jump to navigation

Quick hits: Verrecchio vid pulled, Austrian bishop blasphemes, Graham diagnoses crisis January 14, 2016

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

A few quick hit items as I’m about out of time:

Someone at the Vatican complained over Louie Verricchio’s video parody of Pope Francis’ parody of a Catholic Pope in his January prayer intentions.  They claim it violated copyright. So, Vimeo pulled the video.  But guess what, Vatican, the internet is forever and once something is uploaded others can copy it and you can never get rid of it.  Perhaps you are concerned that Louie’s fisk of this atrocious indifferentist video was just a little bit too effective?  At any rate, the video is also on Youtube and I highly recommend those with accounts to make copies for themselves.

Oh, and BTW, Eponymous Flower has the goods on the priest who appeared in that prayer intention video.  His presence was not accidental, he is a longtime collaborator of Bergoglio, used to be his spokesman, and is, surprise!, what  you might call an ecumaniac himself. Go figure.

Next, Eponymous Flower also quotes an Austrian bishop blaspheming, saying it took even God Incarnate some time to reach the same advanced level of diversity that the bishop obviously assigns to himself.  Can you say making god in your own image?  Must be so very convenient!

As Kathpress, the news agency of the Austrian Bishops’ Conference and the website of the Diocese of Gurk-Klagenfurt reported, Bishop Alois Schwarz addressed some 300 people with: “Even Jesus struggled at first  learning diversity.”
Jesus supposedly was obliged  “to learn” what “was beyond the borders of the chosen people of Israel,  ‘to open up to and acknowledge strangers for their approach to salvation,” said the bishop. “God strengthened in fact, ‘abided diversity,'” quoted Kathpress. Bishop Schwarz  described a “learning process” of Jesus. Jesus is supposed to have […] “learned, ‘to be available to everyone’ and to allow diversity’,  said  Schwarz..”

Note that: he had to learn other’s approach to salvation, because His wasn’t all that great and needed a bit of a tuneup.  You cannot make this stuff up.  These guys are so overconfident now that they have their man in office they are really showing what they are: bonehead modernists with hardly a shred of faith or even common sense.  Remember, modernists believe that WE actually “create” God by our “longing” for Him and our own collective sense of the supernatural, so to someone who believes such rubbish, ascribing ignorance and a need to learn to the omnipotent, omniscient Creator is no big thing.

Finally, evangelical protestant Franklin Graham gets it better than most Catholics.  Our country’s primary crisis is not economic or even political, but spiritual/moral:

In anticipation of President Barack Obama’s last State of the Union Address on Tuesday night, Rev. Franklin Graham said he could already reveal the condition of our nation – it is broken, morally, spiritually, politically, and racially.

However, it must be said that protestantism formed the bedrock for the creation of this nation on erroneous grounds (separation of church and state, informing an agnostic view of governance, refusal to seat Christ as the ultimate ruler and guide for this nation) and for the many moral and economic disorders afflicting the world over the past several centuries.  Protestant denial of authority and embrace of nascent moral relativism (tolerating divorce, for instance, from the start) paved the way for exactly where we are today, and will always have to answer before God for the shattering of Christendom.

But even a stopped clock, and all that.  Sad to say, there are a lot of devout protestants who are more faithful, and in many respects, more Catholic, than the vast majority of Catholics today.  I pray they come to find the light of the whole truth of Jesus Christ through His Church, but with this pontificate all but declaring conversion is wrong and protestants should stay right where they’re at, doing so is becoming increasingly difficult.  That’s another disastrous legacy shaping up from this pontificate, the further diminution of the Church’s already moribund evangelization efforts and a lowering of an anemic rate of conversions.

I think Mitchell Hadley nailed it when the term “Mephisto” was applied to the Pope Francis character in his book.  You’ll figure out what I mean if you buy the book!

 

Advertisements

“Peak Oil” was always nonsense January 14, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, error, It's all about the $$$, non squitur, silliness, Society, technology.
comments closed

Unless they are legislated out of existence by leftists, fossil fuels will still be the world’s primary energy source 100, even 200 years from now.  As we saw in the period 2005-15, as prices go up, new sources come on line to keep increase supply and lower price.  Eventually, a new stasis is reached. Historically, crude oil has averaged about $20 per barrel in today’s dollars, at least it did until disordered economic practices and scarifying in the media led to panic-driven price increases.

