jump to navigation

Russian pilot killed over Syria wearing a scapular December 2, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Christendom, disaster, Ecumenism, General Catholic, Holy suffering, persecution, Society, Tradition.
comments closed

I haven’t posted much on the deliberate provocation by Turkey in shooting down a Russian Su-24M ground attack plane (very similar in most respects to the American F-111, though much less sophisticated and shorter-ranged) last month.  This act – which almost certainly occurred over Syrian airspace after the jet had briefly transited a small extension of Turkey – was the culmination of a series of provocations on both sides of the conflict.  Russian and Syrian jets have been locking their fire control radars onto Turkish fighter jets. The Turks for their part have been very aggressive in their air defense patrols and seemed to be spoiling for a fight.  They have also violated Syrian airspace on a number of occasions, which resulted in the shoot down of a Phantom in 2012.

More broadly speaking, Turkey has been deeply involved in the Syrian revolt/civil war from its inception.  They continue to arm and aid various guerrilla factions, the “secular” insurgency has always had a strong base in the north which receives Turkish supplies, and it has been revealed that Turkey is heavily involved in –  and greatly profiting from – the illicit sale of ISIS oil extracted from Iraqi and Syrian wells.  They have all but declared themselves active combatants.  It will be interesting – and possibly quite alarming – to see how this tete a tete develops.

There’s been a lot of coverage regarding this downing, in which at least one pilot was killed while parachuting to the ground, or shortly thereafter.  I found this post by Pertinacious Papist interesting, showing some of the effects collected from one of the dead Russians (others died in a combat search and rescue attempt):

15_11_26_pilot_icon1

I know that even today, in spite of increasing bias and even outright persecution of their beliefs (and concomitant indoctrination in all manner of progressive shibboleths), there remains a large number of solid Christian souls in the military.  But I also know it has been specific DoD policy at times, especially among aircrew, to keep personal identifying characteristics to an absolute minimum on combat missions. For instance, name tags, national insignia and unit patches are not worn by combat crews on many missions – you can find numerous pics to attest to this fact. The policy is not universal, you can find pics of those in Afghanistan specifically that do wear patches and name badges.

I wonder whether this prohibition applies to religious items, as well, like wearing a crucifix or scapular when flying missions in the Mideast?   USAF in particular has been hyper-anal about not “giving offense” to muslim host countries by banning numerous things permitted in the US – for one thing, alcohol on base, outward display of non-muslim religious symbols, etc.  Women are expected to wear the hijab when off base in many countries.

All this causes me to tentatively conclude that it is more probable in this age that a Russian fighter pilot would be wearing a scapular over Syria or the Mideast than an American one.  Sheesh.

At some point, the West is going to figure out they’re involved in a religious war.  The only question is whether we figure that out before it’s too late.

The many errors of Bishop Robert Barron December 2, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Another very good post from Unam Sanctam Catholicam.  I saw he was appointed an auxiliary in Los Angeles some time back and meant to do a post, but got distracted and forgot about it.  My friend SB reminded me at lunch today, and mentioned Boniface’s post.  Good Joseph-Brennan-Jose-Gomez-Robert-Barron-David-OConnell-Pstuff.  The fundamental problem with Barron is his Baltasarian outlook, which I have long believed is far more egregious than many recognize.   One is rarely a heretic – or gravely problematic – in just one area.  Usually, errors in one area flow from, and into, many others, poisoning whole swaths of belief.  Boniface explores von Baltasar’s highly erroneous Christology, and how Barron clearly shares it (my emphasis and comments):

There are many things Bishop Robert Barron can be criticized for. I have raised concerns before about his promotion of Hans Urs Von Balthasar’s theory that hell might be empty. But I honestly had no idea until recently what a thorough-going Balthasarian Bishop Barron actually is. He not only promotes the empty hell thesis, but has also adopted Von Balthasar’s extremely unorthodox Christology.

