…….the problematic/disconcerting/unprecedented aspects of Vatican II by some future Church leadership will be waiting for a very long time. The Church will not admit of error, not in an ecumenical council approved by the reigning pontiff, even a pastoral one. Or, at the very least, it will be many, many years – on the order of many decades if not a few centuries – before Vatican II is spoken of publicly by the Church/Magisterium/great Saints etc as being mistaken in various regards (assuming the world lasts that long). It simply will not happen. It also shows how Vatican II is different from other “robber councils” of the past in that those others were never approved by the reigning pontiff. The situation surrounding Vatican II is in so many respects unprecedented in the history of the Church.
I know many people have a desire – I would almost call it a need – to see just this kind of hand-wringing, breast-beating mea culpa from some future Pope. Having been told they were wrong or goofy or outdated for so long, there is a profound human urge to have one’s most cherished beliefs clearly confirmed. And I think that will happen, gradually (it must), but I’m much more of the camp that Vatican II will be overcome not by formal repudiation, but more through mokusatsu…..”killing with silence.” Those statements of Vatican II which are problematic – and the vast majority are not – will simply be marginalized and ignored more and more. Or, more precisely, the Church will return to the pre-conciliar practice (be it the Liturgy, Breviary, return to right understanding of ecumenism/collegiality/etc) gradually once the revolutionaries have passed from the scene.
Or is that naive? Do the revolutionaries make the Council, or the other way around? I guess what I’m asking is, so long as various aspects are not formally repudiated, will they serve as a seed-bed for the production of revolutionaries in the Church far into the future? I think not, since the revolution does not seem to be replacing itself, but who knows?
I just don’t see that “glorious” moment where the Church begs forgiveness (of whom?) for past “errors” associated with Vatican II? Doing so would be a profoundly revolutionary act (we never saw such apologias until the conciilar mindset was firmly entrenched), which would seem to weigh against the very idea of restoration in the Church.
It’s one thing for your or I (even though it means nothing, doctrinally) to say that VII departed from the perennial belief and practice of the Faith in areas X, Y, and Z, or is at least very difficult to reconcile with those areas without violating the principle of non-contradiction. Bishops and priests could do so, as well. But for a Pope to make such a repudiation…..such would be a truly radical act. I just don’t see that happening. I suppose it could be overcome, without formal repudiation, by convening some future Council that simply re-affirms the constant belief of the Church in those problematic areas. But I don’t think a letter of apology will be attached.
I think this is what Bishop Schneider meant when he said that there tends to be too much fixation on Vatican II. It happened, and it cannot un-happen. It can be overcome, certainly. The question is how. I have seen evidence that Bishop Schneider tends to share my view that the revolution in the Church will be overcome by a slow process of restoration, not a lightning bolt from on high that throws out the revolutionary content and forcibly re-instills Tradition.
Discuss, if you are minded to. One thing I do know, barring a miracle of Resurrection-like proportions, I fear the crisis in the Church will get much worse before it gets better.
Know the Texas Republican “pro-lifers” who ain’t August 11, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, contraception, Dallas Diocese, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society.
Texas Right to Life – which organization I strongly support – has compiled a helpful list of Texas state legislators (the lower house) who claim to be pro-life Republicans but who proposed dangerous legislation or worked against pro-life reforms. The graphic below lists them in detail:
Remember these names when it comes time to vote again in 2016. Note that some of these people may have some pro-life votes to their names – Texas has possibly the most pro-life legislature in the nation at present – but who turned out to be some of the weakest among the huge Republican majority who claim to be pro-life.
Also note (and the importance of this cannot be overstated) that the very powerful (and some might say, corrupt) House Speaker Joe Straus had a perfect 0% rating when it came to pro-life legislation. That is par for the course for Straus, who has done more than anyone else to keep the overwhelming pro-life majority in the legislature from enacting even more meaningful laws against abortion and the entire culture of death. Please support challenges to his leadership from pro-life sources.
You can also view a list of those who excelled in their pro-life work in the recently concluded legislative session here.
The entire list is here. Both my representative and senator compiled 100% ratings but neither merited mention on the pro-life heroes list.
May this soon change. And may the legislature find the wherewithal to defend perfectly innocent unborn lives.