Yes, Saudi Arabia is playing a long game to get the price back up to the $50+ dollar range by running all the shale frackers out of business, but if the price does go to that level again, new players will exploit that massive resource yet again.  Apparently, Saudi doesn’t want the US to be able to takeover their role as the world’s number one producer and exporter, which was rapidly happening before they glutted the market.  If that means $20 per barrel oil, so be it.  It hurts portions of the US economically (apparently, thousands of rigs are now idled in Texas since the price has plummeted), but overall, lower energy costs have a hugely positive impact on the overall economy, since energy cost is virtually a VAT that affects all sectors from raw material production, end product, and consumer.

My dad worked in the oil industry in a quite influential role (he used to fly to DC at one point almost weekly to meet with high-power attorneys and lobbyists and testified before Congress numerous times) for decades.  He started in a refinery in the 50s and worked through to the early 00s.  He’s seen booms and busts.  He doesn’t think we’re going to run out of oil any time soon, and he’s seen so much technological development over the past 60 years or so that he is convinced that oil and natural gas will continue to be the primary energy source for many, many decades to come.  Prices may eventually go up, but there is really nothing else available that can match the high energy content, massive scalability, relatively cheap availability, and overall minimal environmental impact as fossil fuels.

Hopefully we won’t fool enough to throw all that away over a leftist fever dream concerning gerbal worming.

For a long time the conventional wisdom was that we arrived at “peak oil.” My pal Rob Bradley revisits this old Malthusian chestnut today over at the MasterResource blog, and it is not to be missed:

“This time it’s for real,” says the cover story of the June 2004 issue of National Geographic. “We’re at the beginning of the end of cheap oil.”

Books and articles written by geologists, environmentalists, and others regularly announce a new era of increasing oil scarcity……..

…….Anyone remember Goldman Sachs predicting that oil was headed to $200 a barrel? Now, theWall Street Journal reports this morning, the smart people who predicted $200 oil are now predicting that oil, today hovering around $30, could fall as low as $16 a barrel:

Money managers in near-record numbers are betting that oil prices will fall even lower, spurring analysts to cut their own forecasts again. Morgan Stanley on Monday joined Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in suggesting crude could hit $20. Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC has called for $16, and Standard Chartered PLC said prices could fall as low as $10. [I doubt $10. But $16-20 is quite likely. And that means sub $1.50 a gal gas, at least in Texas and other Gulf States]

In other words, oil is falling back to its historic, long-term inflation adjusted price. Here’s the inflation-adjusted price chart I generated last night from last year’s BP Statistical Survey of World Energy, which only takes the price up through the end of 2014, and therefore doesn’t accurately depict the price drop of the last year. But use your imagination, and you can see how we’ve reverted to the mean. I’m sure there will be more price cycles in the future, but there’s reason to think that OPEC won’t be able to squeeze $100 oil again in the future, for the simple reason that the technology has evolved to the point that the rest of the world can bring new supply on quickly and very profitably if the price (i.e., demand) spikes.

Historic-Oil-Price

If you compare the post-war price of oil with the overall performance of the American economy, you can see that price of oil is one of the best predictors of an economic boom, whereas high oil prices correlate very strongly with recession, inflation, stagflation, etc, and sudden spikes correlate with the onset of recession.  Thus, while low oil prices will surely hurt the economies of some locales and states, overall, low prices can be expected to generally lead to much improved economic performance.

OTOH, the world economy is presently mired in the greatest amount of debt that has ever been seen.  There are numerous bubbles ready to burst (housing, personal debt, college, national debt, etc), so who knows how all this will play out.

And I bet billion dollar wells like those Shell drilled for the Perdido platform 170 miles off South Padre Island in 10,000 ft of water are going to have a damn hard time paying off.  But overall, cheap oil should be very good for the economy.

Shell39s-Tobago-Field-Breaks-Depth-Record-for-Subsea-Production

Papal rescript on annulment “reform” permits no recourse from quickie annulments January 14, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, family, General Catholic, horror, Papa, Revolution, Sacraments, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

Early last fall, Pope Francis issued a motu proprio substantially revising the Church’s law regarding the issuance of annulments.  One of the most controversial provisions was a new “quickie” route to annulment, requiring bishops to decide decrees of nullity within 45 days of application.  Given how busy our bishops like to ask, it seems such a short period would lead to the most cursory of reviews, at best, and simply an annulment factory, at worst.

