jump to navigation

No one is more sexist, than those who rage against the sexism of others…….. February 9, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, huh?, pr stunts, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society.
comments closed

…….just as the most racist among us, are those who constantly decry and claim to fight against the racism they claim to see all around them.

It was not always this way.  There have been legitimate complaints against racial injustice and perhaps some wrong-headed attitudes regarding the role of women in our society in the past (though I would argue that the feminist movement as such has always been problematic if not fundamentally disordered).  But since virtually all those battles were, by and large, overwhelmingly won decades ago, those who persist in advocating for radical forms of feminism and racialism have passed from fighting injustice into advocacy for new forms of supremacy.  Robert Stacy McCain has long proved to my satisfaction, through his multi-year expose of hardcore feminism, that these types have long ago shucked any real interest in equality, and in effect now want to see men castigated and subjugated just as women ostensibly were some decades ago.  It’s about revenge and continuing the revolutionary unmaking of all extant social mores much more than it is about true justice or concern for the good of others.

A major demonstration of this has occurred as Hillary Clinton’s campaign has continued to (hopefully) implode.  With more and more young women preferring the 74 year old cantankerous socialist Bernie Sanders to Queen Hillary, a good number of feminist ideologues have come out of the woodwork of late to tell these young women that they are betraying the sacred sisterhood by refusing to support a woman for president.  Not only that, but they have done so in ways that are as stereotypically sexist and offensive as can be imagined.

Example A: Gloria Steinem claimed on the Bill Maher show that the only reason ditzy young women were supporting Sanders is because that’s where the boyz are at, and obviously young women just do whatever boys say, or go wherever the boys are:

Asked why the former secretary of state isn’t doing better among young women, Steinem said females typically don’t start taking politics seriously until they get older.

“When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys?’ The boys are with Bernie,” Steinem added.

Maher was immediately taken aback by Steinem’s comment.

“Now if I said that — ‘Yeah, they’re for Bernie ’cause that’s where the boys are’ — you’d swat me,” Maher said.

“No, I wouldn’t,” Steinem fired back.

The aging leftist warrior later apologized for your taking offense through misinterpretation of what her words plainly meant.

Example B: Foul crone and only the second most incompetent Secretary of State this nation has ever seen (the other being the candidate she presently supports), Madeleine Albright, had even choicer words for those who betray the sacred secrets of the yaya sisterhood:

Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright introduced Hillary Clinton at an event in New Hampshire on Saturday, telling the crowd and voters in general: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!” [Voting left is the only acceptable form of help, apparently]

As an aside, and just to show how disconnected from reality Albright continues to be (as she was back in the 90s), she also made this astounding claim:

Albright said: “When she was secretary of state, she restored America’s reputation.

“Those other people before made huge mistakes. They really undermined our reputation and our position in the world, and Hillary Clinton brought us back, she restored our position in the world.

Oh yes.  That’s just exactly what she did, with her stupid “reset” button (ask the Crimeans about that), abandoning Libya to jihadists, and enacting Obama administration policy supporting the “Arab spring” that gave us ISIS, interminable civil war, and jihadi terror spreading faster than stage 4 cancer.

Back to the main point – the kinds of extremism we see today is where radical rhetoric regarding “equality” always leads – to “black lives matter” types being openly bigoted towards whites, vehemently rejecting that all lives could possibly matter, and such.  It leads to an environment on college campuses for  young men worse than even the most outlandish leftist fever dreams about 50s McCarthyism.  That’s because equality has, for the hard left, always simply been yet another vehicle for what they really want, which is power.

Not that she was any great shakes, herself, but remember the campaign of hate-fueled destruction the left conducted against Sarah Palin a few years ago, for having the temerity to be a successful woman in public life who rejected the prevaricating shibboleths of the left?  That was just a more obvious example of what happens if one steps off the demonrat plantation as one of its constituencies.  The entire media lined up to proclaim that Palin was a traitor and  not even a “real” woman because she had a large family, didn’t support abortion, and wasn’t a leftist.