Swiss sodo-activists sue bishop for quoting Scripture August 11, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, horror, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
Because, you see, merely quoting Leviticus is now an “incitement to violence.” But don’t worry, they’ll let us keep our holy book so long we bible-humpers are good and quiet about anything that has to do with them. And if we let them use our most beautiful churches for their sham marriages. And if we allow them to defile Catholic youth with their perverse propaganda. And………Otherwise, it’s goodbye tax exemption and hello a constant barrage of lawsuits!
A homosexual activist group called Pink Cross, the umbrella organization of Swiss male homosexuals, has announced that it will file a lawsuit against Bishop Vitus Huonder of Chur, Switzerland. The organization claims that Huonder had publicly called for crimes against homosexuals by quoting the Book of Leviticus at a recent conference in Fulda, Germany.
Bishop Huonder had given this talk on July 31 at a conservative Catholic conference organized by a lay organization, Forum Deutscher Katholiken, that is opposed to the proposals to change and liberalize the Catholic Church’s moral teaching on marriage and the family……
……Bishop Huonder, in his own contribution to the conference on July 31, had presented essential parts of Holy Scripture – Old and New Testaments – in order to show God’s plan for marriage and the family. With regard to homosexuality, he quoted two parts from the Book of Leviticus, saying: “These two parts would be sufficient to give us the right direction with regard to homosexuality, in the light of our Faith.” Both quotes show how the practice of homosexual acts is condemned in Holy Scripture, and with the claim that such persons commit a grave crime and deserve to be put to death. Huonder continues, saying that even to claim that there are a variety of models of marriage and family is already “an attack against the Creator, but also against the Redeemer and against the Sanctifier, that is to say, against the entire Holy Trinity.”
[So let’s see what Leviticus has to say:
Leviticus 18:22 – Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 – If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
These are just a few of some twenty – at least, as I count them – denunciations of the sins of sodomy and gomorrist acts in Scripture, most of which, contrary to popular opinion, come from the New Testament! For a partial list from a protestant standpoint, see here. In addition, Jerusalem was sacked by God (using Roman Legions as his agents – even Titus Flavius Vespasianus understood he was but acting as the finger of God in the Judean Campaign) at least in part because, in its final days, after the crazed killing of God Incarnate, her citizens were given over to every kind of disordered lust. Men (Zealots) dressed as women and “played” with each other, while also engaging in wild orgies of murder, robbery, and rapine.]
Huonder stresses, “The Faith is a help for all people, also for those with homophilic inclinations, and can lead to a reorientation of these inclinations, to a control of the sexual passions and to an integration of these passions into a virtuous life according God’s Command.” [All true, but I think using the made up word “homophilic” grants too much credence to the actions of those given over to perverse lusts]
After his speech had caused public uproar throughout the liberal-progressive public, Bishop Huonder had made his own public statement on August 3 in which he apologized for this “misunderstanding,” saying that he in no way intended “to degrade homosexuals.” [Can we just stop apologizing. For goodness sake, be a man! Adhere to the Faith and don’t apologize for it! Signs of weakness are exactly what the enemies of God want to see!]
…….The homosexual organization Pink Cross [an offensive name in its own right. They have no fear of blaspheming God] in its own statement declared that, with their filing of a lawsuit in the Canton of Graubünden, it is “reacting to the homophobic statements of the bishop which publicly call for the commission of crimes. This lawsuit is being supported by the Lesbian Organization Switzerland.” [Total BS. The bishop did not call for anyone to go out and put people to death. What a crock. But watch this……]Pink Cross claims that Bishop Huonder, by just quoting passages of the Bible – “without any exegesis” – has himself called for hatred and crimes against homosexuals. The statement also claims that Bishop Huonder did not put the quotes “in any context with the teaching of Christ,” but, rather “in a literal sense, and that is not acceptable for us. It sows hatred.”[And thus the objective is revealed, as well as the bishop’s real “offense.” The objective is to only allow such quotes from Scripture if they are accompanied by false exegesis that contradicts them, or at least so denudes them of their true meaning that they are rendered meaningless and, most important of all, inoffensive to those given over to certain sins. The objective, ultimately, is to silence the voice of the Church.] It also stresses that the lawsuit is only aimed at Bishop Huonder personally, saying: “Not all churches are homophobic, and most of the church’s representatives – as well as members – not at all. Our suit aims directly at the bishop of Chur.” The statement claims that Bishop Huonder proposed to “re-introduce the death penalty” for homosexual persons. [As is so often the case, radical sodomite activists take very simple statements of fact – this is what Scripture says – and turn them into calls for all manner of evil to be worked against them. The bishop’s point was quite simple – look how Scripture condemns this evil – and coupled that with a call to conversion, not murder, not violence. But in order to sell their continued claims of vicitmization even as they run roughshod over the will of the large majority in many countries, they are now required to create complete fabrications, which are sadly all too successful in moving the weak-minded.]
