jump to navigation

Men’s Prayer Vigil outside ‘The Men’s Club’ TONIGHT OCT. 21 @ 8PM!! October 21, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, manhood, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

I won’t be there as I’m now stricken with a severe cold, but my good friend and loyal reader SB will be to lead any men who would like to come out in prayer outside ‘The Men’s Club’ tonight, Oct. 21 @ 8 pm.

Details below:

God willing,I will be praying tomorrow outside  The Men’s Club, 2340 W. Northwest Hwy, Dallas, on WEDNESDAY OCT 21 @ 8pm – actually across the street in the parking lot of the US Post Office.  This is directly across from the entrance to the inappropriately named “gentleman’s club.”  

We’ve previously had some good turnout.  I hope that many of you are able to come back out again. 

The post office parking lot is well lit and set back some distance from the very busy roadway.  It is public land so we cannot be harassed for being there.  It’s really an ideal situation, we are basically impossible to miss by patrons leaving this sexually oriented business (SOB).  Men over 18 only.  All men are welcome.  You don’t have to be a member of a particular parish.  

I will stay for at least an hour.  I’m hoping as many as possible can join the effort.

PLEASE GO!  My heart is doing a lot better, I hope to start leading/participating in vigils starting the first Wed. of November!  Thank you for your patience. Please go and pray with SB!  GOD BLESS YOU MOST ABUNDANTLY, AND THANKS SO MUCH TO MY GOOD FRIEND FOR SHOWING THE LEADERSHIP AND LOVE FOR SOULS TO LEAD THIS EFFORT WHILE I’M STILL UNDER THE WEATHER!

For the record: Yes, the Lectionary of the Novus Ordo Missae did deliberately exclude key moral teachings October 21, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Bible, catachesis, different religion, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Liturgy, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Taylor Marshall has a post examining the fact that the Lectionary – the three year cycle of readings – used for the Novus Ordo Mass, which ostensibly is just so awesome because it “opens the treasures  of Scripture to the faithful” – actually excludes very key bits of Scripture that offended against modernist-progressive sensibilities.  He notes that Romans i:26-32 is not included in the cycle of readings.  Romans i:16-25 is, but then it jumps to Romans ii:1-11.  So, first, Romans i:16-25:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:  Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen 

Now, all of the above is a rhetorical set up for Romans i:26-32, without which the above doesn’t have nearly the effect that St. Paul intended.  So, what does Romans i:26-32 say (even in the still far from ideal translation used by the USCCB)?  Check it out:

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.  And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

The passages together are extremely powerful denunciations of modern errors, which pretend that new found “rights” somehow change the “old” moral calculus. But as St. Paul makes so clear, what has actually happened is that souls have forgotten, or rejected, the Truth of Jesus Christ as revealed through inspired and inerrant Scripture, and that they did it back then just as people try to do it today.  There is nothing new under the sun. There is either Christ, or chaos.

As Marshall notes, it is little wonder Catholics are so poorly formed on matters related to unnatural lusts, when one of the most clear Scriptural teachings on this subject was deliberately excluded by the 60s modernizers.  In fact, the paragraph of the (still problematic) 1997 Catechism that denounces such unnatural perversions makes reference to this very section of Romans Chapter i!  You can see now why the modernists wanted it excluded, all their rhetoric regarding the benefits of giving the faithful the “treasures of Scripture” notwithstanding.  In fact, the 3 year cycle of readings badly waters down Catholic doctrine by including many unimportant portions of Scripture, while excluding some incredibly important ones.

I say that, because Romans 1:26-32 is not the only excision made to sections of Sacred Scripture that made modernists uncomfortable.  One of the most critical quotes from the New Testament, I Cor xi:27-29 (those who receive the Blessed Sacrament unworthily eat and drink condemnation upon themselves, and commit a great sacrilege), is also found nowhere in the Novus Ordo Missae.  And, as the previous post noted, large portions of I Cor xi and Ephesians v were also not included – one might say excised – because they, too, offend against modernist sensibilities.

The sum effect is that the Novus Ordo readings, far from giving the faithful a greatly expanded catechesis through the various readings, in many respects present a biased and truncated view of Sacred Scripture and, thus, Catholic Doctrine.  This was of course highly desired by the progressive faction in the Church, the better to achieve Catholic acceptance of gravely immoral acts.  It sure worked like a charm, didn’t it?  While it’s not true that “97% of Catholic women use contraception,” contra Pelosi, et., al., but it is true that the vast, vast majority of Catholics do reject at least some dogmatic teaching related to faith and morals.

