jump to navigation

Cardinal Marx produces a torrent of error and dubious statements while visiting US February 10, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Hilary White at Life Site News has a blockbuster headline on Cardinal Reinhard Marx, clearly one of the most influential prelates over the current pontificate (hoarding billions of state-funded Euros being a pretty powerful source of influence): “Cardinal hits young traditionalists who want to “be clear in their positions'” calls it the beginning of terrorism.”

It is certain Cardinal Marx makes a number of troubling statements below, seemingly oriented towards spreading confusion and doubt.  I’m not 100% convinced he meant to denounce traditional Catholics as terrorists, but see what you think. I’m going to skip White’s summation and jump right in to some of Marx’s quotes:

He added, “The church says that a gay relationship is not on the same level as a relationship between a man and a woman. That is clear. But when they are faithful, when they are engaged for the poor, when they are working, it is not possible to say, ‘Everything you do, because you are a homosexual, is negative.’” [There is such a huge conflation going on here.  Certainly, on the human level, those in perverse lifestyles who do what is apparently the holiest of holies – “engaged for the poor” – aren’t doing anything negative, necessarily.  But this completely excludes any understanding of sanctifying Grace and our eternal end.  This is an incredibly confusing statement of basically no import whatsoever, but it is phrased to sound important.  So he is saying: “homosexuals can do good works.”  Yeah, so can satanists.  So can any sinner. But that doesn’t mean those works are efficacious of Grace, which is, or should be, what a Catholic Cardinal talks about.  We will see this same tendency to confuse as we go along]

In his Stanford lecture, Cardinal Marx said, “I had a discussion with some of the students,” before the lecture, who asked him, “‘Cardinal is it true that the younger people are more traditional?’ And that’s true. [Interesting to see that fact acknowledged]

“But that is not dangerous,” he said. “I have no problem with tradition. But we have also the tendencies that the people want to be clear in their positions. Black and white populism is growing in Europe. And that is the beginning, perhaps, of populism, of terrorism, that’s clear.” [Is he saying that traddies are a step away from terrorism?  Or did he switch topics midstream and start thinking/talking of things like nationalism and even fundamentalist islam?  When I first read this, I thought the latter, but re-reading it several times, I think he is trying to lump in the traditional practice of the Faith with any fundie movement. This is also a heckuva swipe coming from the nation that gave us Marx, Engels, Nietzsche, and National Socialism]

“The atmosphere of reducing the complexity of the world, to give simple answers, to give black and white answers, is growing, and I think that is very dangerous,” the cardinal said.  [Well, modernists love shades of grey, fuzzy answers, and confusion.  They hate theological clarity. Pope St. Pius X and the experience of 100 years make that clear]

…..“The centre of the message is, ‘Heaven is open. Look, heaven is open. You have free entrance.  [Is it just me or is this all but saying all are saved?] Come. That is the first sermon of Jesus…Convert yourself and be confident to the Gospel. To the good news. And from this, we are celebrating. That’s the main topic. We are celebrating this in our Eucharists, and in our gatherings.” [But see how he does that?  How he goes from “Heaven is open” to Christ’s command: repent/convert and be saved.  Those are not equivalent statements.  Marx, and many like him in the Church, are pulling the biggest and worst bait and switch in history: “All are saved!”  Except they’re not. Is that what we look for in Catholic leadership today? Is that not what Archbishop Lenga denounced?]

“But the very special point in the New Testament is that Jesus is not saying, ‘When you are good to God, God is good to you.’ No!” Marx said, “God is giving his love to you. Come. Be embraced by the Lord, and then you will live in a different way.” [That is not what Christ said.  He said “Your sins are forgiven (after true repentance). NOW GO AND SIN NO MORE.”  What Marx, et. al., want to have the Church say is: “Your sins are forgotten.  So don’t worry about them and keep partyin’ like hell.” Literally]

…..On the subject of the divorced and civilly remarried Catholics receiving Communion, Marx said, “I am astonished that some can say, ‘Everything is clear’ on this topic. [yes they are, in spite of your cheap shot at Cardinal Burke.]  Things are not clear. It is not about church doctrine being determined by modern times.”  [Literally, watch this. We go from…..it’s not about church doctrine being determined by modern times, to……]

