jump to navigation

The Synod was lost years, decades ago October 20, 2015

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

Just to be clear, while I follow and report on the Synod with great interest as it is by far the most pressing event in the Church today, I do not sit here in great fear wondering how the Synod will turn out.  I hope my posts have revealed that I fully expect the “Synod,” or Francis speaking in the name of the Synod, to do whatever it is they have planned to do all along.  The 2014 Synod was rigged to achieve a certain result, and this one, even more so.  It’s actually laughable. The only benefit for us trying to be faithful is for the hard, concrete evidence of erroneous, heretical positions held by a good number of prelates, especially those who count as Pope Francis’ favorite.

But in reality, the “Synod” was lost long before Pope Francis came to office. It has been lost by those conservativish prelates who have failed in their duty for decades.  As I’ve noted in several recent posts, the bishops, having failed to even attempt to teach Catholic Doctrine for many, many years, now express dismay that it seems few Catholics accept that Doctrine.  This is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, which even the most avowedly conservative bishops have helped create by failing to take the lumps that would come from boldly proclaiming the Truth in season and out of season.

Boniface at Unam Sanctam Catholicam provides us with a handy, if admittedly incomplete, list of episcopal failures with regard to fulfilling even their most basic duties as shepherds, which made this point to which we come in the Church in the Year of Our Lord 2015 essentially inevitable (my emphasis and comments):

How could conservatives have conceivably “fought back” more than they did? It is interesting to read Pope St. Pius X’s Pascendi with this in mind. Pascendi, of course, was the famous encyclical which exposed and condemned Modernism. But Pius X was not content to simply speak the truth; he put his convictions into practice by taking positive action against Modernism. Pascendi decrees that Modernists be deposed from teaching positions. If they are clerics, their bishops are to place them in the most obscure of offices where they can cause little trouble. Their books are to be censured. The Oath Against Modernism is instituted. Anti-Modernists are promoted while it is made known that no Modernist has any future possibility of promotion (if only that had remained true!). SO vigorous was his assault that the Modernists and progressives complained about his heavy hand. [In fact, Pope St. Pius X removed several modernist-friendly bishops from the episcopate and forced a number of priests out for their heresy]

In short, Pius X never thought merely stating the truth was sufficient; he needed to use the power at his disposal to see it pushed through.

What could conservative bishops do, or have done, that they have not?

  • Vigorously punish heresy in their own dioceses. Keep strict watch on the activities of certain priests and suspend, dismiss or defrock those who clearly dissent from Church teaching. [Oh, but he’ll have a rebellion!  And if…..so what?  Better to clean out the heretics now than let them work their ill for decades unchecked]
  • Preach the truth boldly, including explicit condemnations of particular groups or ideologies, even condemning heterodox teachers or priests by name when necessary. Go beyond the typical non-offensive, wishy-washy bishop-speak.
  • Use the resources of a diocese to publish actual informative and instructional materials, not the sort of nonsense most dioceses put out.
  • Actually issue liturgical directives to promote tradition. The contemporary Church documents offer considerable leeway in how liturgy can be done; the upside of this is that the bishop is given the final call on all of these options. A bishop could easily say, “No guitars and drums at any diocesan Mass”, or mandate sacred chant, or compel every parish to offer at least a monthly Traditional Latin Mass. Novus Ordo Masses must at least incorporate Latin and be said ad orientam. 
  • Dismiss lay persons or members of subversive religious orders from their diocesan committees. [I am glad to see the dread effect of the SSND is finally starting to relax a bit in this diocese, not through episcopal action but through natural means]
  • Actually use the tool of excommunication against dissident theologians and dissenting Catholic politicians.
  • Use resources of the diocese for meaningful ( I stress meaningful) social activism. Example: One priest told me there used to be a scummy motel near his parish that was frequented by prostitutes. He raised some money, bought the motel, and had it torn down. What if the millions raised by our diocesan appeals were used for such uses? [How about a bishop exhorting souls to oppose moral evils in their diocese?  Strip clubs, porn houses, abortuaries, etc]
  • Organize at the regional level and use their weight to push through appointments within the USCCB or elsewhere that were favorable to them while simultaneously using their influence to keep out liberal appointments.
  • Host guest-speakers friendly to tradition and forbid those who are not. [Oh, that would just crush the church ladies who run Collin County Catholic Churches Association]
  • Forbid Catholic schools and hospitals from engaging in activities harmful to the Catholic faith and actually back up these directives with the appropriate force.
  • Fire all Catholic school teachers who are in immoral relationships. [Fire all Catholic school teachers who hold heretical views]
  • Actually celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass and require all seminarians to know it and be comfortable with Latin. [I pray for this daily]
  • Publicly censure books and films hostile or dangerous to the Catholic faith. [Contra the crap recommendations that come out of the USCCB – which is a huge problem in itself.]
  • Mandate traditional arrangements in the architecture of sanctuaries and churches; stipulate that no parish has the right to undertake any renovations unless personally approved by him.
  • Promote priests who cooperate with this agenda and punish those who don’t.
  • In short, never, never miss an opportunity to promote tradition and actively punish and repress liberalism. Speak the truth boldly but also use the weight of the office to silence, retard, dismiss or dispirit the liberal opposition.