The message is always the same. Don’t ever think for yourself.  Don’t ever cross them. Just shut up and do what you’re told, and they’ll continue to pretend to care about you.  Otherwise, they’ll crush you like an ant, as Nancy Brinker Komen learned to her great cost.

And so it continues today, not just against high-profile opponents of the leftist-industrial complex, but even against lowly college girls who dare to vote the “wrong” way.  You would hope the young would observe this kind of treatment and be repulsed not just by the individuals promoting it, but by the entire movement that is so dependent on this kind of social ostracism and tribal shaming.  Unfortunately, they won’t.  Many have been indoctrinated in leftism since kindergarten and it will take a miracle – or maybe, someday, the cold, hard slap of reality – to shake them from their unthinking obeisance to progressive ideology.

Advertisements

A thought regarding Fr. Rodriguez….. February 9, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, Eucharist, foolishness, General Catholic, Liturgy, persecution, priests, Revolution, scandals, self-serving.
comments closed

…..concerning a possible Dallas connection regarding the demand he apparently faces to not only offer the Novus Ordo, but, lacking any justification in the rubrics of the Mass or canon law, to offer it strictly versus poplum, facing the people.  I remind readers of an excerpt from a directive of El Paso Bishop Mark Seitz to Fr. Rodriguez, as related by Father in his recent public update on his situation:

I enjoin you to celebrate the Mass and Sacraments according to the Novus Ordo in the Mission of Shafter. The Mass and the Sacraments must be celebrated in the vernacular of the people (English or Spanish) and not Ad Orientem.

I was reminded that this demand was similar to a situation that played out here in the Diocese of Dallas a few years ago.  Then, a priest announced that he would start offering Mass Ad Orientem at his Sunday Masses, and that folks had better get used to the idea because he wasn’t changing his mind.  At that time, we were not yet assisting at TLMs, but we did assist at the very reverent Latin Novus Ordo Masses this particular priest offered. We, and a number of other souls under who attended this parish, were elated at this development.

But a very strange and unfortunate thing happened.  Just a couple of weeks after this announcement, the priest went back to Mass facing the people.  He didn’t explain why, in fact, to my knowledge, he still has never given a justification for this volte face.  I wound up finding out through another source, months later, that someone at the parish had complained to the Diocese, and a very firm decree had some down that the practice of Ad Orientem was barred for this priest and this parish.  Even more, no priest was to offer Novus Ordo Mass facing the Lord in the tabernacle in any parish at any time.

At the time this all came down, Bishop Seitz was still Father Seitz, pastor of All Saints with the gay pornish processional crucifix (which, in fairness, I guess, did predate his time there).  But it seems highly likely that whatever directive was issued in this diocese, however unjustifiable, it continues to inform Bishop Seitz’ thinking regarding how the Mass not just should, but must be offered.  That is, in the closed off circle of self-worship, in Pope Emeritus’ Benedict’s words, of the versus poplum orientation.

I guess given his history, it’s not entirely surprising that Bishop Seitz would hold this view, unsupportable as it appears to be.  That doesn’t make it any more right, of course.

I thought this small historical tie would be of interest to readers. Like Communion in the hand and the abandonment of chapel veils, this massive novelty rests on nothing at all other than progressive whim and the will of a large number of bishops.  There is nothing in any formal Church document that demands Mass facing the people.  A sort of vague permission to offer Mass facing the people sneaked into the post-conciliar documents produced by the revolutionaries of the liturgical “renewal” led by Anibale Bugnini, but there was even in these never a clear demand to change the orientation of the priest at Mass.  At most, it implies the possibility of such.

I remind, as well, that declarations from national conferences are non-dogmatic and have questionable binding authority, at best.  We were told for a long time that lay people were to be refused Communion received kneeling and on the tongue, until that turned out to no longer be the case.  We’ve also been told that the TLM was abrogated, until that, too, turned out to be totally false.

