jump to navigation

We no longer have creeping fascism in this country, we have out and out fascism March 23, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, General Catholic, persecution, pr stunts, scandals, self-serving, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

For about the tenth time in recent months, the Obama Administration has dropped the mask and revealed itself to be the authoritarian, doctrinaire leftists we’ve always taken them to be.  Apparently, without the prospect of another election, there is no longer any point in hiding his true identity and now the truly radical agenda is being revealed.  A few cases in point:  the recent attempt to ban virtually all firearm ammunition by declaring all non-lead ammo “armor piercing” and all ammo containing lead a deadly pollutant (shot down by virulent opposition).  Then there is the activity to enforce carbon dioxide as a “deadly pollutant” associated with gerbal worming with absolutely no law passed giving the EPA such power.  We have seen conservatives harrassed, audited, bullied, and threatened by this government for over 5 years with the whole IRS scandal.

Now there is a nakedly political effort by FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to deny disaster preparedness funds paid for by the taxpayers of various states to those states whose governors refuse to openly advocate for massive socialization of the entire economy to ward off the scam of anthropocentric global warming.  While the funds are only in the 8 figures, which is chicken feed even to most state governments (Texas willingly gave up about $45 million in federal aid in order to stop funding Planned Barrenhood contraception programs), the naked lawlessness and left-wing authoritarianism on display is breathtaking:

FEMA to deny funds to warming deniers [note the toxic lede. You are a damnable “denier,” a heretic to sacred leftist beliefs.]

The Federal Emergency Management Agency is making it tougher for governors to deny man-made climate change. [Was this how evolution gained mass acceptance 80-100 years ago? Was it shoved down people’s throats like this, as in “believe it or else?”  Same with fake sodo-marriage.] Starting next year, the agency will approve disaster-preparedness funds only for states whose governors approve hazard-mitigation plans that address climate change. [This has a 90+% chance of dying in court. At the district level, for crying out loud. They have to know that.]

This may put several Republican governors who maintain that the Earth isn’t warming due to human activities, or prefer to take no action, in a political bind. Their position may block their states’ access to hundreds of millions of dollars in FEMA funds. In the last five years, the agency has awarded an average $1 billion a year in grants to states and territories for taking steps to mitigate the effects of disasters. [So we’re talking $20 million per state, on average.  This is peanuts. But the message is not.  It is totalitarian]

“If a state has a climate denier governor that doesn’t want to accept a plan, that would risk mitigation work not getting done because of politics,” said Becky Hammer, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council’s water program. “The governor would be increasing the risk to citizens in that state” because of his climate beliefs. [In the entire article, there is not a single rebuttal of this radical, unsupported position.  Not only is there no evidence that mankind has caused the earth to warm, there is no evidence that the earth is warming at all (except for the fevered imaginations of climate-humper advocates, who actually go so far as to doctor temperature measurements worldwide to “prove” their sacred religious conviction true).  Even more, there is no evidence that warming would be clearly harmful, even if it were to occur.]

…..”This could potentially become a major conflict for several Republican governors,” said Barry Rabe, an expert on the politics of climate change at the University of Michigan. “We aren’t just talking about coastal states.” [He said as he gleefully rubbed his hands together.]

Climate change affects droughts, rainfall, and tornado activity. Fracking is being linked to more earthquakes, he said. “This could affect state leaders across the country.” [B as in B, S as in S.  All virtually totally without any substance.]

[And now we get to the point……]……..Environmentalists have been pressing FEMA to include global warming in its hazard-mitigation guidelines for almost three years. FEMA told the Natural Resources Defense Council in early 2014 that it would revise the guidelines. It issued draft rules in October and officially released the new procedures last week as partisan politics around climate change have been intensifying. [But it’s only those evil warming denier conservatives who are partisan.  The radical left never politicizes anything, like humdrum federal programs funded by the states themselves. See how they assume our money is their’s to hand out to whom they please?]

…….The gubernatorial approval clause was included in the new guidelines to “raise awareness and support for implementing the actions in the mitigation strategy and increasing statewide resilience to natural hazards,” FEMA spokeswoman Susan Hendrick said.