I would certainly add some more: be like Bruskewitz and don’t give the USCCB the time of day.  So many bishops abrogate huge swaths of their duty under the mistaken notion that the bureaucrats at the USCCB (like the film reviewers) are somehow covering for them. That is one major reason why the doctrine never gets taught, standards are never enforced, and heretics/problematic speakers get a free hand.  Most every bishop shirks his own duty, while counting on some other bishop to be doing it.  So long as a speaker has one of those “sainted” letters from a bishop saying they are “approved,” they are golden, they can speak anywhere no matter how noxious and anti-Catholic their beliefs.  But without one, you are forbidden to speak anywhere on Church property. Thus, Michael Voris and Chris Ferrara cannot speak on parish grounds, but Ron Rolheiser can.

The main point is this: conservative bishops experiencing angst over the Synod are really being hoist on their own petards. They have, almost to a man, failed to properly enforce ecclesiastical and doctrinal discipline and while perhaps personally (relatively) orthodox themselves, have done very little to help stem the overall collapse.  There have been only a tiny handful of bishops in this nation since the 60s who have implemented even half of the above. But those few who have developed some of the strongest dioceses in the nation.  Of course, some of those have now been run off under specious accusations of tolerating abuse, even while known felons and unindicted co-conspirators in purple continue to hold their offices.

We didn’t get here by accident.  Yes, the cards have been stacked against them, yes, the press would scream, yes, people would walk out, yes, they’d have a big mess on their hands, but all that is just part and parcel of being a CATHOLIC BISHOP!  Far too few have been, and now we have idiots in sees who say the Church just has to get rid of this Jesus Christ guy, he’s too off-putting and upsetting to “progress.”

As I said in a previous post, where we are at today is the culmination of decades, even centuries of deliberate planning and effort.  With regard to the intra-Church conspiracy, it’s certainly been around for at least 100-120 years or so.  It has been in a dominant position for 50.  But it did not have to happen!  Men make history, not impersonal forces, and enough good men doing their duty could have certainly changed things.

But the crisis of the Church is a crisis of bishops (and now popes).  That’s why what is coming appears to be so unstoppable.

I always keep hope for divine intervention, however.