It is a question of aggiornamento,  [!!!]  to say it in a way that the people can understand, and to always adapt our doctrine to the Gospel  [declaring, at present, it is not “adapted” to the Gospel] , to theology, in order to find in a new way the sense of what Jesus said, the meaning of the tradition of the church and of theology and so on. There is a lot to do.”….. [ONLY IF YOU SEEK TO REDEFINE THE FAITH AND CONTRADICT THE PLAIN WORDS OF CHRIST.  Otherwise, there is nothing to do.  This is just incredible double-speak, I’m sorry, I have a very hard time not seeing this as nothing but pure, unadulterated modernist prevarication]

…….“Some bishops at the synod said, ‘They are living in sin.’ But others said, ‘You cannot say that somebody is in sin every day. That is not possible. [Oh bullshit. I bet every single one of you super-lefty prelates would happily say that Adolf Hitler lived in sin every single day he was having Jews exterminated. Do prostitutes who lay with a dozen different men and spike up 5 times a day “sin every day?”  You are just seeking to explain away an utterly unCatholic, impermissible move you want to make for the sake of cultural acceptance and the sake of the almighty $$$.  And as a recovering addict, I can assure you, it is very possible to sin every day, and I was married to the same woman the entire time, too!]  You see, there are questions we must speak about.” He said it is important the Synod does not have “the spirit of ‘all or nothing.’ It is not a good way.” [They continue to seek ways to obliterate doctrine while pretending it still exists]

We must find ways to welcome them.  [Why?  Who says? Did a third stone fall from Heaven with a new, 11th Commandment, saying “thou must welcome the adulterer and sodomite?  What you mean is, I/we demand that it be so.  This is entirely about will to power and, as you will see, money]  We have to use our imagination in asking, ‘Can we do something?’ Perhaps it is not possible in some situations. That is not the question. The focus must be on how to welcome people.”

[And now for the reveal……]   The German bishops’ have repeatedly stated, in the face of opposition in the past from Pope Benedict XVI and now from the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, that they will simply defy the teaching of the Church and her norms of practice and start offering divorced and civilly remarried Catholics Communion. [So this almost certainly has much less to do with Truth, or mercy, or anything else, but the continuation and perpetuation of what the German bishops think will bolster their precious Church tax.  The funny thing is, German Catholics are not falling away – read that as failing to pay the Church tax – over whether they can receive Communion as adulterers or not. They are falling away, and say so, because they feel the Church in their country is irrelevant and corrupt.  And who could argue?]

———–End Quote————

But they always fail to mention, that they automatically excommunicate, and even refuse Church burial to, those who refuse to pay the Almighty German Church Tax.  So they have unlimited mercy for sodomites and adulterers, but those who object in conscience to paying a tax to support a corrupt and obscene administration are kicked out of the Church.  Some mercy.   Actions like that appear as Machiavellian as the very worst Renaissance Borgias.

Clear signs the Franciscans of the Immaculate are dying February 10, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, persecution, religious, sadness, scandals, secularism, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Dying may be too strong a word – gravely wounded, seeing their former growth reversed, experiencing a collapse of vocations, steady flight – might be more appropriate terms.

German site Katholisches, via Tancred at Eponymous Flower, is reporting that the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (FFIs) have had to close a major cloister in Teramo, capital of Abruzzo, which was acquired several years ago from a collapsed Dominican order (and don’t think jealousy from dying orders has not played a role in the plight of the FIs!).  Even the FIs Apostolic Commissioner Fidenzio Volpi had to admit this closure was due to the flight of men from the formerly flourishing order:

The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate are leaving Teramo, the capital city of the Italian region of Abruzzo. As the religious house of Teramo announced in a statement, the closing on February 11th of the Monastery of Teramo is “based on a decision of the Apostolic Commissioner,” Father Fidenzio Volpi.