No, it was included to score points with Obama’s radical base, which is all he has ever cared about.  “Reward your friends and punish your enemies” was not a throwaway line to him, it’s his fundamental philosophy.

Totalitarianism, at least in the modern context, is primarily a creation of the left. It is only the left who feels they are so invincibly right about everything, and so demonizes any opponents as not just wrong but evil, that it can rationalize the modern totalitarian state into being as a “necessary evil” they greatly enjoy inflicting on others..  Yes there have been juntas and dictators characterized as right wing, often incorrectly, (and generally in less than well-developed states), but the scale of evil and repression in these examples pales in comparison to the scope and perniciousness of left-wing totalitarian states.  And it seems more and more, those of a leftward bent in this country are tired of the messy, time-consuming push and take of democracy, and want their dictatorship of the proletarian now.  The degree of Obama’s radicalism is truly breathtaking, and yet the large majority of citizens in this country either don’t know enough to care, or are fully on board with it (and would in fact prefer more).  Things are going south at an incredible pace.

A reader sent me a link to another article earlier today demonstrating the wedge questions the left-loving media loves so much. He was wondering why the media would be making big hay of Ted Cruz’ stand on evolution.  They do it because the left/media (one and the same) believe they can paint anyone who questions evolution – about which the vast majority of these reporters know absolutely NOTHING – as an ignorant, uneducated, “anti-science” rube, totally unfit for any public office.  They have succeeded brilliantly at this gambit for years, not always using evolution but some other meaningless wedge issue, to disqualify the vast majority of conservative candidates and insure the Republican party nominates no one but liberal types like George Bush, Bob Dole, and Mitt Romney.

I really think the right play – not that I believe the Republican party is good for anything other than lining the pockets of their big budget donors, almost  all of whom are radical liberals on social issues – is to bone up on these subjects enough to turn the questions around on the reporters to make them look like the fools.  So if you get asked about evolution, you answer “micro or macro?,” “punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism?”  Or ask the reporter to describe how many universes are necessary in order to make random gradualism a scientifically viable theory?  Even if you as the politician have no real idea of the answers, the point is, they will show up the journalist’s ignorance and  immediately reveal his ignoble intent.  They will move on ASAP to save face.

But conservatives aren’t cursed with the stupid party for no reason.  It’s all part of the plan.

Is this what passes for the “New Evangelization” March 23, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Art and Architecture, Basics, error, foolishness, General Catholic, huh?, scandals, secularism, silliness.
comments closed

If it does, forgive me for preferring the old one:

So the Youtube video says the song was written by a guy from College Station. As such, it’s likely he has some association with St. Mary’s and the big student group they have down there, which while relatively orthodox, is also not what one would call overtly traditional.

I’m sorry, speaking strictly of the song……I do not think this kind of aping of evangelical type poppy music with a sort of overlay of Catholicism on top really works.  It is derivative as all get out, first of all, but even more……I find the execution lacking.  And I am being charitable.  Uff da is really all I can say on this family blog.

I’ve said it before, but I am not one of those traditional-leaning Catholics who thinks classical is the only acceptable form of music. I still like my Texas/outlaw country.  I do listen to classical a lot more nowadays, mostly because my wife and kids listen to it a lot (and especially when my oldest daughter plays piano, she is really getting quite good, Deo Gratias!).  So it’s not that I’m put off by the base form of musical style.  But this just……I would use a certain word, but I’ll just say it’s not very good. It’s cloying and insipid.  And no, Youtube commenter, this is not “the prettiest parish ever,” it’s not even close.  It’s quite nice, certainly the sanctuary is far better than most we see these days, but hopefully we haven’t lost a complete sense of what incredible heights Catholic liturgical beauty can achieve.  Sainte-Chapelle, now that’s beautiful, in an otherworldly, “did human hands really make this?” sense.  The parish where this was filmed has a table altar (with some appalling bas-relief of saints in front) and the tabernacle way off to the side, for two things right off the top.