Will it matter in the slightest that the large majority of Synod bishops oppose Communion for adulterers? October 20, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Rorate is reporting that some anonymous source is claiming that the large majority of Synod fathers are opposed to using Communion as a reward for very bad behavior – that is, handing Our Lord in the flesh out like a prize to those who sin in adulterous second “marriages” while still having a valid first one.  I am utterly convinced the primary reason this heretical proposal has made it as far as it has is because of complete lack of faith in the Real Presence.  That is why men like Cardinal John Dew and Archbishop Coleridge just can’t understand what all the fuss is about (quote from Coleridge’s private blog):

Whatever about the press conference itself, the big surprise for me has been the ferocious reaction in some quarters to what I regard as my quite moderate remarks. [OK, so here I stop and include the remarks in question:]

The Church has traditionally spoken that the second union is adulterous and I understand why. I understand the teaching and what lies behind it, including the biblical background. But at the same time, not every case is the same and that’s where a pastoral approach needs to take account of the different situations. For instance, just to say that every second marriage or second union whatever you want to call it is adulterous, is perhaps too sweeping.[So, then, you reject the direct command of Our Lord, that what God has joined together, let no man sunder?  You acknowledge the hardness of your own heart in your desire to allow for Catholic divorce, just as the hard-hearted Jews of the old covenant had it?  Who, precisely, is the Pharisee here?  According to Jesus Christ, it is Archbishop Coleridge] For instance, a second marriage that is enduring and stable and loving and where there are children who are cared for is not the same as a couple skulking off to a hotel room for a wicked weekend.[Or maybe the second union started with some of that skulking. Maybe there is a bereaved wife with children home all by herself, or a grieving husband abandoned by his wife?  But all this is just an argument designed to trigger emotions of sympathy while ignoring the evisceration of Doctrine it would entail.] So the rubric, adultery, in one sense, it’s important but in another sense it doesn’t say enough and I think what a pastoral approach requires is that we actually enter into what the synod is calling a genuine pastoral dialogue or discernment with these couples and the start of that is for people like me to actually listen to their story not just swamp them with doctrine or Church teaching[Translation: treading on appeals to emotion, divorce will be regularized pastorally in the Catholic Church, and Doctrine will be eviscerated. Of course, we’ll dress it up in pretty language designed to deceive and pretend we haven’t changed anything, but the Doctrine – and the 2000 year old institution – will be destroyed in the process. And then we shall be lionized by the press, feted by liberal politicians, and enjoy delusions of being players possessed of “influence.”  That the Church will all but collapse and millions of souls will fall away is a small price to pay for these kinds of perks!]

Twitter has been frothing with invective, which shows what’s out there – by which I mean the fear, even the panic this Synod seems to have provoked in some. That sort of thing doesn’t look like the Holy Spirit to me – red-eyed joylessness cannot be of God. [“And He took some cords, and made a whip of them, and drove the moneychangers from the temple.”] The impression is that, if you touch the slightest jot or tittle not so much of what the Church teaches but of what her pastoral practice has been or how her truth has been expressed, then the whole edifice built up over 2000 years will come tumbling down. [Well, you’ve told us for 50 years that VII did not change Doctrine at all, just some “small details” of practice, and look how the Church has been in free-fall since.  The think about those of us who hold such fears, we have all the evidence of history on our side, inside and outside the Church, whereas all you have are denial of the facts] If I believed that, I’d be panicking too and hurling lemon-lipped diatribes this way and that. But I don’t believe it and therefore find myself trusting in the path that’s opening [by whom?  The Holy Ghost?  Where was this almighty papal positivism in the previous two pontificates?!?  You do realize, Archbishop Coleridge, that you are pitting Christ against Himself, putting the Church of the past against whatever construct you and your modernist allies envision?  After you are done, and the changes are apparent for all to see, what will keep millions from concluding that any Church that can change its sacred practice and belief after 2000 years of fighting for it cannot be truthful and worthy of following?] before us, with the abuse rolling like water off a duck’s back. Voices of fear, even panic, have also been heard in the Synod Hall and the small groups, but what’s clearer to me now is that those voices within have strong links to similar voices without. It’s also clear that those voices, clinging desperately to some imagined or ideologised past, cannot point the way into the future. History will have its way, however much we try to cling to illusions of timelessness. 
(…) [Shorter Coleridge: “I’m a leftist, and I will have my leftist way.  We’ve got the whip hand now, and we’re going to implement our heresies and errors come hell or high water, and we’ll enjoy beating the tar out of the faithful who oppose us in the process.”]
Once we’ve done our work, it goes to the 10-man commission who are writing the final document. They’ve been hard at it, dealing with the first two parts of the working document. Cardinal John Dew  told me that they were huddled over the work yesterday afternoon and into the room unannounced walked Pope Francis – like the Risen Lord, [Oh come on!] though not (I think) walking through a locked door. He simply wished them well in the work and urged them to give him a good document. They promised to try. Another moment of the Pope of surprises. Let’s hope for some surprises from the final document.