As a reason, a “decline of Brothers” and the “departure of some religious” were mentioned. In both cases, these were direct consequences of the provisional administration of the Order which had been blooming till July 2013.  The “decline” is due to resignations, which were triggered by the radical intervention of members appointed by the Commissar appointed by the Roman Congregation of Religious because the original charism of the Order was destroyed. The “departure” means forced displacements and exile of the friars by the Commissar.

On October 6, 2007 Bishop Michele Seccia of Teramo had entrusted the parish and convent of San Domenico to the young Franciscans.  In 2008 the  Marian lay community of Missione Immacolata Media Trice and the Third Order were established. Since the same year, the Fathers have celebrated the Traditional Rite since the implementation of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, not only the convent’s, but public worship, such as the  Office and Vespers. In a pastoral concern for the parish,  the Mass was celebrated in both the traditional and the new Rites. [Are those FFI cloisters most strongly associated with the TLM being targeted for closure most of all?]

In 2005, the Dominicans had abandoned the monastery for lack of vocations.  It was originally established in 1287.

Well, I’d say the intervention of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate is going about as planned.  Less than ten years ago, the FFIs were growing so rapidly they were occupying many ancient cloisters abandoned by other poisoned, dying religious groups.  Now they are having to abandon many such locales.  I pray for the eventual relaxation of this highly repressive intervention and the eventual restitution of this order.  I fear it is going to be a very long haul, however.

Nevertheless, I do believe in Fr. Stefano Manelli’s sanctity and the sanctity of the order he founded. I believe it was desired by God, as was the order’s turn towards Tradition.  So blessed, it will return.  But the suffering and struggle in the interim will be intense.  Especially when the opposition to those aspects which so allowed it to flourish are so intense and so deeply rooted in ideology.

The plight of the FFIs is another thing it would be nice to see a devout bishop speak out on.

An interesting corollary.  One of the main points of attack for this intervention against the prior orientation of the FI order was its focus on poverty. There have been numerous reports already that the strong emphasis on the need for evangelical poverty has been significantly softened under the new administration. I was reading at lunch James Larsen’s argument that the perversion of the original orientation of the Franciscan order towards a total embrace of poverty was one of the early causes of the eventual fall of Christendom.  His argument was fairly convincing (if way too long for me to read on the internet), but was largely out of my depth, so I sort of had to take his claims at face value.  Nevertheless, there has long been division within the many Franciscan orders over the degree to which they must embrace Saint Francis’ vow of total poverty.  I think it is more than slightly revealing that this issue has come up yet again in the contemporary context, with regard to the persecution of this order.

Anyone have any comments on Larsen’s arguments?

Rising opposition? Open-letter from bishop-emeritus strongly denounces direction of Church February 10, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church, true leadership.
comments closed

A very important exclusive from Rorate below, an open letter from Archbishop Emeritus Jan Pawel Lenga, formerly ordinary for the Diocese of Karaganda, Kazakhstan.  I suspected that the very strong defense of the Faith given by Bishop Athanasius Schneider, also of Kazakhstan, was indicative of a relatively strong episcopal backing in his home country.  This letter seems to confirm that at least to some degree.  I only wish Archbishop Lenga was still ordinary, and not retired (mandatory episcopal retirement being another innovation of Pope Paul VI) – his words would have that much more effect.

The crisis in the Faith has been going on for 50 years.  But the potential for further revolution, which in many respects seemed to have slackened under Benedict XVI, has accelerated of late, or at least the threat of it doing so.  Perhaps that is why this archbishop chose now to make his statement.  Is this a sign of a growing opposition to the potential for further radical change in the Church?  I pray so.  Unfortunately, the experience of the past 50 years has also shown that prelates willing to honestly describe the crisis and the errors that are driving it are far too rare.  It could be a matter of too little, too late.  Again, I pray not, but we’ll see.

I basically copy the whole thing below. I was originally only going to copy the best bits, but the whole thing is really surprisingly good and also very rare from a bishop.  He touches on a number of taboo subjects, including how bishops are selected and the politics that have predominated over the past several decades.  The whole piece is a must read.  I add emphasis and comments:

These are my convictions and they are dictated by my love of the Church and by the desire for her authentic renewal in Christ. I am forced to resort to this public means of expression because I fear that any other method would be greeted by a brick wall of silence and jpldisregard. 