Don’t think this exclusion was accidental. It was most deliberate.

A most un-feminist catechesis on the Duties of the Married from a 19th century catechism October 21, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, Interior Life, manhood, Sacraments, sanctity, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

I have long held a concern that feminist rhetoric has resulted in silent downplaying of, and even deviations from, what was once widely accepted Church Doctrine on many matters related to relations between the sexes.  The exerpts below from the Spirago-Clarke Catechism of the 1880s Eastman-Johnson-Christmas-Time(updated in the 1900s) may be very controversial to some, but I believe they were completely normal and acceptable to virtually all in the Church in the time in which they were written.  Given that, perhaps we should all carefully consider the degree to which we may have, inadvertently or no, come to accept certain claims of radical feminism over the past several decades.  Certainly this catechesis is a marked rebuke to things like the readings of the Novus Ordo, which were carefully crafted to excise such “problematic” portions of Scripture such as St. Paul’s direction to women in I Corinthians and Ephesians.

Some of the below may appear pretty strong. It may make some mad.  But I have to say that only illustrates my point, even as realize that I, as a man, may still hold certain “liberated” ideas.  You may also note how strongly the very counter-cultural (for today) catechesis below is supported by Sacred Scripture.

Consider the below a tonic for the noxious emanations of the modernists at the Synod:

The following are the duties incumbent on married persons: It is the duty of the wife to obey her husband, as the man is the head of the family, the representative of God.

That a man is superior to the woman is shown by the fact that he was created first, and the woman was only created of his flesh, and as a helper for him (I Cor xi:9).  The man being the head of the family, the woman is subservient to him, as the members of the body are to the head.  The Apostle says: “As the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wife be to the husband in all things” (Eph v:24) [You sure won’t find THAT anywhere in the Novus Ordo readings!] The woman is commanded to cover her head in the church, to indicate that she is under the dominion of the man; whereas the man uncovers his head, because there is no one over him but God (I Cor xi:10). [Well, this is one of many reasons for veiling given by St. Paul]  The wife ought to fear her husband (Eph v:33), that is to show him the deference due to him.  After the Fall, God ordained that the woman should be under her husband’s power, and should yield him obedience (Gen iii:16), because Eve lusted after power, and ate the apple first.  The husband therefore has every right to rule his wife, but he ought to rule with kindness, gentleness, and leniency, for she is in one sense his equal, having been made out of flesh taken from his side.  Therefore St. Ambrose bids the husband to remember that his wife is not to be treated as a servant, that he must not make his authority felt to be a burden.  Besides the woman, being the weaker, can claim to be gently treated (I Pet iii:7)…….As the representative of God, the husband has the right of controlling the household.  The angel did not appear to Mary, but to Joseph, when the flight to Egypt was to be made, because the husband’s duty is to rule and govern.  [Even given the most exalted wife ever possible!]

The husband and wife owe to each other love, fidelity, and mutual aid in all circumstances of their life.

Husbands ought to love their wives, as Christ loves the Church (Eph v:25), as their own bodies (Eph v:28), as themselves (Eph v:33).  The love of cheney familyhusband and wife ought not to be purely natural love, like that of the lower animals, nor a purely human love, like that of the heathen, but a holy and supernatural affection, like that of Christ for the Church, and of the Church for Christ.  Hence they ought each to bear with the infirmities of the other patiently and indulgently, or generously close their eyes to them……The wife will influence her husband for good far more effectually by silence, meekness, and prayer than by reproaches.  St. Augustine tells us that his mother did more for the conversion of her husband Patricius by the saintliness of her life, than by her words.  Dissensions between husband and wife ruin their happiness; without peace at home nothing pleases, even amid all the luxuries wealth can command.  Married people owe fidelity to one another (Heb xiii:4).