In sum, this demand for versus poplum rests on the flimsiest of premises, and raises grave questions regarding those who insist upon it.

“Extraordinary” Minister of Communion makes great points in resignation letter February 9, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, error, Eucharist, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Not my usual fare, but I thought this individual made excellent points in their letter to their pastor resigning from their position as EMHC.  I pray their faith is strong, they have only just cracked open the can of worms that often leads to discovery of stonewalling, bad intent, rejection of Tradition, and revolutionary mindsets deep within the Church.  That process of discovery can be shattering for some souls.  I excerpt what I felt were some of the stronger points below (I add some comments):

…….My decision comes down to a deeper discovery of Sacred Tradition pertaining to the Sacred Species. The desire to be obedient to the teachings of our Church Fathers and the Successors of St Peter throughout the centuries led me to this humble juncture in my spiritual journey. It is my conviction that Lay Persons like myself are in no position whatsoever to handle and dispense the Holy Eucharist. [Welcome to the club.  Of course the Eucharist remains just as holy and divine when handled by a lay person.  THAT IS PRECISELY THE POINT!  We have no business handling God present in His Flesh under the accidents of bread, as the Church firmly believed and taught for century after century. That is reserved for those hands set aside, ordained to that purpose.]

……About 12 months ago, I was curious to discover the preferred form prescribed by the Church down the centuries to receive the Holy Eucharist. I was determined to go back as long as possible, so I began my study on church documents. I was amply satisfied, from the Catechism of the Council of Trent that the preferred form was kneeling, on the tongue. Intriguingly, I also discovered from the Catechism that the Church has Always Prohibited Lay Persons from Touching the Sacred Species. The administration of the Holy Eucharist to the faithful has always been reserved to the consecrated hands of priests (acting ‘In Persona Christi’, ‘In the Person of Christ’), whereas lay persons have always been forbidden to touch the Blessed Sacrament. [This wasn’t something invented at Trent. The Council of Elvira in 5th (4th?) century Spain provides very clear pronunciations in favor of receiving Communion kneeling and on the tongue, and forbidding lay people from handling the Sacred Species]

……So the Cathechim of Trent affirms that the power to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist is reserved exclusively for a validly ordained priest (with the exception of emergency, as shown above, which I will address in detail later), and this practice is part of apostolic tradition, going all the way back to the Lord’s Supper itself. As we agree, it was at the upper room when our Lord instituted the Sacrament of Eucharist and the Priesthood – which explains why only a priest can self-communicate, as per the apostles.   [Sounds like there has been an argument going back and forth over whether EMHCs are a suitable practice or a grave abuse]

This practice has been echoed by many Holy Popes throughout Church history. For example, “There is nothing which belongs more to the Church and there is nothing Jesus Christ wanted more closely reserved for its shepherds than the dispensation of the sacraments He instituted.” (Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus, 1835). Very few bishops today pay the least heed to the admonition of St. Pope John Paul II in his letter Dominicae cenae, 24 February 1980 “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained”.

The decrees of previous Councils in church history, was even more decisive in its language:

> Council of Saragozza (380AD) had launched excommunication to those who dared to treat the Most Holy Eucharist as if they were in a time of persecution, a time in which even lay-people found themselves out of necessity, touching the Sacred Species with their hands. (SAENZ DE AGUIRRE, Notitia Concilorum Hispaniae, Salamanca, 1686, pg 495);

> Saint Eutichiano, Pope from 275 to 283 AD, so that laypeople would not touch the Sacred Species with their hands, forbade them to take the Blessed Sacrament to the sick: ‘Nullus praesumat tradere communionem laico vel femminae ad deferendum infirmo’ (Let no one dare consign Holy Communion to a lay man or woman for them to take to the sick) (P.L. V, coll.163-168); and

