jump to navigation

Excommunication has been part of the Church since Christ walked the Earth December 15, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Christendom, error, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, history, manhood, reading, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Some handy history from James Monti’s Sense of the Sacred: Roman Catholic Worship in the Middle Ages.  Note that the dates given below for the documented dates for various Rites is just that, the dates that the earliest documentation exists, it is likely the actual Rite itself predates the documentary evidence from anywhere from decades to centuries. I present this because the conception of excommunication as an overly “harsh” penalty bereft of a modern sense of “mercy” is a totally false one.  Excommunication, as a formal act, dates from Apostolic times, and the grave necessity of formally separating from the Church those who espouse dangerous, soul-destroying concepts has always been recognized as particularly vital, at least until the last 50 years or so:

From the beginning of the Church has exercised the power of summoning to conversion those obstinately refusing to repent of their heresy or grave public sin by formally excluding them from the any participation in the life of the Church.  The power, known as excommunication, was instituted by Christ Himself when He said of those refusing to be corrected by the Church, “And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican” (Mt xviii:17).  Evidence of a particular rite of excommunication first appears in the sixth century; a decree of a synod at Tours, France, convened in 567 speaks of the recitation of Psalm 108 when excommunicating a malefactor. [Note this does not mean that excommunication did not exist before the 6th century – certainly, simply because documentation has not been found does not mean that the Rite did not exist well before this date, but even more, the author is referring to the existence of a formal Rite of Excommunication, not the action of excommunication itself, which we know dates to Christ Himself and the very earliest days of the Church] By the early eighth century, there had emerged a fully developed and dramatic ceremony for public excommunication, the words and actions of which were consciously calculated to bring the excommunicated individual to conversion by warning him of the path to destruction he had chosen.  The rubrics of Pope Blessed Gregory X’s ceremonial (1273), which describe the excommunication rite as a “maternal admonition and correction,” explain that these excommunications would be carried out particularly on Holy Thursday, Ascension Thursday, and the Feast of the dedication of Rome’s Church of the Twelve Apostles, in order that those excommunicated, “seeing themselves excluded from all the good things of such days, might more easily submit to the grace of reconciliation.”

The full rite, as given for the first time in the early eighth-century work De ecclesiasticus disciplinis, compiled by the abbot Regino of Prum (+915) begins with an introductory allocution, in which the bishop outlines the Church’s teachings about excommunication, drawn from the Scriptures.  The rite climaxes with the bishop’s pronunciation of the excommunication (We exclude him from the thresholds of Holy Mother Church in Heaven and on earth, and we determine him to be excommunicated and anathematized), which, however, is qualified by the all-important phrase “unless he should repent.”  The most dramatic action of the excommunication rite follows: “Twelve priests ought to stand around the bishop and hold burning candles in their hands, which at the conclusion of the anathema or excommunication they should cast down to the ground and trample with their feet.”  In the ceremonial of Blessed Pope Gregory X, this action is explained as symbolizing that the Grace of the Holy Ghost, represented by light, has been withdrawn from the excommunicated person.  The candle rite had probably arisen by the late ninth century, when an excommunication formula from the pontifical of Sens, France, concludes with the words: “Just as this light is extinguished in the eyes of men, so may their light be extinguished forever.” Pope Gregory’s ceremonial adds that at the end of the excommunication rite the church bells are rung discordantly, noting that insofar as by the orderly ringing  of bells the faithful are gathered, by the discordant ringing the unfaithful are scattered, a contrast clearly inspired by the Words of Christ, “He that gathereth not with me, scattereth” (Mt xii:30).

————End Quote————

The above may be a bit deep into inside baseball to appeal to many readers, but I hope some will appreciate it.  The key thing I have taken away from Sense of the Sacred is the antiquity of so many aspects of Catholic faith and worship: things like the Low Mass dating from the 5th century (in essence), kneeling for Communion since apostolic times, even auricular Confession dating much earlier than I had previously read (and not coming from Ireland, but being a practice of the mainstream ancient Church from the 3rd century or earlier).  It’s not a polemical book, it simply delves into the history of Catholic worship in an academic and even-handed way.  It’s a solid resource, really more a textbook than a book intended for mass audiences (pun intended).