As of August 10, another private person – from the Swiss Canton St. Gallen – has followed Pink Cross and filed another lawsuit against Bishop Huonder for the same reasons, according to kath.ch. Should Bishop Huonder be indeed judged culpable by the Canton of Graubünden for the alleged claims, he would have to face a punishment of up to three years in prison or a monetary penalty.
These developments are happening just after the president of the Swiss Bishops’ Conference, Bishop Markus Büchel, distanced himself from Bishop Huonder’s statements, saying that it does not matter what sexual orientation one has, as long as one conducts himself in a “responsible manner.” [Bishop Buchel is wrong, and so wrong as to find himself in opposition to the Doctrine of the Faith. He frankly espoused heresy in this statement. He claims all relationships, even those involving the total abuse and degradation of sodomy, are “permitted,” so long as the partners accept each other as “equal and valuable,” a complete impossibility where the total degradation of sodomy is concerned. He justifies his error by pretending that people of perverse inclination are “born that way” and thus are somehow “forced” to commit grievous sin, which is as immaterial as it is false. Oh Lord, please forgive our offenses against you, to have been cursed with such unworthy shepherds!]
Barring some truly miraculous change stemming from direct divine intervention, I think we can easily foresee how the near-future will play out if this Germanic attack against the entire moral edifice of the Church is not squashed, and hard. The great majority of bishops, priests, and laity who claim the name Catholic will go over to the promotion of the most grievous offenses against God, while the few orthodox will be ostracized and persecuted within the Church. I did not quote the portion of the article above where it describes the progressive media in Europe (there is hardly any other kind) pounding on the good bishop with unconcealed glee. To date, no one in the Swiss hierarchy, and certainly not Rome, has lifted a finger to defend him.
Saints John Fisher, Thomas More, Edmund Campion, Robert Southwell, and so many more were tormented in their final moments, escorted to their place of execution by apostate Anglican “clergy” and obscene, howling mobs, hurling false questions and insults at them even to their place of death. They were told they were wrong to be Catholic, to adhere to the Faith of Jesus Christ, to uphold the constant belief of the Church, and how uncharitable and unreasonable they were to not yield to the new, man-made ecclesiastical system of England. Not one of them apostasized as a result of this onslaught of abuse, but I can only imagine how painful that experience was, and how strong must have been the martyr’s faith and virtue to keep from lashing out at their tormentors.
History never quite repeats, but historical situations do recur. We should prepare ourselves for having to suffer the very worst from those who, in the name of the Church, tell us we are such horrible people and so very wrong. That will be the hardest aspect. And when ponders how far that kind of situation could go, the moral anguish could be tremendous.
I suggest a strong course of prayer and penance in preparation for this possibility.
Help request – reading. Plus, a priestly call to just ignore government and its immoralities August 11, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Basics, disconcerting, General Catholic, history, Latin Mass, Liturgy, priests, reading, sadness, secularism, sexual depravity, Society, the struggle for the Church.
Asking for some help – does anyone know if Abbe Rene Rohrbacher’s Historie de l’Eglise Catholique has ever been translated into English? I see it’s been translated, at least in part, into Italian and possibly Spanish, but apparently not English? Does anyone know?
Also, does anyone know how many volumes comprise Ludwig Pastor’s History of the Popes? It’s 40, right, he stopped at Pius VI? Has anyone ever seen a complete set? It seems all that is available now – not that I’m complaining! – is print on demand versions of individual volumes. I’ve had mixed luck with those. Some are OK, some are practically unreadable.
Of the two, I’m much more interested in Rohrbacher. 29 volumes, apparently, Garcia Moreno apparently read through the entire set – about 20000 pages – THREE times over the course of 6 months.