The Council of Rouen (around 650), forbade the minister of the Eucharist to place the Sacred Species in the hand of lay communicants. ‘Whosoever will have transgressed these nowms, disdain God Almighty and in doing so will have dishonoured himself and should be removed from the altar’. (P.G., vol. X, coll. 1099-1100)[Great bits of evidence for a proof.  If I knew these, I had forgotten them]

The author then derives more points from Aquinas and Scripture.  The argument is, in its totality, clear, convincing, and devastatingly effective.  It obliterates the false rationales used to justify massive, de facto use of lay people as so called “extraordinary” ministers of Communion, and demonstrates that this practice represents a grave novelty in the life of the Church and one which has played a huge role in undermining belief in the Real Presence (we get back to that feature or bug thing).

I thought this point from the conclusion really astute:

“I need you all to bring Jesus to the home bound because I am too busy” the priest would tell us during our formation session –  we are indeed living in strange times in which priests are engaged in activities which laymen could undertake, while laymen undertake their work of taking Holy Communion to the sick, is positively bizarre, a fitting epitomization of the ethos of Church today.

In traditional parishes, lay people do not handle the Blessed Sacrament, in my experience.  Priests routinely bring the Blessed Sacrament not only to those who are gravely ill, but even to those who might have a brief illness that prevents them from assisting at Mass on a single Sunday (as I experienced when I had a leg infection in 2013).

So my prayer is that this person finds their way to a traditional parish, where the Blessed Sacrament is treated with the reverence and adoration with which it is due (among a thousand other distinctions), and where priests are far more oriented to their role as pastors of souls and confectors of Sacraments than being business managers for Amchurch Corp.  That is indeed a harsh assessment, but one that long experience has indicated is the truth far too often than not.

 

How do we know a Gospel is a Gospel? – the Church February 9, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Bible, catachesis, disaster, Ecumenism, error, General Catholic, reading, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

Some good points from the Haydock Study Bible on how the authority of Scipture was determined, on the central role of a single authoritative Church, the rejection of protestant errors, and also those protestant-inspired errors which have flooded into the Church in the wake of the destructive “opening to the world” we’ve experienced in the past several decades.

Without the Church to say that a Gospel was divinely inspired, there was, and is, nothing to give it credence.  Thus, some “gospels” – like the Gnostic writings attributed to “Mary” and “Thomas” – were excluded as being false and not divinely inspired, based on the Tradition of the Church, while the Four Gospels were of course codified as the basis of the New Testament and the core source of revelation for the New Covenant.

Rev. George Leo Haydock concisely and very effectively summarizes this critical truth, that without the Church’s assent, Scripture was nothing:

This and other titles, with the names of those that wrote the Gospels, are not the words of the Evangelists themselves. The Scripture itself nowhere teacheth us, which books or writings are to be received as true and canonical Scriptures. It is only by the channel of unwritten traditions, and by the testimony and authority of the Catholic Church, that we know and believe that this gospel, for example of St. Matthew, with all contained in it, and that the other books and parts of the Old or New Testament, are of divine authority, or written by divine inspiration; which made St. Augustine say, I should not believe the gospel, were I not moved thereunto by the authority of the Catholic Church: Ego Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Ecclesiœ Catholicœ commoveret auctoritas. [This fact informs my personal belief that Tradition trumps Scripture.  This was probably the predominant belief of the pre-conciliar Church, and especially as you go back in time 1-200 years before the Council, but under the influence of protestantism in the new church of aggiornamento, most priests and apologists today rank Scripture far ahead of Tradition in terms of its import and authority.]