Even more disturbing, according to Christopher Ferrara, is that the formal guidance, of rescript, issued on the motu proprio by Pope Francis last month now leaves absolutely zero recourse to the defendant in a quickie decree of nullity, meaning spouses seeking to abandon their partner and shack up with a new one will have the potential ability to “pull fast ones” from which the abandoned spouse cannot appeal so seek any other redress:

In the rescript Pope Francis has issued “regarding the implementation of the recent reforms to the Church’s marriage law,” there is a provision whose immense significance has not been lost on canon law experts.  Here it is:

“No recourse is allowed before the Roman Rota for a Nova Causae Propositio (N.C.P.), after one of the parties has contracted a new canonical marriage, unless the injustice of the decision is manifestly established.”

What this means in simple terms is that if one party to marriage obtains a quickie annulment at the diocesan level, the party opposing the annulment cannot even introduce a new cause or grounds for contesting the annulment in the Roman Rota, to which decrees of nullity from the dioceses are appealed, if the other party has rushed into a new Church wedding. [This entirely short-circuits the entire process of appeal, basing a decree of nullity entirely on a possibly flawed diocesan decree]

In essence, a new Church wedding while the matrimonial proceedings are still pending effectively ends the proceedings by establishing the finality of the diocesan annulment merely by the actions of the other party — rather than through exhaustion of the annulment process itself, which is supposed to be based on the search for the objective truth about a marriage whose validity has always been presumed under Church law. [Objective truth is so pre-conciliar!  Get with the program, man, it’s all about feelings and will to power now!]

In an article entitled “It’s Liftoff for the New Procedures for ‘Failed’ Marriages. But Such Confusion,” Sandro Magister presents an Italian language commentary by a respected canonist, Guido Ferro Canale.  Canale warns that the net effect is to leave the party contesting the annulment of his or her marriage based on some newly discovered grounds…..effectively in the position of someone challenging an already final judgment under Church law, even if Francis’ rescript does not say so explicitly………

……….The implications are devastating.  For example, a cheating husband married for many years could abandon his wife and children, obtain an annulment and then immediately have a Church wedding with the new partner of his choice — in the same diocese that granted the annulment![And all in the space of 7 or 8 weeks!] He would thus effectively bring to a halt the wife’s effort to defend the marriage bond on appeal to the Rota.  She would have been given the classic bum’s rush out of the marriage, along with the children. [Isn’t it interesting, that for all the progressive paeans to empowering women and overcoming the dread effects of the bad old patriarchy, that almost all of their prescriptions wind up leaving women, and especially children, in a dramatically worse position than they ever were before?  Feminism reduces single women to floozies that a succession of men hit, quit, and forget leaving them empty, broken, angry, and often pregnant or diseased.  Divorce has left many women and children lonely, much poorer, and demoralized. ]

This outcome, Canale observes, “is equivalent to saying that the new union is entirely meritorious in itself, without even a reference to the good faith of the contracting parties. To the point of precluding the ascertainment of the truth concerning the preceding union.” As he concludes: “It has never been licit to take an action where there is doubt about whether it is sinful; otherwise, to accept the risk is equivalent to committing the sin itself” — in this case, the sin of adultery. [That’s oldthink!  Badthink!  Arrest that man!]

In his rescript Francis declares that his “reforms” of the Church’s marriage laws are aimed at “the multitude of those who live the drama of marital failure…” Marital failure?  But a decree of annulment is supposed to mean only that there never was a marriage and thus no marriage to “fail.” Indeed, because a sacramental marriage is indissoluble and the parties to it are unalterably configured to Christ in Holy Matrimony, to speak of “marital failure” at all — much less a multitude of “marital failures” — is to suggest precisely what critics of these reforms fear: the advent of “Catholic divorce.” [Of which many innocent men and women, but especially children, will get to pay the ultimate price.]

And I think that little slip there at the end might be entirely revealing, that Francis has fully bought into the idea of divorce as a real and valid thing (remember his admiration for protestant thinking), and thus sees marriage as something transient that can fail, and be replaced/repeated, perhaps several times.

But, thank God, Cardinal Maradiaga has said that Pope Francis would never permit pseudo-sodo-marriage, as being something a bridge too far.  As with all progressive promises, however, certainly this one comes with an expiration date.  It’s too far, for now.  For this generation of modernists.  Probably not for the next, though.

Reminds me of this goofy old song:

Husbands, let your wives buy guns….. January 14, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, silliness.
comments closed

…..if they so wish. And vice versa.  It’s in Ephesians, there.  Somewhere.  Read it again. You’ll find it.

Pretty sure it’s just about a commandment when it comes to Russian guns.