I no is ‘dat mart.
Just to fill out the post, what do you make of this statement via Orbis Catholicus from Fr. Samuel Medley, SOLT:
“Governments and ordinance, laws and flaws, supreme courts and big fancy warts, presidents and precedence, kings, and things? BLAH BLAH BLAH. I don’t really care. I’m too busy loving God and serving my neighbor. Tell me something that matters like love, prayer, and suffering, the real things, those that endure. Show me what you have done to become good and holy and true and then I will start listening to you and showing a speck of interest in something that will actually be the measure of your life, not its dissipation. I pass through countries and their capricious little governments like changing clothes. I’m not interested in their dramas and traumas. Tomorrow it will be a different politician or court and a different scandal or corruption. Sure we have to suffer them and put up with them like a bad smell, but the winds of time blow and it will be another equally stupid and boring thing to become preoccupied with so why waste your attention on fleeting things? What is exciting and adventurous? The love and fear of God and sincere service of one’s neighbor. All will pass. The only thing that endures is charity. Hold fast to it and the unpleasantness of history will give way to eternity.”
I’d say, yes, true, but what about my millions of neighbors falling into hell, and being encouraged to do so by government policy? We cannot ignore them. We have to preach the truth. There aren’t enough faithful priests to perform their duty. Spiritual and moral counsel is a great work of mercy. That is part of loving my neighbor. Confirming the faithful is also a great work of mercy. And while the above posits a wonderful ideal, it is also a bit convenient, is it not? And what of those not quite so blessed, not quite so strong in the Faith, who might be wondering because the government embraces this perversion or that immorality, and they find no priest to correct the government? What then?
Another steal from JP Sonnen, versus poplorum from well before the Council:
This looks like a home Mass. There is no tabernacle, right? So does that make facing the people more acceptable? But he could still be on the other side, facing the Lord along with them, right? Since this likely comes from the 50s, another example of how liturgical abuse/experimentation predated the Council. There was a substantial movement in most all Western countries, including the US, towards changing the Mass to make it more “accessible” to the people. Like so many human plans, that it turned out to have the exact opposite effect is not unsurprising.
The love of the world is opposed to the love of God August 11, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, error, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, reading, sanctity, Society, Tradition, Virtue.
I think the topic is pretty straightforward and doesn’t need much introduction. Some excerpts from The Catechism Explained (Spirago-Clarke) pp. 292-294:
The love of the world consists in loving, above all, money, or the gratification of one’s appetites, or earthly honor or anything else in the world, instead of giving the first place to God.
The love of creatures is not in itself sinful, only when the creature is more loved than the Creator. All who love creatures more than God are idolaters, because they give to creatures the honor due to God………The maxim of the man of the world is: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” The love of the world is worse than high treason; it makes a man a traitor to the King of Kings.
Through love of the world, we incur the loss of sanctifying Grace and eternal felicity.
The lover of the world does not possess sanctifying grace……..the Holy Spirit does not dwell in the carnally minded and evil (St. Ambrose). The Holy of Holies cannot dwell in the soul that is stained with sin…….He who is destitute of the presence of the Holy Spirit, that is, of sanctifying grace, shall be cast into exterior darkness (Mt xxii:12). Hence Christ threatens the votaries of the world with eternal damnation: “He that loveth his life (who endeavors to get out of if all enjoyment) shall lose it” (Jn xii:25)……….”Which dost thou prefer,” asks St. Augustine, “to love the world and go to perdition, or to love Christ and enter into life everlasting?” He is a fool who for the sake of this passing world plays away eternal life.
The love of the world blinds the soul of man, and leads him away from God.
The love of the world blinds the soul of man. When earthly things intervene between God and the soul, the soul becomes dark, just as does the moon when the earth is between it and the sun………Hence worldlings cannot comprehend the teaching of the Gospel; it is foolishness to them (I Cor ii:14)……..the lover of the world cannot be enlightened by the Holy Spirit…….The cares of this world stifle the love of God in the heart of man, as thorns choke the sprouting seed. The votaries of the world resemble the men in the Gospel who were invited to the heavenly banquet, but who did not go because of their wife, their farm, their oxen (Lk xiv:16).
