  Note, the muslims did not have to have a similar order to bring back muslim slaves from Christian conquest.  Did you know that muslim pirate raids were attacking as far north as the British Isles well into the 1600s?  Bristol and other western ports were sacked by muslims in the 1630s!  And the second siege of Vienna was fought in 1683.  The Christian nations – heretical or not – then began a rapid ascendancy as the Ottoman Empire just as quickly decayed, but all through its rise, from Malta to Rhodes to Constantinople, islam did not advance by making converts, but by military conquest.

And of course this tendency continues to our very day.  ISIS daily commits atrocities that would shock Atilla the Hun, Boko Haram just recently killed tens of thousands in very well coordinated attacks on Christians in Nigeria, Christians in South Sudan continue to be attacked, islamists wage a guerrilla war in the Catholic (nominally) Philippines…….it never seems to end.

Madden also refutes the notion of the Inquisition as some barbaric form of enforcing doctrinal uniformity by the Church. He points out that, in reality, the Inquisition was instituted to insure the accused had some rights against STATE authority, and that the worst excesses of witch-hunting and heretic-burning were in the protestant-dominated areas of 16th and 17th century Europe, where there was no Inquisition.  Not that there were not errors made – perhaps – nor that the Inquisition could not be infiltrated by worldly men seeking to gain riches and influence through placating the secular power, which may have occurred to some degree in Spain, but even there, the Inquisition was incredibly gentle and benign in comparison to the nightmare faced by English “recusant” Catholics not just under Queen Elizabeth, but for three hundred years.  And yet that vile persecution, possibly the longest and most sustained in the Church’s history, is utterly forgotten, while the Inquisition is made out to be like the Schutzstaffel of early modern Spain.

Yet that is the incredible power of the false narrative of the “englightenment” and the liberal-progressive party it spawned.  They have literally rewritten history to such an extent that only a few academics and a handful of others are even remotely able to see through the mighty fabrications they have weaved.

 

It was a great First Friday at the new location February 9, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Dallas Diocese, Eucharist, family, fun, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, sanctity, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

I was very edified to see so many people turn out for the first “official” First Friday at Mater Dei in Irving after its termination of its 5+ year run at the Carmelite convent in Dallas.  There were over 100 people at Mass Friday night (a good attendance for a daily Mass at any parish, and this was the third Mass of the day) and most stayed for an appreciable time in Adoration afterwards.  The woman staying in our extra room stayed the entire night!  She didn’t leave until after Mass Saturday morning.  That’s an impressive achievement.  Though I did not stay, apparently, there was a goodly number of people present throughout the night.  That is such a great work of devotion!

I snapped a few photos.  I don’t have much to report other than that I was very glad to see that it appears support for the First Friday Adoration will continue unabated with the transfer of location.

20150206_211529_4_bestshot

20150206_211237

20150206_212138

Some people have requested photos of my family.  I don’t like to make it too much about me, but a strange thing happened at a party on Saturday, girls kept popping up out of a swing:

20150207_142358

20150207_142741

20150207_142909

Radfem aborts child because it is male February 9, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, attachments, Basics, contraception, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

I just lost a very long post on this subject.  Curse you, WordPress.

A self-described radical feminist has written some posts describing her descent into madness and her subsequent decision to murder her unborn son as a result. She freely admits doing so strictly because he was a boy.  Some people are claiming this woman’s story so over the top that it looks fallacious to them.  Perhaps, but I’m skeptical. Even should it turn out this story is just the sick efforts of some attention-seeker, the lesson for Catholics remains: this is what comes from decades of reducing people, in this case, unborn babies, to objects or commodities to be owned, traded, and thrown away at their “owner’s” whim.

The radfem starts her story by describing the horrific abuse she suffered that drove her to such levels of extremism that she had to destroy her son to “stop patriarchy.”  See if you can follow this sordid tale of withering abuse:

In the spring of 2012, I found out that I was pregnant. I had a good idea who the donator was, but money wasn’t really an issue, and I knew that I would be a good mother-like figure[mother-like figure,”sheesh] ” for the child by myself. I have always believed in the right for all women to have a choice in terminating their pregnancy, but when I confirmed the diagnosis about a month into into it, I decided that I WAS ready to have this child. [or not]