Anyway, hopefully someone will appreciate knowledge of the Rite of Excommunication.  And how accurately did the filmmakers portray the Rite in Becket, save for the ridiculously small bishop’s miter?!?  They nailed it:

Stunning scandal unfolding in NY – sodomite drug addled S&M priest embezzlement and coverup December 15, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, damnable blasphemy, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, paganism, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

Lots in that lede, sorry – it seems there are very detailed reports, dating back over 10 years, that a certain Father, or is that “Father,” Miqueli of St. Frances de Chantal parish in the Bronx has been embezzling parish funds for years to engage in drug-fueled sodomite sadomasochistic romps with a male prostitute.  There are all kinds of details emerging now, including that this Fr. Miqueli reputedly stole nearly $1 million from two parishes to pay for his sick passions, that the Archdiocese of NYC has known about his activities for years, and that this priest apparently felt invulnerable to discipline for his alleged criminal behavior because he was protected as a member of the archdiocesan sodomite lobby.

Some highly detailed links below (all to Church Militant, save the one above).  Be warned, the content discussed is very explicit and will likely be upsetting to a number of readers.  First, Vox’s commentary on the matter (same warning applies to this!):

Cardinal Dolan, you deserve wherever this leads and may it lead to your downfall and a cleansing.

How dare you, after all that has gone on with homosexuals in the priesthood raping and sodomising young boys and men, yes, HOMOSEXUALS DID IT, — how dare ignore the faithful and allow this filthy pervert who paid to have someone urinate in his mouth, offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

What sacrilege.

What filth. Trading the Precious Blood for urine! Did you felch him too? [I’m sure it was the other way around.  Miqueli sounds like a raging bottom – which fact that I know that term is such a dark commentary on our society]

And a thief on top of all the perversion.

I truly hope this brings you down and all those sodomites with you.


SODOMITE SADOMASOCHIST THIEF PRIEST RESIGNS[Yes, he resigned Saturday.  It appears a public lawsuit is capable of penetrating even the strongest of sodomite clergy strangleholds on a diocese (NY being one of the places most thoroughly dominated by the lavender mafia]


I’ll just add that I’ve read the three reports above and it appears there is COPIOUS evidence supporting these allegations.  That is, they look less like allegations that certifiable proof that have been covered up for years.  Recall my mention last week that radical immorality in the priesthood was still a going thing.  It most certainly is.

Which brings me to the next post I’m stealing linking from Vox (I have to do it at least once a week!), faithful, even traditional Catholic journalist George Neumayr has some explosive allegations regarding Cardinal Wuerl, claiming he has taken millions of dollars of lay faithful donations to live in a rich penthouse with (what one must presume are sodo-lover) priests.  As a result, he got tossed from a recent public event involving Cardinal Wuerl:

Why would Cardinal Wuerl have a member of the press removed from Church property by the police during a book signing? Because I have been investigating Wuerl’s corrupt use of the faithful’s money. He has been furtively using donations to finance a multimillionaire penthouse on Embassy Row. His press secretary has denied every one of my requests for an interview and so I have sought to interview Wuerl and priests with whom he has lived at the penthouse by typical journalistic means. Outrageously, Wuerl has used my mere reporting as a pretext to call the police on me. This is the “transparent,” “accessible,” and “accountable” Church of Pope Francis? May God help us all. [Leftists always project. Leftists always lie.  If they call for mercy, get ready for some sweet, sweet repression]

In all of my years of reporting, I have never seen a churchman as deviously insular and elitist as Wuerl. On the hard-earned donations of the faithful, he has lived like a Borgia-era cardinal, indulging his affluent tastes while eschewing his flock and ignoring or abusing his priests.

The “gay” mafia didn’t accidentally happen.  It was created by men given over to perversion.  Men like Bishop Lynch and Cardinals Bernadin and McCarrick and quite possibly Wuerl.  Too bad the evil these men do only seems to come to light after they retire or as their careers wind down, after the damage they have wrought is more or less complete.

I’ll tell  you how I feel about Wuerl:

He has a very complete Madonna collection, IYKWIMAITYD.  Also, Cher, Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, Dead or Alive, you get my meaning.