51iLnTcdXHL._SX466_

come_and_take_it_bumper_sticker-r66fd366811cd48eca24a621c0758416f_v9wht_8byvr_324

Ooohh I’d love a Dragunov/SVD/Romak/PSL.  7.62×54.  Just about like a .30-06.  And that PSO-1 sight is pretty slick.

 

SVD_PSL

Did Sacrosanctum Concilium call for permanent liturgical revolution? January 14, 2016

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

One book I read over my long break is one that is probably known to many readers but one which I had not read before.  This is The Liturgical Time Bombs of Vatican II by Michael Davies.  I’m not sure how  much of this book I’ll eventually excerpt, but I did want to give a brief rundown of the problematic, our even outrageous, articles of the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium.  These include articles 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, 21, 23, 34, 37, 38, 40, 50, and 62.  Each of these contain statements that were either so poorly worded as to be open to abuse (which is exactly what their creators intended), or which openly called for such radical notions that it is incredible that the Council Fathers passed them.  But, then again, maybe those bishops weren’t the paragons of orthodoxy they are sometimes made out to be, since they all eagerly implemented the most radical interpretations of Vatican II in the years following the Council, while steadfastly opposing and even persecuting those who supported more orthodox notions.

A particular example problematic articles that are linked to one another concerns articles 4, 21 and 50.  These have to do with what one might call permanent liturgical revolution: the continued modification, even remaking, of the Mass as years go by.  That was plainly the intent of the prime architect of the liturgical revolution – Anibale Bugnini – and it was only his being revealed to Paul VI to be a freemason that resulted in his dismissal and at least the temporary slow down of that revolution.

The excerpts below from several pages within Davies’ book explore how the liturgical revolution was framed in certain code phrases embedded in the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy:

“It is worth pointing out that the “circumstances and needs of modern times,” which Article 4 of the CSL claims that the liturgy must be adjusted to meet, have occurred with great regularity throughout history.  It is of the nature of time to become more modern with the passing of each second, and if the Church had adapted the liturgy to keep up with the constant succession of modern times and new circumstances, there would never have been any liturgical stability at all…….The corpus of papal teaching on the liturgy is readily available, but papal teaching on the need to adapt the liturgy to keep pace with “modern” times is conspicuous only by its absence – and this is hardly surprising when this alleged “need” is examined in a dispassionate and rational manner.  When do times become modern?  How long do they remain modern?  What are the criteria by which modernity is assessed?  When does one modernity cease and another modernity come into being?  [Some thoughts: “modern” is a term that has come from progressive/liberal thought.  It first started becoming a notion in the wake of the revolutions in France and the US, to compare the new “enlightened” system to the one that existed before.  It is basically a rhetorical cudgel used to advance progressive views by contrasting an “enlightened” today against a hidebound past.  That is why both the constant trend towards “modernity” in the secular culture, and the liturgical revolution, have always moved in one direction, and one direction only: towards a more and more progressive, liberal, libertine culture, world, and Church.  And when we read of the “needs of modern times,” what is being said is, a need to correspond to the leftist zeitgeist, which means, in practice, the destruction of the Church.]

The complete fallacy of this “adaption to modernity” thesis was certainly not lost on some of the Council Fathers.  Bishop (later Cardinal) Dino Staffa pointed out the theological consequences of an “adapted liturgy” on October 24, 1962.  He told the assembled Fathers:

It is said that the Sacred Liturgy must be adapted to times and circumstances which have changed.  Here also we ought to look at the consequences.  For customs, even the very face of society, change fast and will change even faster.  What seems agreeable to the wishes of the multitude today will appear incongruous after thirty or fifty years. [Just like bongo masses look idiotic today, and all those photos of hippy dippy “masses” from the late 60s and 70s looked as asinine as could be even a handful of years later]  We must conclude then that after thirty or fifty years all, or almost all, of the liturgy would have to be changed again. [Again, the goal was permanent liturgical revolution, until virtually nothing sacred remained] This seems to me to be logical according to the premises….but hardly fitting for the Sacred Liturgy, hardly useful for the dignity of the Church, hardly safe for the integrity and unity of the Faith, hardly favoring the unity of discipline………..