My journey has taken me to many different places fighting for women’s rights and carrying the banner of the Feminist Movement, even to the point of eschewing a career.[Almost certain translation: I have a women’s studies degree and no discernible skills, thus my career options are limited to the level of barista or below.  But I’ve managed to cobble together a pretty nice income by serving as a paid agent (is there any other kind?) of left-wing agitprop] One of the more prominent themes that I saw in these places was that men generally would look down on us, refuse to help us, or hardly even lend an ear so that we could air our grievances.[Yes, men, just stand there and cower while we yell at you and tell you all your manifest failings. Otherwise, you aren’t supporting] This didn’t surprise me, the patriarchy has been well entrenched since the dawn of time, but here I was, here I am, ready to change it. [While you’re at it, here’s a windmill to tilt at]

Seeking to justify her growing distrust and dislike of the patriarchy, she describes an incident early-on that happened on a plane. As she informed a male passenger sitting next to her that she was flying to an Occupy Wall Street rally, he told her “B****** like you need to learn their place”.  [I am highly dubious this event took place as described?  Who, aside some true pipe-hittin’ G would speak to a woman he just met like that on a plane?  More than likely is that she started spouting off – unprovoked – with a bunch of leftist agitprop, and she got absolutely crushed by a well-informed man sitting next to her.  This experience was so painful for our special snowflake she has, over time, decided, basically, he was saying to her “b——s need to learn their place,” because she is unable to recognize or respond to well-reasoned argument, and in fact sees (as many radfems do) logical discourse as just another tool of the patriarchy. I could be wrong, there is a very slim chance events proceeded as she describes, but I bet money I my version]  Lana describes feeling as if “His words had violated both my feelings, and my trust, perhaps as much of a violation as actual physical touch.[So much for “I am woman, hear me roar.” What, superwoman, you can’t respond to a put down without breaking out in tears?] Upon being told by the steward that he could not move the man because no violation had actually occurred, Lana reacted:

I was flabbergasted, and then betrayed as they recommended that I move to one of the empty seats. This left me in tears. I knew the only way to get away was to move seats so I did so tearfully and having felt as though I had been verbally and emotionally raped. [Again, really? Is this what decades of radical feminism have reduced women to?  Could not any strong soul, male or female, have brushed off the jerk’s comment (if it occurred), perhaps given them a rejoinder, and found a seat away from the jerk?  There was very little the steward could have done even if he had heard the comment – jerky though it was, it wasn’t a threat and didn’t really impede the ability to have the flight.  We’re talking about a grown woman breaking down over 8 words.  Please.]

By the time we landed, my outlook had changed, I could no longer depend on men to be an ally of the cause. 

Of course, Lana had automatically assumed she would have a girl. When she was informed by her doctor that an ultrasound determined she was instead pregnant with a little boy, she was horrified. Her reaction to her “body’s betrayal”? [Does she not know that the man determines the sex of the child? So how did her body “betray” her?  Is she really that ignorant?  I will add this: radfems have developed really asinine, but also scary theories about things like asexual reproduction in women (oh how they long for that!) and women being to use “mind control” to determine the sex of their children.] She had an abortion a few days later. Of her decision:

I stand by my decision to abort my baby because it was a male. [because I am so STRONG I absolutely wilt when a single man says something mean]

I don’t hate men, [B as in B, S as in S] I hate the patriarchy, what men, and even some women, turn into, I wasn’t going to let that happen with my offspring. The chances were greater that it would with a male, it was unacceptable. [Enjoy your life full of cats. I really pray, for their sake, you never have a girl]

If the curse returns, I would do the exact same thing all over again. [Wow, she is really, really mad at dad about something]

This is what comes from the Church failing in Her job to preach all the Truth to everyone for half a century or more.  No, feminism didn’t come about solely due to that failure, but millions have fallen into this increasingly unhinged and diabolical mindset because of it.

Feminism has always been disordered, but it is really entering crazed paranoid tin foil hat levels of late.  It also seems not to have produced the product promised (strong, independent women) but pathetic mewling adult children constantly needing aid from others and just wilting like hothouse flowers when they don’t receive it.  Sure, the guy on the plane may have been a jerk, but that is the transformative  experience that resulted in this woman now being committed to killing all her own male offspring?

Is there not also more than a small whiff of self-loathing not just in the above, but in the whole radical fringe of feminism (which is to say, feminism)?  Why do the most radical marxist lesbians almost always ape male behavior, and why do they now extol the very worst male tendencies as the ideal for women?

Eh, “I am woman hear me roar” has become “I am sad self-absorbed bore.”