jump to navigation

Best Analysis I’ve Read on the “Deaconess Commission” August 9, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, episcopate, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, suicide, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I finally took the time to stop down by Unam Sanctam Catholicam, and was rewarded as usual.  Some have argued strenuously that merely creating a committee to study the issue of “female deacons” doesn’t imply an endorsement of such or any kind of move towards making deaconesses a reality, and could even be an ingenious method to bury the issue!  Of course, there have been preceding commissions, preceding studies, and they failed to do so.

Anyone who knows how politics work, however, knows that nothing is more important to a fringe issue than keeping it alive.  Nothing is more vital than getting the seeming acceptance of the powers that be by having them create some committee to study your nutty fringe issue.  Suddenly, it’s not so fringe, it’s become mainstream, it’s part of the process!  It has momentum. And allowing highly contentious politicized issues to gain momentum in the official sphere can often have enormous unintended consequences, even those quite contrary to those who may have intended to kill a matter by consigning it to committee in the first place.

So opines Boniface at USC, and I am strongly inclined to agree (my emphasis and comments):

……But the thing to realize is the mere fact of opening a subject to discussion makes it appear that its open for discussion. Even if there’s no money for the project and it literally cannot happen, the fact it is being discussed makes people think it can[Absolutely]

[The most important part…..] And the impossibility of the project coming to fruition does not stop its partisans. They use the commission as a means of propagating their ideas and refining their arguments – of networking with the right people and putting the right mechanisms in place to further their agenda. Of putting out whatever message to the public they wish. Of building public support and leveraging pressure on those in charge to bend to their wishes.

In other words, they might know they are not going to get what they want, but they create a momentum towards it.[!!!]

Why create momentum when they know it literally can’t happen? Well, in politics nothing is ever ultimately impossible. But in the Church, literally women can never be ordained to the diaconate. It simply cannot happen any more than a woman could be ordained to the priesthood. But that does not mean its proponents – who think it is possible – will not try to create the momentum. And the momentum is what is so dangerous,  because even if we never have women deacons, the momentum is like a huge net that will drag all sorts of souls into error on this point, create dissension, false expectations, schisms, scandal, confusion and chaos. And the chaos itself is detrimental, whether or not we ever get women deacons. [And so, Francis committees, and the ones that have come before, rehashing an issue already settled centuries ago, are, at best, huge prudential mistakes, if not at times worse than that]

People who think this is “no biggie” just because it “won’t happen” don’t understand the way people hijack parliamentary procedure and the commission-committee system to foment chaos to create momentum towards their goals. It is all destabilizing, and ultimately destabilization of the traditional Church structure is what the progressives are after. [And you have to keep in mind, though you or I may know deaconesses in the modern sense to be impossible, the supporters of women’s ordination do not know that.  They think it not only possible, but inevitable.  They’re on the “right side of history,” and all that.  Even more, many of their allies in the hierarchy also think it quite possible.  From that, all kinds of dire outcomes are possible]

The pope ought to have said, “There is no point in a commission to study. This can never happen, and if so, there’s no point in studying it. I don’t want to give Catholics the impression something could change when it can’t.” But by allowing a commission to “study” the question, Pope Francis is opening the door for partisans of women deacons [no, women “priests,” that’s always been the goal] to start building that momentum towards a female diaconate; whether they get it or not it irrelevant. The fact is, the traditional exclusion of women from Holy Orders is now open for discussion, and that fact alone – regardless of what conclusion they come to – is dangerous. 

I agree.

With the Left, whether secular or ecclesiastical, it’s always about moving the ball forward.  Once moved, it’s like a new point of departure,; there is no going back.  Anything that serves to move their agenda forward, they will take with great cheer.  Even synods that don’t go nearly as far as some might have liked.  And they can be very patient in pursuit of their agenda.

I’ll admit – there are times when committees are used to kill certain issues.  But rarely do they succeed with regard to sacred shibboleths of the Left that involve cultural hot-button issues.

Boniface has been in politics.  It shows.

If You Could Get Rid of Francis with the Push of a Button, Would You? August 9, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, demographics, error, Francis, General Catholic, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I’m lifting a whole lot from this post at St. Corbinian’s Bear, which, because of time constraints, I rarely get to enjoy anymore.  I’d forgotten how funny he is.

I am excerpting a great deal, because of the evocative nature of the question – would you, if you could, and without harming him in any material way, remove Francis as pope with the push of a button? – and because of how Bear describes Francis.  It is not flattering, but I think it expresses what many frustrated souls feel at this point.

The upshot of Bear’s question is this: might not someone far worse come along?  For me, who tends to be hopeful about the future in some fundamental way in spite of all evidence to the contrary, I absolutely would press the button.  Yes, there is risk of someone far worse, far more capable in their efforts at destruction following after, but there does remain a distinct possibility of someone much better.  That possibility may be slight, but it is not non-existent.  The damage being done by the present occupant is unbelievably severe, so in spite of future risk, any chance of reward is very enticing:

Or perhaps the whole post is a joke meant to ID the “bad Catholics,” I don’t know.  To the ripoff (I know the post I’m quoting is ancient in internet terms – a whole 8 days old! – but too bad, I’m doing it anyway – my emphasis and comments):

The Bear has become an expert on Papal Oral Flatology over the last horrifying three years and eight months. He has noticed, as have many others, that the most noisome eruptions tend to occur when Francis rides in airplanes. It is then that Francis most clearly reveals that he is the West’s traitor-in-chief.