Jumping ahead quite a bit, now how Article 21 fed into the permanent liturgical revolution:

The next time bomb is located in Article 21.  It states that “the liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted and elements subject to change.”  This is perfectly correct – but it does not follow that, because certain elements could be changed, they ought to be changed………

………The CSL takes a different view, so startling and unprecedented a break with tradition that it seems scarcely credible that the Council Fathers voted for it.  Article 21 states that elements which are subject to change “not only may but ought to be changed with the passing of time if features have crept in which are less harmonious with the intimate nature of the liturgy, or if existing elements have grown less functional.”   These norms are so vague that the scope for interpreting them is virtually limitless, and it must be kept in mind continually that those who drafted the article would be the men with the power to interpret it.  No indication is given of which aspects of the liturgy are referred to here: no indication is given of the meaning of “less functional” (how much is less?), or whether “functional” refers to the original function or a new one which may have been acquired.  [Which was the point all along.]

Article 21 refers to the liturgy in general, but specific reference is made to the Mass in Article 50:

The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, can be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful can be more easily accomplished.  For this purpose the rites are to be simplified……..Elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage are now to be discarded. [Who decides whether something was duplicate or of little advantage? The liturgical revolutionaries]  When opportunity allows or necessity demands, other elements which have suffered injury through the accidents of history are now to be restored to the earlier norm of the holy fathers. [Notice the Machiavellian manner in which this article, as so many others in VII, was written.  It can be read in a relatively innocuous way, to have very little meaning, especially if one comes from a standpoint of loving and revering the Liturgy as it was.  It’s just orthodox enough to allay fears of those who are willing to suspend their disbelief and be duped.  But it also gave the modernists all the room they needed to work a total revolution, as we have seen.]

……Thomas Cranmer himself could have written this passage as the basis for his own “reform” of the Catholic liturgy – i.e., his creation of the Anglican prayer service. There is not one point here that the apostate Archbishop of Canterbury did not claim to be implementing.  An Anglican observer at VII, Bernard Pawley, praised the manner in which the liturgical reform following VII not only corresponded with, but has even surpassed, the reform of Thomas Cranmer.  There is a very close correspondence between the prayers which Cranmer felt had been added to the Mass “with little advantage”(almost invariably prayers which made Catholic teaching explicit) and those which the members of the Consilium, which implemented the norms of VII (with the help of protestant advisers), also decreed had been added “with little advantage.”…….

Article 21 of the CSL, together with such articles as 1, 23, 50, and 62, have served as a mandate for the supreme goal of the liturgical revolutionaries – that of a permanently evolving liturgy.  In September 1968 the bulletin of the Archdiocese of Paris…..called for a permenant revolution in these words: “It is no longer possible, in a period when the world is developing so rapidly, [notice the modernist, progressive conceit: these times are so unique (and better) than previous ones, they require unique responses]  to consider rites as definitively fixed once and for all.  They need to be regularly revised.”  This is precisely the consequence with Bishop Staffa had warned at Vatican II would be inevitable.  

———End Quote———

Post is already long, so I won’t add much in conclusion. I’d say based on the above, whether there was a deliberate plan to work liturgical revolution is pretty much QED at this point.

I’d just add, that the reason a liturgical revolution was absolutely vital to the modernist program, the reason why the CSL was pushed through first, was because lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.  The Faith turns around the Liturgy, especially the Mass.  Change those, and you can change everything.  In order to work a modernist-progressive revolution in the Church, it was vital to gain control of the Liturgy first and have severe changes already underway before the Council was even ended (but in the background, so that a reaction could not form).  That was obviously accomplished.

As the Stomach Turns: the hideous common liturgical prayers approved by Rome for Quincentenary of the Protestant Revolution January 14, 2016

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

Rorate Caeli has a long and detailed post examining the new prayers approved by a Lutheran commission and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Gross Religious Indifference Promoting Christian Unity, headed by the arch-modernist Kurt Cardinal Koch, including prayers meant to be offered in Masses during the 500th anniversary lamentations “celebrations” of the protestant revolution.  I’ll skip the detailed background and jump ahead directly to the stomach-turning prayers (emphasis in original, my comments):

The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) have invited Lutheran churches and Catholic bishops’ conferences across the world to make use of a jointly-developed Common Prayer to prepare commemorations for the 500 years of the Reformation in 2017…… [Which should be lamented as the utter disaster they were and are, ecclesiastically, theologically, morally, politically, economically, and in just about every aspect conceivable.]

……..previous Popes always resisted Lutheran pressure for Catholic-Lutheran intercommunion to be normalized even without visible ecclesial unity. Under the present pontificate this resistance looks significantly weaker — if it exists at all. This is also the first time that the drive for Catholic-Lutheran union and the glorification of the Reformation has taken a quasi-liturgical shape, intended not just for relatively rare “ecumenical encounters” but for Catholics and Lutherans worldwide. As Traditionalists know only too well, prayer and belief go hand in hand. The dangerous implications of this step are plain for us to see. [Will we see these hideous prayers insisted upon by national conferences worldwide, for “ecumenical services” commemorating the Quincentenary of this monumental disaster?]