For years we have attempted to demonstrate that Hans Urs Von Balthasar is not an orthodox theologian, not only due to his controversial theory of a potentially empty hell, but just in terms of his basic Christology. Catholics need to understand that it is not just one theory that makes Balthasar questionable, but a whole slew of bizarre novelties. We recommend reviewing our previous articles “Balthasar’s Denial of the Beatific Vision in Christ” and “Balthasar and the ‘Faith’ of Christ” on the Unam Sanctam Catholicam website,  which both deal with Balthsar’s unorthodox Christology, as well as “The Heresies of Balthasar” on this blog, which reveals Balthasar’s absurd position that sin has its own ontological reality.

One staple of Balthasarian Christology is his teaching that Christ only gradually came to understand His messianic identity, and that this did not happen by any infused knowledge by virtue of the Incarnation (Balthasar strongly rejected the idea that Christ had any knowledge given directly from God about His mission). Instead, Christ had to “learn” that He was the Messiah, basically through regular human intuition. It kind of slowly dawned on his consciousness as He grew. [So he’s a Nestorian, at least, if not an Arian.  If Christ did not have infused knowledge of His mission and sharing knowledge that He was God throughout His life, then Christ could not be of the same substance with God and could not share His Will.  It is impossible to share substance and will while cut off from knowledge and ability to actualize the Divine Being.]

The Catholic Tradition is that Christ had infused knowledge of His own identity and mission. The 1913 Catholic kk201509221754-630x330Encyclopedia sums up this teaching when it states that “the knowledge in Christ’s Divine nature is co-extensive with God’s Omniscience” and that “since the time of the Nestorian controversies, Catholic tradition has been practically unanimous as to the doctrine concerning the knowledge of Christ” (source) [follows an explanatory quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia I omit for brevity] …….

……This is the view of traditional Christology. But Bishop Barron chooses instead to promote the heretical novelty of Balthasar that Christ had to learn about His identity through a gradual enlightening of His consciousness. For example, in his Lenten Meditations, then-Father Barron offers this commentary on the Baptism of the Lord:

“Jesus has just been baptized. He has just learned his deepest identity and mission [sic] and now he confronts—as we all must—the great temptations. What does God want him to do? Who does God want him to be? How is he to live his life?”

Jesus has “just learned his deepest identity and mission” at His baptism, implying that He was in positive ignorance of his identity and mission before this moment? [This is very disturbing.  And yet this man is so influential, and held up as a conservative paragon!]

It gets worse. If anybody doubts what a devoted Balthasarian Bishop Barron is, you really need to read his book The Priority of Christ (with an introduction by Cardinal George). You will be astounded by the outpouring of novelty and just plain weirdness that comes out of Barron. In this passage, Barron is speaking about the Blessed Virgin:

“She is this the symbolic embodiment of faithful and patient Israel, longing for deliverance. In John’s Gospel, she is, above all, mother – the physical mother of Jesus and, through him, the mother of all who would come to new life in him. As mother of the Lord, she is, once again, Israel, the entire series of events and system of ideas form which Jesus emerged and in terms of which he alone becomes intelligible. Hans Urs von Balthasar comments in the same vein that Mary effectively awakened the messianic consciousness of Jesus through her recounting of the story of Israel to her son. [sic] So in the Cana narrative, Mary will speak the pain and the hope of the chosen people, scattered and longing for union” (Robert Barrion, The Priority of Christ, p. 73).

 

Notice, he links up his own idea that through Mary Christ “becomes intelligible” with the Balthasarian heresy of Christ not knowing who He was until sometime later. Christ learns who He is by listening to stories about Israel! Barron does not dispute Balthasar – rather, he uses him to bolster his point.  [I’ve long held von Baltasar to be problematic tending towards seriously erroneous.  Now I feel little compunction identifying his beliefs as heretical.] 