I’m sure the song meant a great deal to its writer and some folks obviously went to a lot of effort to make the video, but this just does not work for me. I tend to doubt it works for very many people at all.

So is this what the “new evangelization” is all about? If so, it’s as dead as the previous other eleven iterations of that seemingly doomed effort.

Maybe we should give the old evangelization a try for a while, to see how that works?

h/t reader D

The best article I’ve ever read on revolution and reaction in the Church – The Paradigm Shift March 23, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Papa, persecution, priests, reading, scandals, secularism, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I read the article over the weekend and found in it perhaps the best, most concise description of the revolution ongoing in the Church, and the reaction against that revolution, that I have read in a long time, maybe ever.  Via Latin Mass Magazine, a really valuable publication that doesn’t adhere to many sectarian shibboleths, an article entitled The Paradigm Shift by Father X, described as a “parish priest in the Eastern United States.”  And isn’t it revealing that an article like this has to be published under a pseudonym, surely for fear of reprisal, whereas Kasper and the other revolutionaries can act out in the clear light of day, knowing, as they do, that most of the levers of power in the Church are in their hands.

Find the article transcribed below with a few excisions for length and fairness.  I add emphasis and comments:

People who keep up with traditionalist blogs on the internet may have noticed that 2014 appeared to witness, to speak conservatively, a more negative attitude on the part of the mainstream clergy (and especially members of the hierarchy) toward the Traditional Latin Mass.  Traditional funerals are becoming more difficult to arrange, rules which appear to allow for refusing permissions are being interpreted in their strictest sense, and religious communities are experiencing harassment from the Novus Ordo establishment. [I haven’t experienced the first, the last two, certainly]

Why is this?  Perhaps bishops and priests who reluctantly made allowances for traditionalists under the papacy of Benedict XVI now feel a bit more supported in their efforts to limit (if not wholly eliminate) access of the faithful to the Traditional Mass.

During the reign of Pope Benedict a delicate balance held sway, a sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” paradigm.  In other words Authority would simply allow themselves to presume that a number of people simply PREFERRED the old Mass and those requesting it would simply allow that fiction to exist.  Now, however, that delicate balance is being upset by the awareness on the part of the Novus Ordo establishment that there are people out there who want the Traditional Latin Mass not out of preference, but out of conviction.  These are people who love the “old” Mass because they think that it offers to God a worship BETTER than that of the Novus Ordo. [ding ding ding!]  And that conviction, the proverbial elephant in the sacristy, cannot be permitted…..And why?  Because we must “save the Council”; and those who choose the old Mass by conviction rather than by preference are saying in effect (at least in the minds of the Novus Ordo establishment), we reject the Council.  [I believe the TLM is greatly superior.  However, I don’t “reject” the Council, per se’, as I do have very grave reservations over some of its content.  I do, however, reject use of the Council as the all-trumping all-guiding declaration of independence from the Church Jesus Christ founded, which is the apparent intent of the modernist cabal]

……There are the words of Pope Benedict who, writing to Archbishop Lefebvre in 1986 with, and let this be noted, the authority of Saint John Paul II backing him up, said that criticism of the Council is not a reason for disciplinary action to be taken against the one criticizing.  But as we have been seeing, that notion, expressed by one Pope and authorized by another, is not longer held to by those who have replaced Pope Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict.  Hence the shift in paradigm noted above.  Now the criticism of the council has become such a, well, “mortal sin that it justifies the destruction of young and growing communities, and young and growing vocations, and young and growing……..Catholics.

If in fact their attachment to the TLM is viewed, at the highest levels of Church Authority, as nothing more than a “fad” which “does not require much attention” despite its continued existence since priests first began to question the changes they (rightly) feared would ensure upon the issuance of Sacrosanctum Concilium over half a century ago, despite the lives of many, many priests (many now deceased) who went ‘independent’ rather than submit to celebrating the Mass of Paul VI, despite the continued attachment to that Mass in the face of the best efforts of Authority to crush and humiliate those who simply wished to worship as they always had, despite the rising up of the SSPX (WITHIN the Church, let it not be forgotten, u ntil it became a victim of political expediency which has not yet spent itself, as witness the recent virtual suppression of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate), despite the groups of  young people, to whom JPII was so devoted and for whom Pope Francis shows such deep affection, at Georgetown, at Fordham, at Catholic colleges almost without number virtually demanding the old Mass until even the unwilling authorities had, however reluctantly, to bow to them – ironically – in the name of that very diversity which they proudly claim whenever they choose to dissent from Church teaching or Church polity – if all this is simply evidence of a fad, then what, in God’s Holy Name, would conviction look like!?!?