The reason why I am entirely skeptical that even the most vehement opposition from the Synod’s bishops, even a near-total majority opposed to any and all of these radical changes, will have virtually no influence on the final document is revealed in the above. The 10 man commission consists almost entirely of the most radical progressive allies of Pope Francis.  It consists of men who have used skullduggery and naked power grabs in the past.  It is closely associated with the cabal that got Francis (illicitly?) elected.  And as Coleridge boldly proclaims, it is already producing the “final document” even before the formal reports of the language groups have been produced!  The first came out today!

Couple that knowledge with the speech Pope Francis gave on Saturday – the speech that sent cold shivers down the spines of every even somewhat orthodox Catholic in the world (and especially among a large number of bishops and cardinals), and you have the makings for the apotheosis of papal positivism and post-conciliar cults of personality – the most authoritarian Pope since the Borgias claiming “collegiality” to ram unprecedented, almost impossible to overcome doctrinal devolution down the throats of a shocked and stunned Church:

Pope Francis yesterday gave an address to the profoundly divided Synod on the Family in which he confirmed his plans to decentralise the Catholic Church – giving local bishops’ conferences more freedom to work out their own solutions to the problems of divorce and homosexuality.

This is the nightmare of conservative Catholic cardinals, including – unsurprisingly – those in the Vatican. They thought they had a sufficient majority in the synod to stop the lifting of the ban on divorced and remarried Catholics receiving communion, or any softening on the Church’s attitude to gay couples.

But in yesterday’s keynote speech, delivered as the synod enters its last week, Francis told them that the decentralisation will be imposed from above.

While deliberately referring to himself as ‘Bishop of Rome’, to underline his solidarity with local bishops everywhere (as opposed to the Roman Curia – i.e., ‘the Vatican’), he invoked the power of the Supreme Pontiff to overrule mere cardinals. ‘The synod journey culminates in listening to the Bishop of Rome, called to speak authoritatively as the Pastor and Teacher of all Christians,’ he said. This is more authoritarian language than I can remember Benedict XVI using as pope. [By a long shot. The left would have lost their minds had he ever done so] It means: I call the shots. In the end, you listen to me, not the other way around. [thus, the reality of progressive “collegiality,” “lay empowerment,” and all the rest.  In the end, it’s all about power, for them]

One statement in particular horrified the conservatives. Francis told them that ‘the sense of faith impedes the rigid separation between the Teaching Church and the Learning Church, because the flock possesses its own “sense” to discern the new roads that the Lord reveals to the church…’ Meaning?

Meaning there is a very strong possibility the Pope will claim that because most Catholics reject Catholic Doctrine on one level or another, that Doctrine is somehow false, and must be changed to suit the “sensus fidei” of the most sinful, most obdurate, least well-formed Catholics.  Meaning, permanent doctrinal revolution, the instillation of the modernist ethos so deeply into the Church getting rid of it will be the work of centuries.  Note that modernists have claimed for decades that rejection of Doctrine by so-called Catholics indicated that Doctrine must change.  Of course, many have rejected that Doctrine because they’ve never been taught the whys and wherefores of it from the vast majority of priests and bishops.

