jump to navigation

Non sequitur – My man Earl Campbell March 3, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, fun, manhood, silliness, Society, true leadership.
comments closed

I wish I could still eat his sausage.  I used to love it.  But I developed a pretty severe allergy to a preservative used in a lot of mass market sausages and had to give it up.  It’s sodium ethrythorbate or something like that.  Anyway, how could I not like the man?  Country boy, UT alum, incredible football player at every level, loves country music, had a vicodin addiction and overcame it……..the poor man can barely walk today but he has kept his humility, frankness, and glimmer of joy.

Some pretty good highlights in the below:

Remember those Walt Garrison commercials?  Earl made one, too.  Warning, there is a bikini girl at the end, and some in the distance throughout.  Were these national, or only ran in Texas and maybe some other nearby areas?  Another reason to like Earl:

I’d say Earl was a much better running back that Ricky Williams.  He’s certainly a better man.

Was he a better player then Vince Young?  At the pro level, absolutely, but in college……not so sure.  Vince was amazing.  He was like a man playing against boys:

That soundtrack started awesome and finished horrible.

Yeah, every once in a while the orange blood comes out.

More Catholic greatness from Quito March 3, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Art and Architecture, awesomeness, Basics, Christendom, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, sanctity, Society, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

I posted several days ago about a site containing numerous photos of a recent pilgrimage to Quito, Ecuador and Our Lady of Good Success.  Photos are still being updated, as you see below.  It is so edifying to see the depth of faith and willing sacrifice endured by Catholics – a few rich, but most not even close – to build such gorgeous sacred “spaces.”  Contrast to today, when we are so wealthy, and congregations so large, a really outstanding church could be built were the will only there.  But not only is there little will to build a timeless testament to our glorious Faith (expedients in other directions being preferred), even when funding is more than adequate, modern theological preconceptions and artistic preferences tend to result in a church that is more utilitarian than uplifting, more expedient than reverent.  There are rare exceptions, of course.

But enough speechifying, just enjoy the beautiful churches and art.  I did not take the time in this case to figure out which church was which, or which convent or whatever.  If you want to know more, go check out the pilgrimage site.









Gueranger – Travail of Jews since rejection of Christ prophesied in Daniel March 3, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Bible, catachesis, Christendom, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, Four Last Things, General Catholic, reading, secularism, Society, Tradition.
comments closed

Some very interesting Scriptural exegesis below from Dom Prosper Gueranger.  Yesterday, in the Traditional Mass, the Epistle for the Monday of the Second Week of Lent was from Daniel IX, as below.  The exegesis below applies to the Jews, certainly, but also to the Church, in Her perfection of Judaism.  The  quote from Daniel is a lamentation after sin, a begging of forgiveness for unfaithfulness:

In those days, Daniel prayed to the Lord, saying: O Lord our God, who hast brought forth thy people out of the land of Egypt with a strong hand, and hast made thee a name as at this day: we have sinned, we have committed iniquity, O Lord, against all thy justice. Let thy wrath and thy indignation be turned away, I beseech thee, from thy city Jerusalem, and from thy holy mountain.  For, by reason of our sins, and the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are a reproach to all that are round about us.  Now, therefore, O God, hear thy supplication of thy servant, and his prayers: and show thy face up on thy sanctuary which is desolate, for thy own sake. Incline, O my God, thy ear and hear; open thine eyes and see our desolation, and the city upon which thy name is called: for it is not for our justifications that we present our prayers before thy face, but for the multitude of thy tender mercies.  O Lord, hear; O Lord, be appeased; hearken, and do; delay not for thy own sake, O my God; because thy name is invocated upon thy city, and upon thy people, O Lord our God. 

Now Dom Prosper places the above in a Catholic context:

Such was the prayer and lamentation of Daniel, during the captivity in Babylon. His prayer was heard; and, after seventy years of exile, the Jews returned to their country, rebuilt the temple, and were once more received by the Lord as His chosen people. But what are the Israelites now?  What has been their history for the last 1800 2000 years?  The words of Daniel’s lamentation but faintly represent the sad reality of their present long chastisement. God’s anger lies heavily upon Jerusalem; the very ruins of the temple have perished; the children of Israel are dispersed over the whole earth, a reproach to all nations.  A curse hangs over this people; like Cain, it is a wanderer and a fugitive; and God watches over it, that it become not extinct.  