Here is another gem that is key to understanding Barron’s position. Barron disagrees with the likes of the modernists Kung and Schillebeeckx on many things, yet he says this [all emphasis in original] :

“Like the ‘Jesus as symbol” approach, the ‘historical Jesus’ Christology is rooted in elements and intuitions of the classical tradition. Kung and Schillebeeckx are quite right in the insisting that Christianity must never devolve into a generic philosophy of life or symbolic system, that it must, on the contrary, maintain its clear and unambiguous connection to the very particular first-century Jew, Jesus of Nazareth, The Gospels, the Epistles of Paul, the first kerygmatic proclamations, the sermons of the earliest missionaries, the creeds and dogmatic statements of the patristic church all depend upon and circle around this Jesus. Therefore, in brushing away certain encrustations and obfuscations in the Christological tradition and focusing our attention on the irreplaceable character of Jesus, Kung and Schillebeeckx and their historical-critical colleagues have done the church a great service. Furthermore, in insisting that the high dogmatic claims of Christology should be consistently informed by a biblical sensibility, the historical critics have compelled Christology to abandon mere flights of speculation and to remain, thereby, truer to its proper origins and ground. The ‘Jesus of history’ can indeed function as a sort of check on unwarranted theological exploration” (p. 42).

 

“Kung and Schillebeeckx and their historical-critical colleagues have done the church a great service.” This phrase should send up red flags (Kung was stripped of his license to teach Catholic theology because of his heterodoxy and has also been praised by Freemasons for “lifetime service to the Craft“); also alarming is Barron’s promotion of “the ‘Jesus of history’ as a “sort of check” on certain aspects of Christology. But, what are these “encrustations and DIB_Alma&Barron_1442983433obfuscations” in the Christological tradition? Where is there a problem with “high Christological claims” today or in the 20th century? What exactly are these claims? He does not say, but if he is following the school of Balthasar, then he is probably referring to the Christological teachings of the 5th century during the Nestorian and Monophysite heresies, developments in theology which Balthasar (and by implication, Barron) implicitly reject. [And which would make both, at least, adherents to condemned heresies.]

There is a great deal more at the link, which I strongly recommend you read.  This includes a discussion of Barron’s apparent acceptance of destructively heterodox historical-critical method errors.

I’m very gratified Boniface has addressed this subject, because it touches on a much broader problem.  Virtually every priest formed outside the specifically traditional milieu has been exposed to dangerous modernist/progressive beliefs to one degree or another.  Even those men who were conservative before seminary and did their best to adhere to the Faith as they understood it have almost invariably picked up at least some erroneous beliefs along the way.  These range from out and out heresies to liturgical abuse to incorrect emphasis to simply absorbing the reigning liberal zeitgeist.

What this means is that virtually every non-traditional priest holds error to varying degree, sometimes innocently and unwittingly, oftentimes deliberately and maliciously (from the standpoint of the good of souls).  If these priests, through some process, come to study the pre-conciliar Faith and especially offer the TLM regularly, they can often overcome most of these errors, especially the most pernicious ones. But we know relatively few priests are inclined to do so.  And so the vast majority of priests, and thus bishops, can be expected to hold erroneous, even heretical beliefs.  Such is the cataclysmic state of the seminary system today – and deliberately so.

This is not to excuse Barron his error. I know there have been attempts at intervention/correction in all manner of fora, publicly and privately.  He simply isn’t interested in changing his beliefs at this point.  Which is also the disposition of the vast majority of other bishops.

That’s the nub of the crisis in the Church in a nutshell.  Outside priests drawn to tradition, almost all in the hierarchy have been formed to believe, and continue in that belief to this day, that Vatican II ushered in a new church radically different from the “old” one.  They have no problem at all holding beliefs that are directly counter to established orthodoxy, because, it’s a “new church.”  How many times have you been told by a priest “we don’t believe that anymore?”  If you’re like me, much more than once.  It’s one of the defining characteristics of the crisis and one that will have both the longest term consequences, and is the most difficult for lay people to overcome.

Bishops carrying the time bombs of VII

Bishops carrying the time bombs of VII

New book explores an islam-dominated West in 2048 December 2, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in demographics, Ecumenism, General Catholic, horror, Immigration, mortification, persecution, reading, sickness, Society, Tradition.
comments closed

A new book from Remnant Press called The Mosque of Notre Dame explores a future in which the West, or at least Europe, has been totally overrun by islam and exists under strict sharia conditions.  This book was actually written in Russian by a traditional Catholic nearly 10 years ago, but it has only recently been published in English.  Some description from the Remnant website:

The Mosque of Notre Dame reads not like fiction, but like something lifted from current news headlines. Set in 2048, it’s all about how Muslims from Arabia and middle Europe have taken over the governments of Western Europe and locked down those countries under Sharia Law.