And that, dear readers, is the problem.  The conviction that the Mass of the Ages is the best and most authentically offered worship in the Latin Rite within the immemorial tradition of that rite sticks in the craw of those who will only allow it as a preference.  And of course for the priest, this is the cross to which Authority would nail him. [Which is redolent of the experience of our priest friend in El Paso]  For if he offers the TLM as a preference, what would keep him from offering, at least some of the time, the Novus Ordo Missae?  A preference?  Nobody could be asked to accept such a lame argument.  And so Catholic traditionalists had better hold on – it’s going to be a bumpy papacy.  [Exactly, and perhaps more than that]

Mind you, I don’t want to set up Pope Francis as some sort of Novus Ordo uber alles type monster……….No, it is those who have been waiting for someone like Pope Francis to replace Pope Benedict, thus allowing them to, forgive the phrase, come out with their own conviction -these are the real enemy. [Very clever turn of phrase, and most apropos. A good historian 200 years from now will probably form a really strong argument connecting the infiltration of sodomy into the priesthood, and the advance of the liturgical revolution.  I see the strong connection, anyway.] Priests of Tradition are going to be put in a very difficult position when they are visited and interrogated as to just why they will not offer most Masses.  And to be sure, if they can quote Cardinal Ratzinger still, Cardinal Ratzinger will be quoted to them as saying in Summorum Pontificum that no priest can refuse to the New Mass out of a conviction?  [Can you see how this all can be set up, and surely will in many places?]

In a sense, we ought to be grateful to Francis for pushing the ecclesial envelope to the point where, finally, we shall have to stand up, not for some delicate and fragile political solution to an embarrassing problem within the Church, but for the truth.  For the TLM, denuded of the elements of the Catholic Faith which surround and support it, is doomed, doomed as a relic maintained, not as the living and breathing expression of the whole Catholic Faith and practice, but as a quaint expression of a former Catholic piety taken out of mothballs from time to time to exhort the oohs and aahs of the faithful before they return to the “real” Catholicism that has overtaken the Faith.  We cannot allow that to happen.

———–End Quote———-

Brilliant point at the end. I’ll add a little bit more: it is my growing conviction regular offering or assisting at the Traditional Latin Mass almost invariably draws one into a much broader “traditional” practice of the Faith.  This includes traditional devotions, beliefs strongly associated with the pre-concilar Magisterium, etc.  It also almost always causes one to become much more cognizant of the grave problems afflicting the Church, and the problems of the 1960s reform-cum-revolution.  One even begins to see such startling contrasts between pre- and post-conciliar piety and practice that a sense of “division” or, ahem, rupture, becomes almost inescapable.  I think you actually have to strive mightily to bury the huge contrasts in the psyche, to not allow such to become apparent.

If this is true of lay people, it is double, triply true of priests.  And so many priests who begin to offer the TLM perhaps out of a desire to learn a bit more about the Latin Liturgy, or perhaps to understand the Faith of our fathers a bit better, often begin to find they desire to make the TLM the predominate Mass they offer, and even, at times, the sole Mass they offer.  This process has been described to me by a goodly number of priests, most who I know who have offered the TLM outside an Ecclesia Dei community will say, even if only under strictest confidence, that if they were allowed, they would offer only the TLM – and really delve into a much stricter and more traditional piety and form of pastoral care.  I would say this process is quite commonplace.