The opening prayer of the service prays that the Lord “help us to rejoice in the gifts that have come to the Church through the Reformation, prepare us to repent for the dividing walls that we, and our forebears, have built, and equip us for common witness and service in the world”.  [The walls that WE have built!?!?  Who the heck broke away from whom, who condemned whom as being a false religion, a “babylonian mystery cult” invented some indeterminate time after the Resurrection, even though ALL the Church Fathers confirm an unbroken line of Catholic belief from the first Gospel (St. Matthew) to the current day?!?  This is Lutheran propaganda]

Another prayer runs as follows:

Thanks be to you O God for the many guiding theological and spiritual insights that we have all received through the Reformation. [I just threw up a little bit in my mouth] Thanks be to you for the good transformations and reforms that were set in motion by the Reformation or by struggling with its challenges. Thanks be to you for the proclamation of the gospel that occurred during the Reformation and that since then has strengthened countless people to live lives of faith in Jesus Christ. [I literally do not know what to say.  This is a veritable declaration of schism, of rejection of Jesus Christ and His Church.  This is what comes from fearing men more than God.  Great job, post-conciliar modernist heretics.]

One of the readings in the “Thanksgiving” portion of the service begins thus:

Lutherans are thankful in their hearts for what Luther and the other reformers made accessible to them: [heresy, falsity, schism, denial of the Real Presence, abolition of most Sacraments, twisting of Scripture, violent repression, becoming beholden to political power…..my stars, the wonders Luther wrought] the understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ and faith in him; the insight into the mystery of the Triune God who gives Himself to us human beings out of grace and who can be received only in full trust in the divine promise; [What about received, literally, in the Blessed Sacrament?!?] the freedom and certainty that the gospel creates; in the love that comes from and is awakened by faith, and in the hope in life and death that faith brings with it; and in the living contact with the Holy Scripture, the catechisms, and hymns that draw faith into life.” [My these ecumenists love to hear themselves talk]

Another reading ends with:

“The ecumenical journey enables Lutherans and Catholics to appreciate together Martin Luther’s insight into and spiritual experience of the gospel of the righteousness of God, which is also God’s mercy.”

This “liturgical order” is characterized by the dominance of Protestant material, and the one-sided praise for the Reformation while nothing at all is said about — or taken from — the distinctive elements of Catholic history, theology and heritage. The Reformation and Martin Luther are repeatedly extolled, while the Counter-Reformation and the Popes and Saints of the 16th century are passed over in total silence.

The troubles that came from the Reformation are thoroughly glossed over in the “Repentance” section of the service that covers doctrinal disagreements and historical tragedies in banal generalities which equally blame Lutherans and Catholics. The overwhelming emphasis in this service is on what supposedly unites Catholics and Lutherans, while the doctrines that “divide” us — doctrines for which innumerable Catholic martyrs and confessors suffered, bled, fought and died — are left unmentioned and abandoned. [So I guess St. Margaret Clitherow, St. John Fisher, St. Thomas More, St. Peter Canisius, and hundreds more are just thrilled to be totally ignored and passed over like this.]

May God have mercy on our Church. 

Have you ever noticed the Orwellian double-thought that seems very prevalent among so many of our institutional leaders today, especially those inured in the so-called ecumenical movement?  In certain contexts, they evince fealty to the Church and even extol the virtues of Saints like those I mention above, and then they turn around and literally spit on the memory of those Saints and all they stood for.  I really believe some of the ecumaniacs somehow see no contradiction in this, because they hold the modernist belief that faith changes and that while the Saints may have made an appropriate response for their time, the world has changed and we don’t do things like that any more.

Another, I think much more accurate explanation would be that these men have simply lost the Faith and care far more for worldly applause than they do the good of souls and the Doctrine of the Faith.

Such a strange confluence of events:  a highly dubious Year of Mercy, followed by the Quincentenary of the protestant revolution, that also happens to be the 100th anniversary of the apparitions at Fatima.  Perhaps less strange, than disconcertingly ominous?  I never get into predictions about end times and things like that, but so many Marian apparitions pointed to a time in the Church when the Faith would be rejected even by those in highest authority (or especially by them).  2017 will provide an unprecedented opportunity for just such demonstrations of lack of faith.

May God have mercy on our Church, indeed.