As Jesus humbled Himself in becoming man, so we must humble ourselves December 15, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, Liturgical Year, sanctity, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

From Dom Prosper Gueranger’s The Liturgical Year (Vol. ii), a brief but, to me, powerful exegesis on the seemingly contradictory nature of the Christian life: in order to be exalted, we must humble ourselves, just as Our Blessed Lord did:

During Christmas, our meditation should turn principally upon the Birth of Jesus Christ in our souls.  At this period of the Liturgical Year, we must return to the very basis of our spiritual life, and  yield, with childlike docility, to the inspirations of the Holy Ghost.

The object of our contemplation, as well as the source of our confidence, is Jesus, the Incarnate Word, swathed in the bands of infancy, laid in His crib, presented in the Temple, and fleeing into Egypt.  His love for us has induced Him to subject Himself to these weaknesses of childhood, in order that even we may imitate our God!  St. Luke tells us that His Blessed Mother kept all these mysteries in her heart, and pondered them (Lk i:19,51).

Let us follow her sweet example, and feed our souls with the heavenly manna.  Let the rays of this hidden but penetrating Light illumine us.  If we would follow Jesus to Thabor, let us begin to follow Him in the way He now shows us – of a child’s simplicity and humility.  The higher the architect wishes to carry up the building, the deeper does he sink the foundations.  Jesus humbles Himself so profoundly, because the work He has undertaken is to go up even to the highest heavens.  As His members, we must go with Him; we must bear Him company, now in His humble crib, and later on His Cross, if we would be associated with Him when the day of His triumph comes, and He is seated at the right hand of His Father.  

———–End Quote———-

Lucky you, an unusually short and to the point post from me.  But I found the imagery of the unfathomably humbling descent  of the Second Person of the Trinity in becoming man, this crude meat, for us, suffering like us, and ultimately dying the most impossibly unjust death for us very powerful.  We must mirror that descent into humility to the extent our fallen natures, and the Grace of God, permit.  Not that I am a paramour in that regard, at all.  Humility is one of my weakest virtues.

Pray for me!

The pre- and post-VII approaches to Judaism cannot be reconciled December 15, 2015

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

Just a bit of evidence from the Haydock Study Bible from the Book of Zacharias, chapter XIII that the post-conciliar modernist/indifferentist reproachement with Jews is impossible to reconcile with the constant belief and practice of the Faith.  There was disturbing news last week when Cardinal Kurt Koch, a severe modernist, announced that the Church was formally rejecting any missionary outreach to Jews, because they still have a valid covenant something something blah blah even though Christ Himself said that without faith in Him as the Messiah of all humanity one could not be saved (yes yes, this is not the post to discuss the finer points of that Doctrine).  The prophecies from Zacharias point directly at Jesus Christ, and indicate that false prophets and adherents to false religions shall be destroyed:

And there shall be in all the earth, saith the Lord, two parts in it shall be scattered, and shall perish: but the third part shall be left therein.

And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined: and I will try them as gold is tried. They shall call on my name, and I will hear them. I will say: Thou art my people: and they shall say: The Lord is my God.

What I found even more interesting, however, was the commentary provided by Fr. George Leo Haydock on this important bit of Scripture:

The greatest part of mankind will be lost. (Haydock) — The few Jews who embrace the faith will be absorbed in the Gentile converts, and suffered to live, though proved by persecutions, while the rest shall be exterminated. Both shall lose their name, and be styled Christians.

Those who adhere to Judaism, or to paganism, cannot be saved. This is the privilege only of Christian Catholics, who live piously, and are selected by God’s grace.

Now certainly, this is no dogmatic statement.  It’s the opinion of several Catholic Scripture scholars quoted.  But it reveals the enormous dichotomy in practical belief that separates the pre- and post-conciliar Church.  The Haydock commentary was compiled between roughly 1780 and 1810.  The view presented in this commentary on Zachariais xiii:8 was solid, middle of the road orthodoxy at that time.

And this view continued to be solid, unquestioned orthodoxy until the latter half of the 20th century, specifically, until the “fruit” of Vatican II.  Now we have heads of major Vatican dicasteries proclaiming that not only can Jews be saved even given their explicit rejection of Jesus Christ (and for many modern day Jews, this rejection is a fundamental part of their identity), but they are in such an assured position for salvation that the Church should absolutely refuse  to permit any efforts to convert Jews to faith in Jesus Christ!  To justify this belief, these modern-day leaders point to the disastrous declaration Nostra Aetate, and not without some justification, for that declaration does seem to set Jews apart in their own special, continuing covenant with God, no matter how much this declaration is at odds with Scripture and Tradition.