The love of the world destroys inner peace, and makes man fear death greatly. [If you read nothing else, read this section and the next!]
The worldling is a stranger to interior peace. It has been well said: A man must choose between indulgence of the senses and tranquility of the soul. The two are not compatible. [Boy ain’t that true! No one is less at peace than the addict. Addiction is a horrid life, there are brief periods after dosing whatever drug when the addict feels anywhere from decent to euphoric, but over times those periods get shorter and shorter, and soon the drug is necessary to simply not feel sick. But the between times……the hours stretching out before the next “hit,” and then the periods when the drug is unavailable, and the withdrawals set in….seconds seem like hours. Everything in life centers around the drug. What a miserable life. The addict’s life is an extreme example, but all who chase the pleasures of the world exhibit the same behaviors to varying degrees] One might as well try to fill a vessel that has holes in it, as to satisfy the heart that strives after the pleasures of time and sense. And since the votaries of this world can never attain interior peace, they want a constant change of amusement, as one who cannot sleep turns restlessly from side to side in the hope of finding rest. [How well does that describe our culture today. 150 channels and “nothing on.”] Christ alone can give us true contentment. He said to His Apostles: “Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth do I give unto you” (Jn xiv:27). St. Augustine exclaims: “Our heart is restless until it rests in Thee, O Lord!” The lover of the world fears death so much, because he will be parted from his idol, and because death will put an end to the happiness he makes it his object to attain. He has, besides, an inward presentiment of what will follow after death. On account of this all who love the world are filled with apprehension and fear at the hour of death……..the sinner, though he is never free from alarm, dreads the moment above all when his soul will leave the body and enter the presence of her Divine Judge (St. John Chrysostom)………..[T]hose who are entangled in the meshes of the world first feel real anguish when their last hour comes. Think, O worldling, if the joys which the devil offers you are thus mixed with bitterness, what will the torments be which he prepares for you hereafter. [We live in a unique time, when men have so blinded themselves to the possibility of damnation that most souls fervently hope for a quick and painless death. They would rather die without the chance to reconcile to God, so long as they don’t suffer. But even in this, they reveal their fear of what may come later, as this desire for a sudden death reveals a grave fear of having to countenance their earthly demise]
The love of the world gives rise to hatred of God and of His servants
A man who loves the world cannot possibly have the love of God within him…….the human heart cannot love God if love binds it to some earthly object. St. John says: “If any man love the world, the charity of the father is not in him” (I Jn ii:15). We cannot look with the same eye both at Heaven and earth at the same time. The lover of the world even goes so far as to hate God and divine things. Thus Christ says: “No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will sustain the one and despise the other” (Mt vi:24). What are awe to conclude if we hear any one rail at priests and at religion? The lover of the world is therefore the enemy of God. “If thou wouldst not be the enemy of God,” says St. Augustine, “be an enemy of the world.” [It is very difficult, is it not, to reconcile “aggiornamento” and openness to the so-called wisdom of the world and especially the post-enlightenment humanist project, with so much of the preceding Magisterium. St. Augustine’s quote seems to stand in stark contrast to the post-conciliar ethos, but that quote was highly representative of the behavior of the Church viz a viz the world for centuries.]
The love of the world ceases at death
There are many things which thou canst only love for a time; then love comes to an end; for either thou wilt be taken from the object of thy affections or it from thee. Hence we should not love that which we may lose, or from which we may be parted; we should only love those things that are eternal (St. Augustine). [This applies even to family. I know some folks who envision Heaven as being all about being reunited with family, which I think misses the point, and may imply a disordered attachment.] Wherefore let not thy heart cling to earthly things. The true servant of God clings no more to his possession than to his clothes, which he puts on and off at will; whereas the indifferent Christian makes them a part of his very being, like the skin of an animal (St. Francis de Sales)………..The soul of man is immortal, and it should only strive after what is immortal. “Seek those things that are above” (Col iii:1). “Therefore choose Him for thy friend,” say St. Thomas a Kempis, “Who, when all others forsake thee, will not abandon thee.”
I thought the above catechesis might be a welcome change from the whole “the world is wonderful!” mentality that seems to have been accepted by so many souls. Even more, very few priests ever speak on the need to forsake the world, the flesh, and the devil.
God willing you will find the above helpful!