I am aware of possible reactions to my open letter. But at the same time the voice of my conscience will not allow me to remain silent, while the work of God is being slandered. Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church and showed us in word and deed how one should fulfill the will of God. The apostles to whom He bestowed authority in the Church, fulfilled with zeal the duty entrusted to them, suffering for the sake of the truth which had to be preached, since they “obeyed God rather than men”.

Unfortunately in our days it is increasingly evident that the Vatican through the Secretariat of State has taken the course of political correctness.  Some Nuncios have become propagators of liberalism and modernism. They have acquired expertise in the principle “sub secreto Pontificio”, by which one manipulates and silences the mouths of the bishops. And that what the Nuncio tells them appears as it would be almost certainly the wish of the Pope. With such methods one separates the bishops from one another to the effect that the bishops of a country can no longer speak with one voice in the spirit of Christ and His Church in defending faith and morals. This means that, in order not to fall into disfavour with the Nuncio some bishops accept their recommendations, which are sometimes based on nothing other than on their own words. Instead of zealously spreading the faith, courageously preaching the doctrine of Christ, standing firm in the defense of truth and of morals, the meetings of the Bishops’ Conferences often deal with issues which are foreign to the nature of the duties of the successors of the apostles. [Boy ain’t that right.  That is the prime reason why I would like to see episcopal conferences abrogated, they have become centers of not just matters foreign to the right conduct of the Faith, but frequently positively opposed to it.  Bureaucracies are deadly for vigorous piety. The Church bureaucracy, through the conferences, absolutely exploded after VII]

One can observe at all levels of the Church an obvious decrease of the “sacrum”. The “spirit of the world” feeds the shepherds. The sinners give the Church the instructions for how she has to serve them. In their embarrassment the Pastors are silent on the current problems and abandon the sheep while they are feeding themselves. The world is tempted by the devil and opposes the doctrine of Christ. Nevertheless the Pastors are obliged to teach the whole truth about God and men “in season and out”. [My response to the hours long survey for the Ordinary Synod on the Family could be boiled down to “preach the Faith!”  Which hasn’t been done in decades, by and large.  The above is a very good description of the infection of worldliness in Church leaders and rot it causes]

However, during the reign of the last holy Popes one could observe in the Church the greatest disorder concerning the purity of the doctrine and the sacredness of the liturgy, in which Jesus Christ is not paid the visible honour which he is due. In not a few Bishop’s Conferences the best bishops are “persona non grata”. Where are apologists of our days, who would announce to men in a clear and comprehensible manner the threat of the risk of loss of faith and salvation? [There are a few, mostly laity with a few priests. Some of those priests have sadly fallen and given grave scandal.  As for the best bishops being persona non grata…….that’s so very, very true.  They frequently get torpedoed by their modernist brethren, as is occurring to Cardinal Burke and Bishop Finn right now]

In our days the voice of the majority of the bishops rather resembles the silence of the lambs in the face of furious wolves, the faithful are left like defenseless sheep……In today’s world the bishops must liberate themselves from all worldly bonds and – after they have done penance  – convert to Christ so that strengthened by the Holy Spirit they may announce Christ as the one and only Saviour. Ultimately one must give account to God for all that was done and for all what wasn’t done. [Dang right. But the vast majority of bishops conduct their office as if they will never be judged.  Then again, that diabolical error of universal salvation – if they even believe in God anymore – is as widespread among bishops – if not more so – than it is among the laity]