They ought scrupulously to guard against every appearance of unfaithfulness, and avoid familiar intercourse with persons of the other sex.  For where jealousy enters, all conjugal happiness is at an end.  St. John Chrysostom is of the opinion that the direst poverty, the most incurable malady, fire and even sword, are lesser evils than jealousy.   The Jews used to stone the unfaithful husband or wife, for they considered adultery a no less heinous crime than murder (Lev xx:10).  St. Paul declares everlasting damnation to be the portion of adulterers.  The married must not defraud one another of the conjugal rights (I Cor vii:1-5), but they must abstain from excesses inconsistent with the sanctity of their state (Tob vi:17), and only More_famB_1280x-g0keep in view the object indicated by the angel to Tobias (Tb v:22), otherwise the devil will prevail over them (Tb v:16).  To the duty of mutual aid it appertains that husband and wife should live together, and that neither one nor the other should avail himself or herself, if contrarieties or calamities overtake them, of any pretext to leave the other; they are bound to assist each other in the training of their children, to succor each other in illness, to aid each other to bear more easily the ills of life, and to perform their religious duties with greater facility.

Eve was created for the sole purpose of helping Adam; for God said: “It is not good for man to be alone, let us make him a help like unto himself” (Gen ii:18).  It is, however, a sad misfortune when the wife is not a support but a cross to her husband; when instead of lightening his burdens, she only adds to their weight.  Almighty God declares that a really good woman is a treasure of inestimable price (Prv xxxi:10), far above the most costly jewels.

———End Quote———

So…..will some folks take issue with that? I never quite know.  Sometimes things I think will be very controversial pass by with nary a comment, and things that I think are inoffensive, even obvious, attract a lot of controversy.  We’ll see, I guess.

Note also the rebuke of so many modernist proposals at the Synod.

Secular news sites get it, even if many prelates do not: Changing moral doctrine spells the end of the Church’s moral authority October 21, 2015

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

OK, John Zmirak is a serious Catholic, so it’s not an entirely secular piece, but it is from a secular site.  And his analysis is spot-on with what so many of us have been saying for months now: if the “Synod,” which now, given the rejection by the overwhelming majority of bishops of every radical notion proposed, really means “The will of Francis,” undermines even just ONE aspect of the moral doctrines it has been formulated to offend against, it will mean the end of the Catholic Church’s moral authority for decades, and its certain descent into just one more discredited, worldly, money- and affirmation-chasing sect.

It’s a good piece, I steal most of it, but please click on the link and read the rest (my emphasis and comments):

…….Rather than speaking prophetically in defense of the uniqueness and holiness of marriage, the task of Christians today includes “recognizing positive elements” in “imperfect” unions such as cohabitating couples, divorced couples living in what Jesus called “adultery,” and even homosexual relationships.

As for those, the Church must find a way of “accepting and valuing their sexual orientation,” a condition which the Catholic Catechism still (for the moment) calls “an objective disorder” for very important reasons: It “orders” people to activities which the Church has always reasoned are unnatural and sinful. By the laws of logic, the Church cannot welcome and value such an “orientation” without accepting what it orients people to crave: erotic relationships that are incompatible with marriage.

How we wish that the universe worked Synod-style, that its Creator answered our whims like an obsequious restaurant waiter angling for tips. Wouldn’t it be pleasant if God looked on our sins and saw only the gifts which He gave us, instead of the miserable ways that we use them? Like a child who stuffs his brand new Lego blocks down the throat of the family dog, we’re surprised by praise for our endeavor’s “positive elements.” Were God like the leading Synod fathers — that is, a senile grandfather in heaven — he would nod and tell us: “That’s quite an obedient dog. And those Lego blocks are shiny. Look how very many of them you have managed to fit inside of Fido. What an energetic boy!” [Heh…….nailed certain Daneels and Mahony types]

I am sick at heart, like millions of Catholics, to hear shepherds of our Church fall over themselves to sound like liberal Episcopalians. [Yes!] We know from recent history precisely where this leads: To gapingly empty churches, ecumenical services with Islamists — and gatherings like the Anglican synod some years ago, where an openly gay bishop squirmed in his shoes, as an old-fashioned Christian prelate from Africa accosted him and prayed over him to drive out the “demon of sodomy.”……[I’d like to see Cardinal Burke whip out a pre-conciliar Exorcism on Kasper and many others]

There is so much wrong with the statements that came from the highly educated, privileged leaders of the universal Church that it would take a book to explain it — in fact, a series of books, which will surely appear in the next 12 months from outraged, desperate Catholics. They will rightly be trying to shoot down this reckless progressive trial balloon. But it’s too late. The damage is done. 