The rationalist is at a loss how to explain this problem; whereas the Christian sees in it the punishment of the greatest of crimes. But what is the explanation of this phenomenon?  The light shone in darkness; and the darkness did not comprehend it!  If the darkness had received the light, it would not be darkness now; but it was not so; Israel, therefore, deserved to be abandoned. Several of its children did, indeed, acknowledged the Messias, and they became children of the light; nay, it is through them that the light was made known to the whole world. When will the rest of Israel open its eyes?  When will this people address to God the prayer of Daniel?  They have it; they frequently read it; and yet, if finds no response in their proud hearts. Let us, the Gentiles, pray for the Jews – the younger for the elder.  Every year there are some who are converted, and seek admission into the new Israel of the Church of Christ. Right welcome are they!  May God in his mercy, add to their number; that thus all men may adore the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, together with Jesus Christ, His Son, whom He sent into this world.

———–End Quote———–

While the above stands as an interesting if quite contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy form of exegesis (it was not contrary at all when written, nor for quite some time after that), I think it is also very relevant to the Church today. “The light shone in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it!”  Does anything better describe our world today?  But what is far more troubling, is that the searing billion candle-watt beacon of the past that was the Church has been dimmed down to a wimpy 40W bulb.  It is so much harder for souls to find the light, as the light itself, in its human element, has been greatly dimmed.  We have, for some reason, put bushel baskets over our candlesticks, and they no longer cast light for all to see.

And, I think we can glean from the above how God may respond if the Church continues to hide the Light she has been divinely commissioned to hold aloft to the world.  No, there will never be a “replacement” for the Church, there will be no “new new covenant,” but we can read in The Apocalypse and some of the Old Testament prophets what happens when the Church shirks her duty towards the end of the world.  Are we in that time?  It is really difficult to tell, Our Lord did tell us to watch for signs and wonders, but He also said we would know not the day nor the hour.  Not that it really matters – we will all be called to our own judgment in God’s good time, regardless.

Irrespective, as I said, it is interesting to contrast the very traditional view of the Jews presented by Gueranger above, and modern approaches to Judaism these past several decades. They are almost night and day in their differences. And, of course, we have seen even more outreach to Jews and statements of fraternity, equality, and liberty of late.  Certainly, another quite substantive break with the past.

But we’ve had plenty of those. So what’s one more piled on all the others?

Not everyone who says to Me “Lord, Lord” will enter the Kingdom of Heaven March 3, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Bible, catachesis, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, Latin Mass, priests, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

As a way of rebuttal to the claims of Bishop McElroy reported in the previous post, about “primacy of conscience” even trumping the Doctrine of the Faith, I present the very providential sermon below, which extrapolates from the closely defined Dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus to examine not only who may be saved, but also the common excuses of souls to reject Church belief.  I draw particular attention to ~9:00 – 11:00, wherein the priest quotes both Scripture and one of the greatest Scriptural exegetes ever (Cornelius a Lapide’), to show the error of asserting the primacy of a badly formed conscience over the Doctrine of the Faith:

That is why it is so dangerous for an authority figure in the Church to tell souls that they must obey their conscience no matter what.  To his credit, in the piece quoted in the previous post, he did say that souls should give the Doctrine of the Faith pre-eminence, but he still left a huge “out,” if you will, by saying that if you just somehow (I know not how) cannot reconcile your conscience to the Doctrine of the Faith, you must obey your conscience.  He even noted that people would be tempted to abuse such knowledge, that their personal preferences could easily masquerade as the pangs of conscience and lead them astray.  But he badly failed to note the culpability they would bear should that be the case.

Given that we swim in an amoral sewer, it is so very easy for us to absorb dangerous, damning beliefs.  Even more, to the extent that there is still some sense of Christianity about in the culture, it is generally a gravely distorted sense, full of protestant errors and self-serving “theology” in the form of “prosperity gospel” and all the rest.  Thus to advise souls that they can, in conscience, deviate from those beliefs binding on conscience for all Catholics (such as abortion being in all places and at all times intrinsically, mortally sinful) without at the least clearly stating the grave peril of doing so is at the very least a serious dereliction of duty, and could even rise to the level of sinful malfeasance.

Another quite timely portion of the sermon assails the error that says the Doctrine of the Faith can be disregarded as a pretext towards reforming the Faith and morals always held by the Church. Is this not exactly what we see happening with these Synods on the family, which seek to obviate the Doctrine of the Faith through ostensible “pastoral” solutions?  I found this quote highly relevant: “And they approach, wolves in sheep’s clothing, by the simulation of meekness, simplicity, or piety.  They propose themselves as the model of humility.  And the whole time, they are seeking to destroy souls.”