It’s just another small example of the numerous aspects of Vatican II that simply cannot be reconciled with the constant belief and practice of the Faith, even to the level of contradicting solemnly defined Dogma.  I’m sorry, but these two approaches cannot, in any sane sense, be reconciled and explained away. There is no way to reconcile “Jews cannot not, in a general, objective sense, be saved” with Cardinal Koch’s command forbidding efforts to convert Jews because “Nostra Aetate….professes…..[that] a replacement or supersession theology which sets against one another two separate entities, a Church of the Gentiles and the rejected Synagogue whose place it takes, is deprived of its foundations.”

These things simply cannot coexist.  They cannot be reconciled.  This is a radical repudiation of the constant belief and practice of the Church.  It is, an awful novelty and an even larger error, and it is grounded in an indifferentism that is concerned far more with not offending Jewish wealth and temporal power than it is seeing souls saved for all eternity.  But it’s also part and parcel of the kind of worldly, materialist, indifferentist mentality that has dominated in the Church these past several decades.

Many post-conciliar “Catholics” would rather be Episcopal or Methodist than accept the true Faith December 15, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, persecution, priests, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
comments closed

Reader MFG sent me a link to an article at the Distorter regarding a parish in western North Carolina that has had a young, orthodox priest assigned for the past year or so.  Many of the older parishioners, used to running the parish on their own and dictating the major terms of parish operations to the “sacramental administrator” (priest), have opted to leave the Faith entirely for episcopalian or methodist churches in the area rather than submit to an orthodox understanding of the Faith.  This is a perfect microcosm of the calamity that has afflicted the Church in the past 50 years, and the invincible ignorance of those who decided long ago they’d rather be protestant than Catholic.  In truth, this tendency afflicts a huge proportion of Catholics, particularly older ones, and the longer they are ensconced in their liberal, protestantized church of man, the less likely they are to ever accept an orthodox understanding of the Faith.

I normally don’t like to link to the Distorter since it is such a fount of heresy, but in this case I will – no, I won’t, I changed my mind, I don’t want those folks coming here (my emphasis and comments):

A total of 143 parishioners from St. John the Evangelist Church in Waynesville, in a parish of roughly 300 families, have petitioned Bishop Peter Jugis of the Charlotte diocese to remove their pastor, Fr. Christopher Riehl, who came to the church just a little over a year ago. [IOW, WAAAAH!  And how dismissive were these same progressives over the decades they had control when it was orthodox Catholics who raised concerns or expressed displeasure with the liberalism they were confronted with?]

Parishioners who value what they say was the post-Vatican II style of their parish have locked horns with Riehl, who came to Waynesville from the Knoxville, Tenn., diocese in July 2014 intent with what his critics describe as “restorationist” approaches to liturgy and church governance[That’s extremely revealing, and not the kind of term your average spare to fair liberal Catholic uses.  This group has a ringleader, an ideologically motivated one, I would suspect.  I am informed Fr. Riehl had implemented a weekday TLM, which probably fired much of the angst against him]

In their petition, dated March 9, signees say that Riehl has moved ahead on rectory repairs and other expensive projects over the objection of the parish finance committee; [more on this] has taken over the parish’s Rite of Christian Initiation for Catholic converts with a pastor-centric approach which is at odds with the recommendations of the U.S. bishops; and has “openly defamed the Second Vatican Council” while substituting popular hymns with Gregorian chant. Most of the choir resigned en masse after the former director was relieved of her duties. [Well boo freaking hoo.  Let me describe this parish for you, prior to Fr. Riehl’s arrival. See bottom] 

In interviews with NCR, parishioners say their pastor has been aloof and removed from the concerns of grieving families at funerals. [Translation: he refuses to perform instant canonizations at the funeral, so the family who hasn’t darkened the door of a parish in years can pretend the departed is in Heaven and thus extricated from their responsibility to pray for the repose of the departed’s soul] Attendees at one local civic leader’s funeral, which included a large number of non-Catholics, were told in the pastor’s homily about church teaching on purgatory and little or nothing about the life of the deceased.……[Ummm, that’s because eulogies are forbidden by rubric from Requiem Masses.  You can really see how these people adhere to a completely foreign, even hostile, religion]

[NOW FOR THE CLINCHER]……..The parish is divided between a group which continues to attend St. John the Evangelist and supports Riehl, and others who have either left the parish for the town’s Episcopal and Methodist congregations or no longer attend Christian worship[Once again, we see that the post-conciliar ethos represents a different religion, one very much like liberal protestant sects.]