The media are completely justified in posing the kind of question that would have made people burst out laughing 40 years ago: “What will the Catholic Church teach next year about extramarital sex?” [Yes, this is the key.  Even if every single crazed synodal proposal is shot down, a huge precedent has been set.  The Catholic Church, at its highest levels, debated whether sodomites should receive the Blessed Sacrament, whether adulterers and fornicators should not have the very same dignity as those who remained faithfully married for 60 years.  Look, the 2014 Synod brought heretofore unmentionable topics to public scrutiny. 2015, even if the Synod rejects these proposals, has seen much more coverage and many more now inculcated with the idea that the Church just might – perhaps not this year, but soon – “change” its Doctrine on marriage etc. That in and of itself is an incredible breakthrough for the radicals – but one that could, conceivably, be reversed by a future orthodox pontiff.  But even if Pope Francis does not act on his threat to devolve doctrine (perhaps a last-ditch gambit to sway the working groups?), enormous damage has already been done.]

……You would think that the clerics might….insist that marriage is the basic building block of society and the safest refuge of helpless children. Instead they are treating marriage as some utopian ideal, which it’s foolish to think that everyone can attain — so we must learn to love, value, and learn from the grotesque failures which we sinners, in our weakness, accept instead: shacking up, second unions unblessed by God, and even homosexual partnerships, whose central activity used to be called a “sin that cries out to heaven.” [That’s the other thing that really torques me off.  These prelates decry the present day culture when they try to argue that being chaste is just too hard nowadays.  Oh, it’s this terrible rotten culture, they say.  But who makes culture?  Culture doesn’t just fall from the sky, it’s made by people.  And the culture has very visibly declined at an accelerating pace since Catholic bishops and priests decided it would be a lot easier, for them, to not teach doctrine anymore.  And so modernist bishops are being quite hypocritical decrying a cultural situation they have done all in their power to create, just so the culture would conform more to their political (and likely, sexual) orientation, and the mean ‘ol nasty Church of the past could be turned into a lavendar-mafia run pink palace.  You would think they might contemplate where Dante assigns the hypocrites in hell]

Oh well, times change — why shouldn’t eternity? As progressive humankind charges forward like a pack of rogue elephants, we will leave it to God and His Church to follow with brooms and shovels.

The men who are leading the Synod……

…. like the Pharisees, they already have their reward — their attaboys from the New York Times and their Methodist and Unitarian golfing pals.  The Synod leaders have neutralized the nastiest attacks from homosexual activists, and bought peace with the secular state for the next ten years or so. Like Henry VIII’s compliant bishops, they will be “safe.” For a decade at least, they will keep the hundreds of millions of dollars gathered in Germany from the “church tax,” and in the U.S. from federal contracts to agencies that are Catholic in name only, such as Catholic Charities and diocesan immigrant offices. Bishops will get to pretend that they preside over powerful, consequential institutions, and the world will pretend to believe them. For now. Until the hatred of Christianity ratchets up another notch, and demands an even more craven surrender. [Look to the Anglican church to see how that plays out. Some of the prettiest museums and coffee shops I found in posh west London were former Anglican churches.  I think you and I would be shocked how much prurient interests like those described above motivate a good portion of clergy and the episcopate]

Bishops who are so inclined — including the Bishop of Rome — can continue to garner headlines for their attacks on a mythical “unregulated capitalism,” their demands for radical redistribution of the wealth and the dismantling of borders. They can praise the mass influx of Muslims into Europe, and cash a check every time an illegal immigrant arrives in America. As men without children, they don’t need to worry about their descendants. They are confident of eternity, since they don’t believe in hell………. [And since they apparently don’t care a whit for the institution they have been given the amazing grace of holding charge over, why not just cave on Doctrine so you can live it up?  In actuality, while I am still very far from edified by episcopal leadership overall, I do see in the rejection of 3/4 of synod bishops of the anti-Catholic proposals of the modernist cabal something hopeful, or potentially so……I did not think it would happen. These men really have every reason to cave, including enormous pressure from above, and yet, they apparently have not.  Answered prayers?  I hope.]

[After a bit of discussion on how the Church, by pointing to the Orthodox as leaders in moral doctrine, will surrender all moral authority to the Orthodox position.  It’s really very interesting, go read it.……..And on marriage, the Orthodox are wrong. But Rome has no such wiggle room. The claims of the papacy are brave, expansive — and empirically falsifiable. If Rome adopts the Orthodox practice of marriage, that will falsify them……

If this happens, it would not prove that Luther or Calvin were right. Instead it would show that papal claims are false, that God has not left the Church with a central authority for the interpretation of doctrine, and that the Orthodox model is the only viable choice for sacramental Christians……..[Well, I think there would be enormous repercussions the ramifications of which are really impossible for us to discern at this time.  From a contradiction of solemn dogma and the repudiation of the infallibility of Peter literally a million flowers may bloom, all of them noxious and poisonous.  It would wound the Church in ways that are unforeseeable, but universally bad.