In a previous section of his Biblical commentary, Fr. Haydock summarizes the proofs for belief in the Church.  These might be considered handy for anyone who interacts with those in the separated sects/schismatic bodies:

  • There can be but one true religion, and one only Church, the spouse of Jesus Christ. Our Lord would have only one; men are not entitled to make more. Religion is not the work of human reasoning; but it is our duty to receive it, such as it has been given us from above. One man may reason with another man, but with God we have only to pray, to humble ourselves, listen, be silent, and blindly follow……… [P]rayer, as the true end of all controversies……humbles the soul, makes it docile and obedient, and enables it to listen with fruit to the Holy Spirit
  • [T]he necessity of a visible authority. Religion….is all humility. The mysteries are given us to subdue the pride of reason, by making us believe what we cannot comprehend. Without this authority, the Scripture can only serve to nourish our curiosity, presumption, jealousy of opinions, and passion for scandalous disputes: there would be but one text, but as may interpretations as religions, and as many religions as heads……And can we suppose that Jesus Christ would leave his spiritual kingdom unprovided, and abandoned to this disorder?
  • The infallible promises of God are our surety……..[I]f one wish for any reform, not to seek it, like Dissenters, out of the Church, but by frequently reverting back one’s thoughts upon oneself, and by reforming every thing amiss there; by subduing all that savours of self; by silencing the imagination, listening in silence to God, and imploring his grace for the perfect accomplishment of his will. O happy, O solid reform! the more we practise this reform, the less we shall wish to reform the doctrines of the Church.
  • [H]ow to act under her trials. The kingdom of God suffers violence. We cannot die to ourselves without feeling it; but the hand that afflicts us, will be our support. Truth will free you from anxieties. You will then become truly free, and enjoy the consolation of sacrificing to God your former prejudices
  • Jesus Christ does not say, if you will not hear the church of this country or that; he does not suppose a plurality of churches, but one universal Church, subsisting through all ages and nations, and which is to speak and to be obeyed from one extremity of the globe to the other. Not an invisible church composed of the elect only, but a Church that can be pointed out with a finger. [A clear condemnation of the belief of many of our Church leaders today] A city elevated on the summit of a mountain, which all can see from a distance. Every one knows where to see, to find, and to consult her. She answers, she decides; we listen, and believe: and woe to those who refuse to believe and obey her: if he will not hear the Church, &c. — A father could not bear to see his son, under the pretext of reform, making parties [factions] in his family; and can our heavenly Father, who loves union, and who gives this distinctive mark to his children, suffer without indignation any unnatural children to split his family, which he has endeavoured to cement with his own blood in the bond of unity. Schism, then, which constitutes many churches, whilst God will acknowledge only one, is the greatest of crimes……..

A rejection of the claim, heard frequently in the Church today (especially among clergy, in my experience), that the Church, for a time, denied them the ability to read the Bible:

With respect to the laity, she never interdicted the Bible to them, as Protestants [and Catholics under protestant influence, as today] suppose; but, at a time when cobblers and tailors were insulting heaven with their blasphemies, and convulsing the earth with their seditions, all grounded on the misinterpretations of the Bible, she enjoined that such as took this mysterious book in hand, should have received a tincture of learning, so as to be able to read it in one or other of the learned languages; unless their respective pastors should judge from their good sense and good dispositions, that they would derive no mischief from reading it in the vulgar tongue. (Reg. 4. Ind. Trid.) At present the Catholic prelates do not think it necessary to enforce even this restriction, and accordingly Catholic versions are to be found in folio, quarto, and octavo, with the entire approbation of those prelates.

I’ll close with a quote Fr. Haydock includes from the great 17th century French Archbishop Francois Fenelon:

The Christian Church, without such a fixed and visible authority, would be like a republic to which wise laws had been given, but without magistrates to look to their execution. What a source of confusion this! “Each individual, with the book of laws in his hand, would dispute about their meaning. The sacred oracles, in that case, would serve only to feed our vain curiosity, to increase our pride and presumption, and to make us more tenacious of our own opinions. There would indeed be but one original text, but as many different manners of explaining it as there are men. Divisions and subdivisions would multiply without end, and without remedy. Can we think that our Sovereign Lawgiver has not provided better for the peace of his republic, and for the preservation of his law?”