How did this nightmare become the reality in the motherland of civilization? A lack of faith and lack of fight left the old lands of Christendom defenceless against massive, calculated immigration into a timid West that has grown too selfish to stand up for itself.

Sound familiar?

This is a resistance-movement thriller set in a Christophobic Sharia dystopia. It is at the same time an inspiring tale of physical and spiritual survival. The world turned its back on God, and so He allowed us to carry on without Him. The God-less have created their own chastisement, in other words, the chastisement that is life without God.

We’re very proud to work with author, Elena Chudinova—a Russian, Traditional Catholic from Moscow. Her book has enjoyed great success in the “front-line” nations where Islam and the West are colliding. Originally published in Russian in 2006, we’re so proud to announce the kick-off of the first American edition (published by Remnant Press).

I guess it’s islam day on the blog.  Sounds like a good book.  Shortly after 9/11, when the deliberate flooding of Europe with muslims by governmental policy was becoming quite apparent, a friend of mine from England lamented that she felt Mohammad would be preached from the pulpit of Oxford in her lifetime.  She’s probably not far from wrong.  And now we have the US government engaged in the same policy under Obama (and Bush), permitting/encouraging a very large influx of muslims into this country while quotas make it almost impossible for even highly trained, highly educated Canadians, Germans, Brits, French, etc., to immigrate here.  The USCCB is clamoring for the placement of more “Syrian refugees,” even though the vast majority are not Syrian and are not refugees from anything.  85-90% of this unprecedented immigration influx -an invasion to many minds – consists of unaccompanied males 18-35.

I’m all for letting in hundreds of thousands of Syrian and Iraqi CHRISTIAN refugees.  Lord knows we owe them something, having destroyed their culture and ancient communities through foolish, half-hearted invasions and idiotic dreams of democracy in populations probably the least disposed worldwide towards that form of government.

As for Europe, I think it’s already too late.  With the immigrants currently ensconced and the relative birth rates, many countries in Europe will be nearly half muslim by mid-century.  And this in countries that have almost totally and unilaterally disarmed over the past 30 years.  They have little army to speak of and their populations are almost totally disarmed (save for the radical muslim community, of course).  The stage is set for a horrific bloodbath.

 

The kind of holy bravery we are going to need in this increasingly Christ-hating world December 2, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Christendom, Ecumenism, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Holy suffering, horror, manhood, mortification, persecution, secularism, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare, Virtue.
comments closed

This video has been out for some time.  My wife found it early last week.  A solitary elderly Christian man faces down a very hostile crowd of muslim youths – all equipped with the latest Western technology their own culture could never produce, even while many/most hate and despise the West – at Hyde Park in London.  This is Europe in microcosm, elderly, few of faith, and a burgeoning horde of hostile, mocking muslim men:

“Allah is a dead god, not a living God.”  Good point, but I’d say, false god, a made-up god of Arian heresy and sicko Jewish zealotry.

The muslims chant allahu ackbar, the lone Christian the Holy Name.

The muslims intimidate and act boorishly, the Christian replies with utmost clarity but also charity.

The muslims mock and laugh, the Christian maintains his composure.

Language may be an issue, but there is not one single substantive attempt to rebut the Christian’s proclamation of the Truth.  There are only mindless chants, accusations of calling him a liar, and vain dismissal of him as “old generation English.”  Well, to my mind, the England of 1950 was a darned sight better than that of 2015.

I am very proud that the man had the wherewithal, the honesty, and yes the LOVE to tell a hostile crowd they were in grave danger of hellfire if they did not accept Jesus Christ.

And this is London?!?  I can say I saw a lot of muslims in London 9 years ago but it appears their numbers have exploded since.  And that was deliberate government policy, just as it is here.  It’s hardly even England anymore.

And why is that? It’s because there aren’t nearly enough men (and women) like the gentleman in the video who are willing to go out and risk mockery, hatred, and even physical injury to support and defend their faith and culture.  The same applies to the United States, as well, though not to quite the same degree, yet.