[Now for an alternative point of view]……..Parishioner Mark Zaffrann acknowledged that church attendance is down, but attributed that to what he said was discord sowed by the dissident group. The leadership of that group had “unbridled control of the various ministries” in the parish and resented Riehl’s new approach. [Very, very typical in my experience. One very solid priest I know, when assigned to a particular rural parish, and having been briefed on the out of control problems there (nepotism, finance, heresy, abuse, etc), called in all lay heads of ministries and Ms. So and So who ran the parish books, etc., on the first day there and said  you’re all fired.  And he really meant it.  They lost their minds, but he’s still there.] He said the old finance council in the parish presented Riehl with an overly-optimistic view of the church’s finances, which was disputed by a diocesan-sponsored audit requested by the new pastor. As for the rectory repairs, Zaffrann, a local realtor, said the structure was uninhabitable and desperately needed renovations.

Liturgically, the parish has improved, Zaffrann told NCR. “My impression is that the Mass is better,” he said. “It’s very humble, reverent and solemn. It brings respect to the Eucharist.” [Once again, we get to the nub of the problem]

No, I’ve never been to this particular parish, but I’ve seen the exact same scenario play out in numerous small town parishes around the Hill Country in the past 10 years.  Elderly and none too generous Katholycs have had a string of mission priests or non-entities assigned for years.  They have grown very accustomed to running things themselves and just the way they like.  They have grown very accustomed to having the priest rubber stamp all their decisions.  They have even used threats and coercion to get their way at times. Attendance never fell precipitously, but over the period of their administration constantly decreased as young people fled to protestant sects, cowboy churches, etc for some kind of spiritual sustenance, rather than the cold dead post-conciliar gruel they were fed at the Catholic parish. The bishop, either sensing that this parish was on its way to extinction or simply by accident, assigns a young, vibrant priest with a vision.  From the get go, he is coldly received by the entrenched lay people quite grown used to treating the local parish as their personal ideological and financial playground*.

The older parishioners are soon talking together.  They don’t like this young priest and his ideas.  They probably have one or two leaders versed in the post-conciliar zeitgeist who get them using buzz words like traditionalist or restorationist.  They will say he is not pastoral.  They will hyper-analyze and criticize every decision the priest takes.  They will spread ill-will and questioning of the priest’s judgment throughout the parish.  They will spend many hours not working with the priest, not trying to learn their faith (they are already invincibly well formed in the Faith, practical septuagenarian Bellarmines), but organizing to undermine him and have him replaced.  They will accrue a very long laundry list of ostensible complaints, most of which are trifling or which are based on personal grievance for no longer being the person in charge.  This in spite of the fact that the priest is probably, in most cases, doing an excellent job of restoring the parish and securing its future vibrancy.  But they don’t really care about that.   If they are in an Archdiocese with a weak archbishop or one with liberal tendencies – you might think San Antonio, I couldn’t possibly comment – they will likely succeed in having the priest removed, even if that breaks the hearts of many young people who had come back to the Church under the new young priest’s administration.  And then even more will depart for the appearance of greener pastures elsewhere, and sometimes within 5 or 10 or 15 years the parish is closed entirely since the elderly crowd has died off and there are very few to replace them.

Oh yes, I’ve seen this happen before more than once.  The priest is opposed not for what he does, but for who he is.  Only in rare cases is he charismatic enough, and/or finds a large enough cohort desirous of orthodoxy, that he succeeds (you might think of Bandera, TX, or even of a parish in this Diocese. I couldn’t possibly comment).  So far, Bishop Jugis of Charlotte, who has given many signs of orthodoxy, has backed Fr. Riehl.  I pray he may continue to do so.

*- assigning themselves or family members numerous paid jobs at the parish, controlling parish finances, using as contractors for parish services people close to them (or they themselves), etc.