So what do we do, when on the one hand, embrace of the TLM tends to lead to an embrace of all of Tradition and rejection of the Novus Ordo and the massive post-conciliar changes, and yet the entire presupposition for offering the TLM, at least according to the status quo in official Church documents on the subject, is that it is merely a matter of liturgical preference/taste?  That’s a recipe for a train wreck, and it is already negatively affecting the lives of a handful of priests I know, one who is quite well known but I will avoid mentioning for now.

This gets back very much to what the priest above is saying: the TLM becomes a focal point for reaction against the revolution conducted from within and against the Church.  I do not see how conflict can be avoided.  The Traditional Mass by itself, even without all the other traditional “trappings,” is a standing rebuke against all the many changes that have been imposed in the past 50+ years.  I do not think those committed to a church by man and for man can long allow it to stand.  And vice versa.  Conflict appears inevitable, which is what the priest is very much saying at the end.

Which yet once more returns to my recent bugaboo regarding infighting among faithful/traditional Catholics.  If we have to fight for our very rights to even offer adoration, thanksgiving, contrition, and supplication to God in the way that we feel is by far the most meaningful and efficacious, will we do better separately in our narrow little groups, or collectively as one (still small but) much larger movement?

You should really get a subscription to Latin Mass Magazine.  I have had one for  years and enjoy it tremendously.


Faithful Catholics need to keep the real adversary in sight (and cease the circular firing squads) March 23, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Basics, error, foolishness, General Catholic, history, manhood, rank stupidity, reading, scandals, secularism, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

I have been reading a sort of autobiography of part of Dietrich von Hildebrand’s life for the past week or so, and I found a very interesting bit in it recently that has great bearing on a matter I touched on last week.  I had two posts on obedience last week representing two somewhat differing points of view.  In the second, I again reiterated my sort of live and let live with regard to the SSPX and maybe some other groups.  I figured I’d get some flak or questioning about that stand, and I did, and that’s where von Hildebrand’s bio comes in.

In 1933, Dietrich von Hildebrand fled Germany after Hitler became Chancellor.  Being a constant opponent of Hitler (and all totalitarianism) since the 51zHwVpwjnLearly 1920s, von Hildebrand had both written and said things that had severely displeased the Nazis.  He was quite certain they would eventually come for him if he remained.  He also feared being forced to make moral compromises through a slow slide of acceptance, something he witnessed many fellow Catholics doing.  After spending a brief bit of time in Italy, he moved onto Vienna where he worked to help shore up the Dolfuss government and there wage an intellectual and moral battle against the evils of Nazism (and battle he did).  von Hildebrand rightly saw Dolfuss as the most Catholic leader in Europe at that time, and a man who was committed not only to erecting a morally acceptable modern Catholic state, but also equally committed to opposing Hitler and keeping Austria (populated with Germans) out of the “Greater Germany” Hitler and the Nazis pursued.

Of course, there were many Nazis and Nazi sympathizers in Austria, too, which is why the Anchsluss eventually happened. There were also other factions, including the socialist “Social Democrats.”  Dolfuss had felt compelled to dissolve parliament and form a unity party called the Patriotic Front to oppose both the Nazis and the Social Democrats.  Certainly, as socialists, the Social Democrats were inimitable to von Hildebrand.  However, Dolfuss’ party also included an organization called the Heimwehr, which was a sort of militant wing of his corporatist Catholic movement.

Now, secular historians often view Dolfuss as authoritarian, which von Hildebrand did not believe (and, I think, demonstrates as false), but whether he was or not, he did encounter a great deal of opposition.  In late 1933, the “Austrian Civil War” developed when open fighting broke out between the militant Heimwehr and the socialists.  Dolfuss and his government quickly restored order, and he remained in power until murdered by Nazis in a putsch in July 1934, but it is von Hildebrand’s reaction to the little civil war that I found most telling.

von Hildebrand was exasperated that fighting had broken out.  He recognized that Nazism was the main existential threat to not only Austria but all of central Europe at that moment.  He also knew that both the Heimwehr/Patriotic Front and the Social Democrats were  – more or less – unalterably opposed to Nazism. The conservative elements in the Patriotic Front and the socialists had been enemies since long before Nazism ever came along. And what he saw as the great tragedy of this fighting that broke out between the two was that they had taken their eye off the really deadly enemy – Nazism – in order to engage in their internecine strife with each other.  This only weakened Austrian and made it less likely to stand against Hitler.  Even more, he feared that this long enmity would always be a temptation for the two groups, Catholic conservatives and socialists, distracting them from what should have been their prime effort against Hitler.