Armed group protesting outside DFW area mosques December 2, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, disconcerting, General Catholic, Immigration, Interior Life, manhood, persecution, pr stunts, Society, The End.
comments closed

Reader Camper sent me a link to the Breitbart article below that discusses a recently formed group that is staging armed open carry protests outside DFW area mosques.   Open carry by itself has long been extremely controversial, even among gun rights activists, but staging armed protests outside hostile religious institutions is really amping things up.  While I recognize the obvious provocative nature of these protests, and also prudential reasons to oppose them, given the way things seem to be coming apart in our nation, I am finding myself fairly sympathetic to this group and its aims.  What do you make of this?

The group that organized the armed protest at a mosque in Irving, Texas, in November looks to hold another protest. [Previous protest was on Nov. 21.  Wish I had known about it.  It would have been interesting to cover.]

This protest is scheduled for December 12 at a mosque in Richardson, Texas. [I know exactly where this is.  It’s very close to where I used to play hockey.  It’s a very large mosque.] The organization received criticism last week for reveling the names and addresses of Muslims and others who opposed the city of Irving’s support of a Texas legislature bill to ban Sharia law from Texas courts. [He also released the names of those who spoke in favor of the measure, and all names, for or against, were already on the City of Irving website, anyway.]

The Bureau of American-Islamic Relations (BAIR) announced the December 12 protest early Tuesday morning on its Facebook page. David Wright III founded the group and also posts about the Irving mosque on his Facebook page.

BAIR hosted a group of armed protesters who stood outside of the Irving mosque on November 21. Dozens of people openly carried rifles……. A few days after the meeting, Wright published the names and addresses of Muslims and supporters who spoke at a March 19 city council meeting in Irving.

In calling for the second protest in Richardson, BAIR posted, “We do not pick mosques at random.” The group claims the Richardson mosque has a “documented history” of taking in Syrian refugees and working with “terrorist front groups like CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations).” [Members of this mosque were convicted of having directed millions of dollars in local donations to Hamas.  Some of these same leaders of the now defunct Holy Land Foundation were also involved in CAIR.]

“They are Sunni Muslims that have taken over the entire neighborhood and even renamed streets after the Islamic culture,” Wright posted on the event page. “Do I need to say anymore?” [Not sure about the streets]

……..The Dallas region that includes Irving, Richardson, and Garland has become the epicenter of conflict between Muslims and other Americans. One incident has followed another in the region beginning with Breitbart Texas’ revelation of an “Islamic Tribunal” in Irving.

All true.  Irving is 15% muslim.  There are neighborhoods that are entirely, deliberately muslim. Some of these were sort of planned communities.

I think what is happening in the DFW area is this: you have a large muslim population in an area that still retains – more than most other parts of the country – a strong traditionally American and Christian identity.  You have people seeing their country irrevocably changed and becoming increasingly frustrated at that.  Folks are getting to the point of being willing to take stronger stands, even ones that may seem shocking to the soft coastal elites, like standing outside a mosque carrying loaded assault rifles.  I think it shows the increasing desperation many Americans feel as they see their country slipping away.

I am wondering if similar protests against other elements in our culture – left wing agitation, for instance – might not be an effective way of tamping down on the seeming runaway activism that is taking over more and more institutions and dominating the national discourse to a disturbing degree.  What if 50 armed men stood outside a hall where a raging feminist was to rant, or across the street from universities that have caved into extreme leftist agitation?

I know many people will never be comfortable with these kinds of displays.  They see a gun and immediately think there’s a madman on the loose, or they simply think there is too much risk involved in a group of armed men being involved in emotionally charged protest-type situations.  I can understand both points of view.  But I am afraid so long as our governing class continues to ignore the concerns of tens of millions of Americans regarding unconstrained immigration and other threats to this nation as it has always been constituted, I think the tendency toward extreme reaction is only going to grow.  You can’t marginalize natives of this country in favor of immigrants of highly dubious character forever without engendering some kind of very strong backlash, and I fear this may only be the beginning stages of it.