Think in how far out these developments are.  Most bishops are not what one would call super-orthodox.  They are not strong adherents to the immutable Tradition.  Most are thoroughly post-conciliar and possessed of at least some modernist sensibilities.  And yet even THEY are vehemently opposed to what is being proposed. I think that reveals just how far out what’s being aimed at by Coleridge, Dew, Baldiserri, Forte, Wuerhl, et. al., really is.  And that’s why I think no matter what the Synod bishops say, it makes no difference: it all comes down to the will of one man.

This is a plan of decades, likely centuries coming to fruition.  This is the Alta Vendita on steroids.  It is very bad news for all of us.  Even having to DISCUSS this as a future possibility gravely wounds the Church.  And it is all, so obviously, flowing from one man.

The miracle that made Louis and Zelie Martin saints October 20, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Papa, Saints, sanctity, SOD, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

I have a deep devotion to the Martin family.  Who doesn’t love little Therese?  Well, actually, I’ve seen some really extreme types who reject all Councils back to Florence say she was a heretic, but discounting them.  I have a particular admiration for the parents, now Saints Louis and Zelie Martin.  I need to re-read this excellent biography of their family.

I am gratified that these two Saints, such great exemplars of Catholic parentage and guiding souls to heroic virtue and aiding them in the path to exalted holiness, were canonized according to standard procedure, with a second miracle attributed to their intercession verified.  We have seen recent canonizations where the process was so modified for political purposes that it has cast a shade of doubt in some minds over their validity.  Of course, the circumstances of this canonization, in the midst of this ostensible Synod on the Family were also quite political, but popes have used canonizations to make political statements for centuries.  What is consoling is that it appears the process was adhered to.

Regarding the second miracle that made Louis and Zelie Martin saints, this website is a gold mine of data on the two Saints and that miraculous intercession.  There is even a very good video in English on that miracle, seen below:

I’m happy to present, for the first time in English, “Miracle of Life in Valencia,” the video (15:35) of the healing of little Carmen Perez Pons of Valencia, Spain, which was accepted as the miracle for the canonization of Blessed Louis and Zelie Martin.  This documentary was filmed on location in Valencia.  It shows little Carmen and her family and the hospitals where she was treated as a newborn.  Interviews with the Discalced Carmelite nuns of Serra tell the story of how Carmen’s father, Santos, came to their monastery seeking prayers for his desperately sick baby daughter and of the sudden healing that followed.  The documentary includes film footage from the opening in January 2013 and the closing in May 2013 of the diocesan tribunal that evaluated the miracle and submitted it to Rome.  Carmen and her family attended both sessions.  This documentary was completed while the Congregation for the Causes of Saints examined the miracle.  For the rest of the story, read “Pope Francis today approved the decree recognizing the miracle for the healing of Blessed Louis and Zelie Martin – March 8, 2015: new details about the healing of little Carmen,” a communique from the Shrine at Alencon.

I thank the producers, AVAN (Servicio Audiovisual Diocesana of the Diocese of Valencia) for permission to translate the documentary into English.  My special thanks to Teodolinda Garcia of Panama, whose devoted work as a translator has permitted me to report on this healing since it was announced in 2012. Teo worked with me to produce an English transcript of this documentary, and I had the joy of creating the English audio you will hear.  On the eve of the announcement of the canonization of Louis and Zelie Martin, may the story of this real-life family’s faith bring hope to many others.

Saints Louis and Zelie Martin, parents of so many holy souls including a great Doctor of the Church, pray for the Synod Fathers and Pope Francis that they may not weaken Church belief and practice on the family and the sanctity of marriage in any way, but may instead greatly strengthen and boldly proclaim that sacred Doctrine in such a convincing way that millions of souls are edified and huge numbers abandon their sinful way of life and return to the bosom of Holy Mother Church!  Please pray for all of us parents that we may emulate your heroic virtue and dedication to live at all times and in all circumstances in union with the will of Jesus Christ for us.