 wyd.Lenga   In my opinion the weak voice of many bishops is a consequence of the fact, that in the process of the appointment of new bishops the candidates are insufficiently examined with regard to their doubtless steadfastness and fearlessness in the defense of the faith, with regard to their fidelity to the centuries-old traditions of the Church and their personal piety. In the issue of the appointment of new bishops and even cardinals it is becoming increasingly apparent that sometimes preference is given to those who share a particular ideology or to some groupings which are alien to the Church and which have commissioned the appointment of a particular candidate.   [This is all so very true.  And these are subjects that even the best bishops – Burke, Schneider – almost never address. This is deep into Church politics and the inner workings of how the revolution perpetuates itself. This letter is a goldmine, and I think we all recognize how frightfully accurate it is]  Furthermore it appears that sometimes consideration is given also to the favour of the mass media which usually makes a mockery of holy candidates painting a negative picture of them, whereas the candidates who in a lesser degree own the spirit of Christ are praised as open and modern. On the other side the candidates who excel in apostolic zeal, have courage in proclaiming the doctrine of Christ and show love for all that is holy and sacred, are deliberately eliminated. [Thus, the episcopate we have today, which is so shocking and scandalous.  The best are eliminated as a matter of course.  Now, there are some relatively good bishops, there was some improvement in the previous pontificate (along with some shocking exceptions, like Tagle), but the Catholic episcopate today – and this is key – is a shadow of its former self. Even the very best bishops today would have been on the mediocre side 70-80 years ago or more.]

…..At the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, I wrote a letter to him in which I begged him to appoint holy bishops……

……Unfortunately, it is obvious that, Pope Benedict XVI has often not succeeded in this issue. It is difficult to believe that Pope Benedict XVI freely renounced his ministry as successor of Peter. Pope Benedict XVI was the head of the Church, his entourage however has barely translated his teachings into life, bypassed them often in silence or has rather obstructed his initiatives for an authentic reform of the Church, of the liturgy, of the manner to administer Holy Communion. In view of a great secrecy in the Vatican for many bishops it was realistically impossible to help the Pope in his duty as head and governor of the whole Church.  [Archbishop Lenga apparently feel,s as I do, that there was far more to the story regarding Pope Benedict’s abdication than what we have been told publicly. I know even considering that possibility upsets some people, but growing evidence indicates he was coerced, and perhaps even tricked, into abdication.  One day, possibly, the story will be told.]

————End Quote———–

by noting the masonic plan to infiltrate and corrupt the Church through their control of the culture from which the Church comes.  Thus, without often even knowing it, younger generations of priests and prelates brought revolutionary liberal ideas into the Church.  However, the Church quite successfully resisted this infiltration – under the guidance of very holy Popes – for at least a century or more.  But after St. Pius X, perhaps the popes were not as vigilant, or preoccupied with great matters like the two world wars and the subsequent suicide of Europe, and allowed these ideas to flourish, even mostly underground in the Church.  Whatever the case, there can be no doubt the “counter-syllabus” burst into reality at Vatican II, and hasn’t been even remotely rolled back, since.

But it will take many more prelates, and those still actively administering dioceses, speaking the Truth with charity and clarity as above, for things to start to change. I do think Pope Francis is starting to bring some opposition out of the woodwork, that fear over the direction of the Church is causing some orthodox prelates who would normally go along to get along to speak their mind.  We’ve seen growing evidence of that of late, if most of the statements have lacked the clarity and force they really need.  The above……..that should be more or less the standard for what we see from all manner of prelates in the Church, who maybe try to voice their opinions privately, only to see them blocked from having any real effect.

The public expose’ is really the only way to get this kind of critical examination of the crisis to be heard, then.  It may cause scandal, it certainly afflicts the comfortable, but I think it is also extremely necessary and way, way past due.

Good on Archbishop Lenga.  And, naturally, he wears a cassock, as he should.

 

How can you “dialogue” with a religion that kills and burns its perceived enemies? February 10, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, the enemy.
comments closed

The great problem that many faithful Catholics see with ecumenism and inter-religious “dialogue” is that, to a great extent, it seems the process involves the Church chasing after and making substantial concessions to others who are much less willing to do so themselves.  I am leaving aside the dying and increasingly ridiculous mainline protestant sects for now – they are generally as eager to engage in the process, at least, if not, perhaps, quite as eager as many Catholic ecumenists to throw doctrine out the window in these discussions – but other sects and certain religions seem to be able to enjoy sitting back, waiting for the Catholics to come hat in hand to them, and then enjoy watching Catholics make un-demanded concessions.  That has certainly been the case with evangelical Christians, especially American, of late, who seem to expect the Church to move much closer to their doctrinal position as they enjoy the fruits of an unsought process.