In saying this, von Hildebrand noted his own life long opposition to socialism.  He was no friend of the Social Democrats. But in the hour of direst crisis, all opponents of the gravest evil should be welcome.  It is also important to keep the relative scope of evils and scale of threat in perspective – the Social Democrats were erroneous, to be certain, but not advocates of such obvious, criminal evil as the Nazis.

I hope the point is clear.  You and I and many others may have concerns, even very serious ones, regarding the SSPX or any other such groups, but in the face of the overwhelming threat posed by the progressive-modernist revolution within the Church, is that where we should really direct our efforts?  We may not agree with the SSPX on every point, we may have points of profound disagreement, but when it comes to the absolutely vital matter of the day – recognizing the crisis in the Church and reacting against it – the SSPX is clearly a leader in this field, as well as being a source of unalterable opposition to the efforts to remake the Church into something She can never be.  I think were he alive today, von Hildebrand would counsel cooperation with the SSPX, despite any disagreements, in the matter of overwhelming importance – the crisis in the Church – and to not focus on the points of disagreement which will only have the effect of weakening the already small and rather disjointed “reaction” to the ongoing revolution.

At least, that was the very strong impression I got from reading von Hildebrand’s lament on the division within the small and weak nation of Austria in its struggle against the German juggernaut.  I was struck when I read von Hildebrand’s words how applicable they were to search for the best response to the crisis in the Church.  I have always been a “big tent” guy when it comes to this response.  I welcome all those who recognize that things are going very badly for the Church and that the revolution has been profoundly harmful to Her earthly mission, even if they see that revolution as somehow separate from Vatican II (as many conservatives like Jeff Mirus and Lawler do).  The main point, the critical point, is opposing the errors abounding and the ongoing efforts to radically alter the Church with the most cohesive, loudest, most articulate coalition we can assemble.  Insisting on doctrinal perfection or adherence to one’s preferred “party” and “platform,” if you will, distracts from this most vital mission and only weakens the response.

And that is just what the progressive/modernist cabal both wants, and expects, from us. They have a long history of weak responses from the faithful Catholics because we are more concerned about the divisions between ourselves than we have been with the real, true, and present threat.

That’s my point of view, anyway.  As always, it’s worth what it cost you.

Fr. Terra’s offering of thanks to Our Lady March 23, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, horror, Latin Mass, martyrdom, Our Lady, priests, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Readers will recall that Fr. Joseph Terra, FSSP, was nearly beat to death last summer in Phoenix.  This was the same atrocity that resulted in the death of Fr. Kenneth Walker, FSSP.  Fr. Terra was gravely wounded and has spent months in recovery.  However, he is, apparently, making steady improvement.

Fr. Terra is what you might call a handyman, but even more.  He is more like a craftsman in many media.  He hand-made some of the vestments in use at Mater Dei.  And he apparently also has quite a bit of skill with hammer and saw, because he built this very tastefully done shrine to Our Lady in thanksgiving for saving his life:

11071084_934466263251934_4623749912459178328_n  Not sure where this shrine is located, but it’s nicely done.  As someone who tries to do a bit of woodworking himself, I’m impressed.  I could certainly make the stand, but I’m not sure about the rest.  I’d be interested to know whether he made the columns or got them somewhere (some advanced woodworking tools nowadays being essentially the equivalent of CNC controlled 3-D mills that can make anything).  What a great work of love and devotion. God bless Fr. Terra.  I have to think if he was able to make this, his recovery is coming along pretty well?

I never met Fr. Terra.  He left Mater Dei just a couple of months before we started there.  But I have heard tell he has led quite a varied existence, including time as a truck driver.  Sounds like I really missed out in not getting to know him.  Perhaps I will have an opportunity someday.