……. If Pope Francis demolishes marriage, he destroys the throne that he sits on. Future popes might claim to be the “Vicar of Christ.” But then, Queen Elizabeth claims to be the “Defender of the Faith.” We all know how much that means.

Exactly. But I fear, that is the very point.  Look, this is a man who makes no bones of his enormous admiration for protestantism, especially the American, evangelical variety.  He seems to be very comfortable with the kind of doctrinal chaos that invariably inhabits these false, man-made sects, and seems to even prefer that chaos to the kind of clarity the Church has always provided. I won’t hazard a guess as to why that is, I think a discerning soul can make that out for themselves.  The kind of doctrinal devolution to very fallible, very novel episcopal conferences (and there’s the Orthodox model again) seems modeled on these haphazard sects, where anyone can find what he wants but not necessarily what he needs.

The anonymous critic at the Synod is right, and Zmirak makes it clear: by devolving doctrine and promoting chaos, Pope Francis is basically attempting to obliterate the entire Magisterium from Pope St. Gregory the Great onwards.  That doing so would irreversibly smash the Church’s moral authority appears to matter not a whit.  Of course, extreme modernists have advocated a return to the “pure” earliest Church, primarily because they feel that early Church was sufficiently doctrinally unclear to allow all their progressive pet projects to be adopted.  But less ideologically warped minds know that would only result in a Church torn asunder from herself, and left totally unmoored from those two pillars of St. John Bosco’s dream.  It would be the end of the Church as she has been known since her inception.

There is a word from Scripture for the man who would so wound the Church.  That word has been much on my mind of late.

Pope Francis has a treatable brain tumor? Vatican furiously denies. October 21, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, foolishness, Four Last Things, General Catholic, Papa, Revolution, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

As Rorate noted on Twitter, how sad that after years of press manipulation and frequent double-dealing with the faithful, many now seriously doubt the Vatican’s denials.

Italian media is reporting Pope Francis has a treatable brain tumor.  The Vatican is denying this claim in the strongest terms, but the media are standing by their claims.  Normally I wouldn’t cover such a one off rumor, but given the enormous ramifications if true I thought I’d mention it. One can easily discern huge implications for the Synod and much else besides if there is even fair reason to expect that Pope Francis may be debilitated in any way.  If his pontificate were likely to be either severely inhibited or forecast to come to an end within a year or two, that could change the calculus of many a politically-focused but doctrinally indifferent bishop.  Coupled with claims that were a conclave held today, Pope Francis wouldn’t get 10 votes, and even more, that ostensibly 75% of Synod fathers are strongly opposed to the radical departures from Doctrine of the “Kasperite” (should it be Franciscan?) set, it could mean that most bishops would just choose to ride this pontificate out in the expectation that won’t be more than a handful of years.

It’s all just speculation, of course, but something to keep in mind, nonetheless:

The Vatican on Wednesday dismissed an Italian media report that Pope Francis has a treatable brain tumour as “unfounded and seriously irresponsible.”

Quotidiano Nazionale (QN), the newspaper which made the claim, said it stood by its story that a “small dark spot” had been detected on the 78-year-old pontiff’s brain earlier this year.

The paper said it was discovered by Japanese physician Takanori Fukushima during an examination at the San Rossore di Barbaricina clinic near Pisa in central Italy.

The professor reportedly concluded that the tumour was treatable and that no surgery was required.

“The publication of completely unfounded reports on the health of the holy father by an Italian newspaper is seriously irresponsible and not worthy of attention,” Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said in a statement.

“As everyone can see, the pope continues to engage in his intense activity without any interruption and in absolutely normal fashion.”

Andrea Cangini, the director of Quotidiano, said he had expected the Vatican’s statement.

“This denial is understandable and expected,” he said. “We waited a long time before publishing the report in order to carry out every possible check. We don’t have the slightest doubt that it is founded.”

Am I remembering right, that the Vatican downplayed Pope JPII’s very visible physical degeneration, as well?

So, will you be praying intensely for the health of Pope Francis?