The 10,000 lb elephant in the room in this whole matter of ecumenism/dialogue, is, of course, islam.  Yes, there are certain mullahs and imams who enjoy a photo-op with the pope and will meet with lower-level functionaries to the degree that it suits their internal objectives, but islam as a whole – especially among its dedicated practitioners -remains fiercely hostile to the idea of “dialogue” with any they view as infidels.  We are told repeatedly that the hundreds of thousands of militant muslim terrorist types, and their millions of supporters and enablers, don’t represent “true islam.”  Of course, those telling us that are predominately non-muslims, who have their own interests at stake, or relatively worldly muslims, the type the extremists reject and repudiate.  Taqqiyah, the practice of “holy lying” to fool the infidel and obtain islam’s objectives by stealth, must always be borne in mind, as well.

Nevertheless, it seems a rather stark rebuke to the whole indifferentist one world kumbayah project when some sad lefty spray painting one of those annoying “coexist” banners so beloved of the sexular pagan crowd got a rather hot reception from a group of muslim young men in Paris recently:

It seems like something one would be hard pressed to disagree with: the word “coexist,” written on a wall using a Muslim crescent as the letter “C,” a Star of David as the letter “X,” and a Christian cross as a “T.” [I do disagree with it, because in the current American political context, the message of these signs is “Christians, shut up.”]

But in Paris, this particular iteration of the popular inscription—here, created by the street artist Combo, who also pasted a life-size photo of himself next to it—didn’t go down well with everybody. Le Monde reports that four young people asked the artist to remove it last weekend, and beat him up severely when he refused to do so.

Combo ended up with a dislocated shoulder and many bruises.

And here is how he chose to coexist, even before this attack: he had taken to wearing traditional muslim dress and grew his beard out long.  He said he was doing that to be transgressive, but I wonder if it wasn’t an attempt to appease muslims in advance.

It is interesting to tie the historical situation of muslims in France with that of those in the United States today.  20-25 years ago, muslims began forming some of the first sharia courts in France.  They argued this was just a voluntary tribunal meant to solve intra-religious difficulties.  Non-binding, and all the rest.  Well, a generation later, in large and growing swaths of France, sharia law is the only practical law there is.  Sharia was planted as a seed in regions with muslim populations when they reached a certain size, but before they were strong enough to dominate – take over, even – given areas.

And so today in Dallas county we have been told that the first sharia court in Texas has been stood up.  Muslims make up about 1/8 the population of Iving, for instance.  How long before they make up 60, 70, 80% or more of given neighborhoods? How long before sharia becomes mandatory, as it has in many other regions of the formerly Christian West?

This raises a further question, which is why the political elites in this country continue to insist on unconstrained mass immigration of muslims into this country, in spite of all the evidence from Europe of the massive problems this will cause?  We have elites so beholden to a bankrupt and deadly ideology (leftism cum political correctness) that they are utterly blinded to the dangers this mass immigration poses, even as we see report of travesty after atrocity in countries ranging from England to France to Holland to Belgium.  Those countries have come to the brink of losing national cohesiveness and have a massive, disgruntled and highly antagonistic sub-society in their midst that seeks to turn Europe into Iran or Pakistan.  And we are going to do the same here, even after the example of things like mass grooming of children for child-rape in England and ongoing atrocities throughout the rest of Europe?

Much as we see with the leadership in the Church, it seems the political leadership in the West has a death wish for the civilization they have been given charge of, and are rapidly leading into oblivion.  This is all a direct fruit of the repudiation of Catholicism which started in the 16th century, and has accelerated exponentially as even the Church herself now seems to reject who she is and what she must be.

Difficult times.  There will be a storm, that is for certain.  Only those well grounded in the Faith and with a very solid interior life will be able to survive the suffering ahead.  I pray my family and I make it.