By hook or crook. The far more dangerous man to souls is not that man given over to satan’s control who, like masons, perhaps, acknowledge they are trying to pry souls away from One True Faith, but that man who is convinced he is a loyal son of the Church, who is only trying to bring the Church forward into modern times and to help propagate the Gospel.  The former may have pangs of conscience that limit their activities, but the latter, so assured that they are on the side of goodness, truth, and right, will have no check for their actions.  This is a close analogue to the political arena, where, as C.S. Lewis noted, the progressive convinced he is doing good by his invasion of personal rights and assault on morals and decency, will never let up, whereas the one who knows he does such things for very bad reasons might have some limit to the ends to which he will stoop.  Of course, the political-religious analogy overlaps quite closely, where those who seek to remodel the Church in man’s own image are generally quite progressive politically, as well.

“If you love me, keep my commandments.”  “Not everyone who says Lord, Lord will be saved, but he who does the will of My Father Who is in Heaven, shall be saved.”

“My Church” is only mentioned by our Lord once in Sacred Scripture, in St. Matt XVI:18 “Upon this rock I will build My Church.”

This is really just a top-notch and very valuable sermon.  The priest explodes so many of the modern myths regarding “universal salvation,” salvation outside the Church, etc.  He notes, quite rightly, that while salvation outside the Church may be theoretically possible, it is not terribly likely.  We hear phrases like “invincible ignorance” and they sound so reasonable to so many, who probably have loved ones outside the Church and actively want to believe that they will be saved, while not having to do anything to proselytize them that might cause strain or make them uncomfortable. But as the priest notes, if there are souls actively searching for God and His Church who have never heard the Gospel, God will make Himself and His Church known to them.  But how many people in the world today are truly ignorant of the person of Jesus Christ, His message, and His Church?  This is not 1600.

Anyway, just a very good and timely sermon.  I pray it somehow finds its way to Bishop McElroy and he hear it with an open and humble heart.  We may look on a man such as that as someone who has abrogated his duty and does very bad things, but he is another soul made in the likeness of our Creator and he will face his particular judgment, a very severe one given the exalted office Our Blessed Lord has seen fit to give him.  Each soul falling into error and outside the Church, really, is an incalculable loss not just for them personally but for the entire Body of Christ.  As Saint Paul says, when one glories, we all glory, and when one suffers, we all suffer.  We must pray for the conversion of men such as this who have come to accept these very dangerous, even blatantly false ideas as good and true.

Liberal fave McElroy named to head San Diego diocese March 3, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, Basics, disaster, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Robert McElroy, auxiliary of San Fran, has been covered on this blog a couple of times in the past.  It was not favorable coverage.  In 2012, he made a statement pregnant with progressive sentiment, when he said:

It is therefore the task of every Christian, he said, to undertake the lifelong task of forming his or her conscience. The church esteems conscience so highly, that a person with an informed conscience is called upon to obey it – even if it conflicts with church teaching…….

……..Contrary to what some believe, said the bishop, the church does not teach that Catholics must cast their votes based solely on a candidate’s stand on abortion. While that issue should be considered pre-eminent, the other issues can also be taken into consideration.

“This is really the hard call for us as Christians,” Bishop McElroy told the group.

Not really.  Abortion is such an incredibly grave and prevalent evil that there is really nothing else that rises to its level.  Cutting federal spending by 5, 10, or even 25% would not come even close to rising to the level of the evil of abortion.  Thus, candidates who support abortion – who are generally the progressive favorites – can never be supported.  It is a completely false equivalence to pretend that progressives who might – might – support expanded funding of grossly inefficient programs to “aid the poor” while generally enriching themselves overcome the moral stain of their support for abortion. But that is the argument liberals have made for decades.  Seamless garments, and all that.

As to the news, you can tell a lot about a man over who is friends are. The progressives are besides themselves with joy over his being named Bishop of San Diego, and the more extreme the progressive, the more giddy they are.  I won’t copy and paste any of that reaction here, but I will remind that it is true that he did lend support to the idea of Communion for unrepentant adulterers/fornicators:

To no one’s surprise and a day after the news had been leaked to the “correct” blogs and websites, the Vatican todayannounced the appointment of Robert McElroy, 61 years old and currently an Auxiliary Bishop in San Francisco, as Bishop of San Diego, California — the 13th largest diocese in the USA (out of 197). The Diocese of San Diego, it so happens, has more than double the number of Catholics of the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

McElroy recently declared publicly in favor of the Kasperite thesis and has been a leading public critic of the enforcement of Canon 915 against pro-abortion politicians. We leave it to the usual “progressive” pundits to discuss his “credentials” and to openly explain, in great detail, why his appointment is great for their agenda.