Interesting commentary, with significant insight for how our own Constitution is fought and debated over, to the point that it has been made to say a great many things well beyond any reasonable interpretation.  But that’s a subject for another post……

……However, the fact that the US Constitution, a product of man (though frequently exalted as the greatest political document ever), in less than a century degenerated into many factions totally at odds as to what it said, serves as a kind of demonstration for the divine nature of the Church, in that she persevered 2000 years while maintaining the same beliefs, even as some souls in error sadly cut themselves off from here.  We are at a terrible point in her illustrious history where that constancy in truth is under attack as perhaps never before, but it still remains, in spite of all the efforts of the modernists and their leftist allies, though we are getting dangerously close to the precipice.  May God protect His Church.

Commercial runs featuring ultrasound of baby, pro-aborts lose minds February 9, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, disaster, family, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, paganism, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

The one good thing I have seen come out of this flap over the tacky Doritos commercial below is that a number of secular-leaning reporters/writers have awakened to the realization that these people are not “pro-choice,” they are pro-abortion.  They desire as few babies being born as possible, and, quite possibly, zero births.

So Doritos ran an add that showed a baby, in utero, jonesing for some of their chips.  Here’s the ad, which ends in a tacky and sort of gross way:

Dumb, right? A baby chasing after a Dorito via cheesy CGI?  And of course dads are stupid, slovenly, and oblivious.

Well, even that was too much for the misanthropes at NARAL, who promptly tweeted out their disgust at this terrible “humanizing” of fetuses.  Even more, NARAL in Ohio found the NFL ads noting a statistical jump in births 9 months after Super Bowls (and praising that as a good thing) as being something calling for more birth control, especially IUDs, which have the tendency to go haywire and render women permanently sterile.  Feature or bug?  You decide.

NARAL lambasted Frito-Lay for using “anti-choice” tactics.  But what if someone’s choice is to have a bunch of babies?  Isn’t that a choice, too?  Not for you.  Get an IUD, or, better yet, an abortion.  Then they can sell the parts for a bunch of profit.

Additional commentary from the National Review:

The trouble for NARAL and other pro-choice advocates is that technological advances like ultrasounds have become some of the most powerful arguments on the pro-life side.

Even at the earliest stages of a pregnancy, it is clearly evident that the image an ultrasound shows is a tiny little human, and countless parents have watched that screen in amazement, overjoyed to see their baby for the first time and hear its heart beating.

By showing a “fetus” as not a “clump of cells” but a tiny human being, Doritos exposed the weakness of the pro-abortion worldview: The commitment to denying the humanity of the unborn child is in conflict with basic common sense. Those who prefer to describe their side as “pro-choice” cannot tolerate any evidence that shows the human life that “choice” could be ending. [It’s never been about choice.  It’s always been about control.  If you can convince a mother to kill her own child, what can you not convince her of?]

Melissa Conway, Texas Right to Life’s director of external relations, praised the ad for “clearly capturing the human emotions and reactions of the preborn child.” In this ad, continued Conway, “Doritos acknowledges the awareness, feelings, and humanity each tiny life possesses.”

Texas state senator Konni Burton, a strong pro-life advocate who won the district formerly held by Wendy Davis (infamous for her 2013 pink-sneakered filibuster against a bill banning late-term abortions) agreed. “This ad shows the reason we fight so hard for the pro-life cause,” Burton told National Review. “The unborn child is human, unmistakably so.”

Pro-aborts, of course, have to deny that obvious fact.  If too many people start comprehending the humanity of the unborn child, the inevitable result is that abortion will be finally, mercifully banned.  And pro-aborts cannot have that. So they have to pretend that a baby is not human, and resort to more and more ludicrous distinctions as to what constitutes life, in effect denying the free will they claim to cherish, and instead making the baby’s life something totally at the whim of the mother.  Unethicists like Pete Singer have taken this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, noting that if a mother can kill a fully human child in utero on a whim, then why not a 2 year old, or a five year old?

And the sick thing is, a not inconsiderable number of people agree with them.  Child hatred is a growing phenomenon in this culture of ours, which I’m sure any number of you have experienced.