On the positive side, however, perhaps removing this uber-liberal from San Fran will strengthen Archbishop Cordileone’s ability to reform the Church there. Then again, Cordileone came from San Diego, and it’s been one of the more orthodox dioceses.  So one step forward, one step back?

Bah, I’m exhausted trying to read anything broad into these appointments, whether the restoration is making any progress with this appointment or that.  It’s not going to happen that way.  It’s going to happen by individual souls and families making the conscious choice to embrace Tradition and to propagandize in its favor.

Which won’t be easy in our priest holes, but……..carry on.


A handy resource on the TLM that raises provocative questions regarding the Novus Ordo March 3, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, catachesis, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Papa, scandals, secularism, shocking, Tradition.
comments closed

A reader sent me a link to a very handy site that lists many of the reasons to support the Traditional Latin Mass. I would say it goes even farther than that, arguing for a return exclusively to the TLM, but having been on the receiving end of liturgical bans and persecution, I think the Church should have done with top-down impositions and abrogations of Rites of the Mass at least for the foreseeable future.  That doesn’t mean I don’t have grave concerns over the Novus Ordo. I do. We don’t assist at anything but the TLM and arrange our vacation schedules to insure that will remain the case!  But I recognize most souls bearing the name Catholic are far from being ready to accept the TLM and some sudden command from on high to restore the Traditional Mass as the only acceptable form of the Roman Rite – as unlikely as that is today –  would cause mass resentment, confusion, and chaos, of which I would hope traditional Catholics have had quite enough, already.

Having said that, there are many arguments to be made in favor of the TLM.  Some of those are positive – look how reverent the TLM is – and others are negative.  Those are ones that say “look at all these problems with the Novus Ordo, look at how it undermines faith in the Blessed Sacrament, etc.”  And that’s what the link above focuses on.

I’ll pull out a few quotes from the link and add some comments of my own below.  Just a warning, some of the below is pretty strong stuff, but I don’t think that should exclude it from consideration.  YMMV:

Vatican I in 1870 defined the Pope to be, not an absolute monarch, but the guarantor of obedience to the revealed word. The legitimacy of his power was bound up above all with his transmitting the Faith. This fidelity to the deposit of the Faith and to its transmission concerns in a quite special way the liturgy. No authority can ‘fabricate’ a liturgy.  [This point has been argued quite extensively by Michael Davies, Dr. Peter Kwazneiski, Fr. Anthony Cekada, and others.  But there are nuances to the argument. Certainly, Popes have directed changes to the Mass in the past.  But never was a new Rite created out of whole cloth until the Novus Ordo]  The Pope himself is only the humble servant of its homogenous development, its integrity, and the permanence of its identity.” The Pope, as the guardian of the Deposit of Faith, has a duty to preserve the liturgy intact and pass it on essentially unmodified to the next generation. The very authors of Vatican II, on the other hand, openly acknowledged their desire not to pass on Tradition, but to make it[As expressed by the will of the majority at VII, that’s about correct.  Until VII, the idea of the Magisterium had been to protect, uphold, propagate, and extol the Faith as they had received it.  But in the latter half of the 20th century, a radical new view became dominant, which was that the Faith as it had always been understood and practiced was badly deficient, somehow unsuited to “new times,” and that it had to change for the good of souls. I would argue that the disastrous crisis afflicting the Church since the introduction of those new ideas has conclusively demonstrated that this assumption was severely erroneous, and, far from ushering in a new springtime of growth, has led to an unprecedented to decay, destruction, and death.]

St. Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century gave as a standard for the orthodoxy of doctrine that which has been believed everywhere (ubique), always (semper), and by all (omnia). But, as Cardinal Ratzinger points out, the Council Fathers of Vatican II rejected this hallowed definition: “Vatican II’s refusal of the proposal to adopt the text of Lerins, familiar to, and, as it were, sanctified by two Church Councils, shows once more how Trent and Vatican I were left behind, how their texts were continually reinterpreted… Vatican II had a new idea of how historical identity and continuity were to be brought about.” This new idea was nothing other than to create a pseudo-tradition from the “common consciousness” of the Council Fathers……[I had not seen that quote from Pope Benedict before.  I’m quite certain he made it well before he was pontiff.  However, I have seen similar quotes.  Which point only goes to underscore that when we speak of Church leaders today (and for the past half century or more), we have to speak in terms of relatively orthodoxy, relative adherence to Tradition, etc., because it is very difficult to find any that have not made statements somewhat akin to the above.  I do not know how these men came to reconcile in their minds their sometime orthodoxy with radical views such as the above.  To me, there was a crisis of faith, more than anything else, which has kind of been my theme for the day. Men in the Church, even in the highest echelons of authority, simply lost faith that what had been handed onto them was good enough, would “work” for the world today.  There have certainly been out and out radicals, bad men acting under bad influences, who have probably acted out this revolution in an effort to reduce the Church from what She must be into something more worldly and utterly disordered from Her true purpose.  But I cannot see Pope Benedict in that light, I think he, and many others, honestly thought they were doing what was right.  Benedict visibly recoiled from his more radical younger views as he saw the destruction they wrought. But even still, the attachment to the idea that some radical change was necessary and vital remained.  I have a friend, very much traditional, who feels strongly that VII was absolutely needed because the pre-conciliar Church was cold, legalistic, and bereft of love (almost Jansenist), but that the changes went way too far.  I am much less inclined to see that, because the pre-conciliar Church was too vibrant, had too many priestly and religious vocations, and made too many converts, to be as described.]

The Church has always set forth the firm and clear principle that: “The way we worship is the way we believe.”  The doctrinal truths of the Faith are embodied in the worship we offer to God. In other words, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that teaches us our theology and not the reverse. [That’s right! And not the reverse!  Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. But since VII in particular, the argument has been made that we must shape and twist the Liturgy to bend to our beliefs, and not the other way around.  That is to say, a mechanistic and manipulative understanding of the Liturgy has become dominant, where the Liturgy is not a work primarily of God given to men to use and adore, but an entirely human construct, a work of human hands we can tinker with and manipulate according to the vagaries of the times]  The Mass comprises the Apostolic Tradition of faith and morals in its very essence. Every doctrine essential to the Faith is taught therein. Pope Leo XIII points out in Apostolicae Curae that the Church’s enemies have always understood this principle as “They knew only too well the intimate bond that unites faith with worship, the law of belief with the law of prayer, and so, under the pretext of restoring the order of the liturgy to its primitive form, they corrupted it in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators.” It is no wonder, then, that Luther coined the slogan: “Take away the Mass, destroy the Church.”

St. Alphonsus Liguori (Bishop, Doctor of the Church and Patron of Theologians) explains that “The devil has always attempted, by means of the heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the Anti-Christ, who, before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrament of the altar, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel: ‘And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice’ (Dan. 8:12).” [Scary.  I do so trust and love St. Alphonsus.]

The question then becomes: Does the New Mass teach the Catholic Faith? No, say both Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci: “It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent.”  [And another dozen or so cardinals would have signed onto the “Ottaviani Intervention” as well, had it not been prematurely leaked to the press.  So, then, at least a sizable number of the most orthodox prelates saw in the Novus Ordo a marked departure from a Liturgy that taught the Faith as it had been practiced for 16-1900 years.] Pope St. Leo the Great (Father and Doctor of the Church) instructs us: “Teach nothing new, but implant in the hearts of everyone those things which the fathers of venerable memory taught with a uniform preaching … Whence, we preach nothing except what we have received from our forefathers. In all things, therefore, both in the rule of faith in the observance of discipline, let the pattern of antiquity be observed.” How well founded, then, were the concerns expressed by Pope Pius XII shortly before the introduction of the New Mass: “I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy at Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the Faith in Her liturgy.

———-End Quote———–

Well.  Strong stuff, I know.  But simply because it says things some may find discomfiting, it should not be dismissed.  There are numerous other statements from Church Fathers and great Saints regarding the unchangeable nature of the Faith and the key repository of it, the Mass.  Yes, there have been periodic adjustments to the Mass in terms of organic growth and also some prunings from time to time by Popes in order to establish a more consistently universal Rite (for the Western Church), but, again, never has there been an entirely new rite, with new prayers, a new calendar of Saints, radically altered Scripture readings, and – this is key – changes to the sacred Canon of the Mass.  Never, until 1969, that is.