In the latest episode of the Vatican Gong Show, “Terror at 30,000 Feet,” the Pope’s word salad would win praise for sheer daring from Hell’s Kitchen’s Gordon Ramsay, and the envy of America’s dhimmi poster child, Archbishop Blase “Mentally Unstable” Cupich.

The question from a journalist was about 84-year-old french priest Jaques Hamel, who, while saying Mass, had his throat slashed by – oh, never mind, you know with taxonomical certainty by whom.

Pope Francis opened his mouth, and this remarkable statement came out. “Terrorism grows when there is no other option, and to the extent the world economy has at its center the god of money and not the person.”……..[Contrary to reason, as many of the terrorists who have attacked targets in the West, anyway, came not from grinding poverty, but from the professionally educated middle class.]

………the picture of Francis as a not-very-bright, narrow-minded, self-loathing Catholic and panderer with no talent for original thinking merely grew clearer. [Ouch. I’m not sure I agree he’s not very bright.  Not very imaginative, surely, blinded by ideology, certainly, provincial, yes, but not bright?  I think he has substantial native intelligence, it’s just been applied to dumb and self-serving things.  Also, while smart, he’s not the world-beating intellect he thinks he is. Like so many on the Left, he has no idea what he doesn’t know.]

With full knowledge that only the people he really cares about would agree with him, he went on to say that one could not speak of Islamic violence without speaking of Catholic violence. Really?  The Bear must be reading the wrong newspapers. Unless he is speaking of violence to the Faith, and against logic. There are violent people in every religion, you see. It’s like a “mixed fruit salad,” in his words. (Archbishop Cupich would prefer “a mixed nut cup”).
Pope Francis is either a liar or a lunatic with no grasp on reality. In either case, he is not fit to be Pope. But everybody knows that, even his friends. They value his dimness and gullibility. What an insult to Christians and others being killed everywhere with monotonous regularity by adherents of just one religion. The Pope just spit in Fr. Hamel’s dead face, and the face of Christ Himself, Who was present at that Mass……….

………..What if there was a button for Pope Francis? A magical button that would not kill, or hurt him in any way. He just wouldn’t be Pope anymore. He and his non-Western, screwed up Argentinian Marxist-Peronist worldview; his Narcissistic Personality Disorder; Islamophilia; borderline mental retardation and Modernism would just go away. 
Then we could at least play Conclave Roulette and hope there wasn’t another Francis in the chamber.
On second thought, we know Francis’ “extreme danger is mitigated by manifold non-compensatable personal deficiencies.” [That’s Bear’s conclusion, not mine] But if we got a smart Francis, one who was able to broaden the appeal of his awful message beyond the majority of usual suspects, then we might be willing to give anything to have the incompetent Jorge Bergoglio back.
Someday Francis will shuffle off this mortal coil and ascend to Marxist-Islamic Heaven, where righteous Reds get to live on a collective beet farm with 72 virgins with hoes.  His will all look like Eva Peron. Then we’ll find out whether the Church threw up an outlier, or if Francis was the first Pope of the new normal.

How about a little of column A, and a little of column B?

That is to say, the choice may not be binary.  It may not be, either we get someone much more radical, and much more capable, than Franics, or we get a new Benedict.  A few thoughts.

Leftists, while often wily and quite bright, naturally, are not nearly as smart as they think they are, overall.  They tend to be lazy – morally, intellectually, etc.  Yes, that’s somewhat self-serving, and there are certainly exceptions, but as one generation on the Left has replaced another, has it been marked by a rapidly spiraling upward intellectual trend, or are they more or less persisting on the vapors of work done generations ago?  I have long tended to believe, it is the latter.  And that is true even more in the Church than in the world, because the Church is an insular authoritarian state where opposition can be easily crushed by a small cadre holding great power.  This has led to inbreeding, decadence, and intellectual softness.

Put another way: what if they pushed and elected Francis because they recognized in him the very best they have?

I think we’ve had two generations of churchmen now who have very little knowledge of Scripture, or Doctrine, or Canon Law, or Church machinery.  They know their own little bailiwick enough to run it – after a fashion –  but not much outside it.  They spout tired liberal pablum because that’s all they know.  There aren’t many Bea’s, Congar’s, Schillebeeckx’, Rahners and young Ratzingers running around, men exceedingly well formed who rejected orthodoxy to various degrees but always kept the enormous benefit of the rigorous environment in which they were formed.

That’s not to say there isn’t a danger of a “new normal.”  The danger is huge and growing every day Francis stays in office, as the cardinalate is stacked more and more with his appointees.  But there is a chance things may not get much worse than they are now.

On the other side, the same applies.  I love Cardinal Burke in many respects but I question whether his formation is the equal of a middling Cardinal of, say, 1940.  There may not be many Benedicts left in the till, either.

So what am I saying?  A Church that steadily falls into a grinding, monotonous mediocrity.

To me, however, the chances of finding a “better than Francis” decrease with each passing day. So, I’m pounding that button hard.

What we need is a miracle.  A Pius V or X or even Gregory XVI.

Not that I’m holding my breath.

St. Pius V Knew that “Ecumenism” and “Dialogue” Only Aided the Spread of Heresy August 9, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Glory, history, Papa, Restoration, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

From a short biography of St. Pius V, who took on leadership of the Church in a time of decadence, retreat, and widespread heresy amid the rising protestant revolution, and in a few short years managed to largely right the Barque of Peter and, more than anyone else, launched the Church upon the great revival known as the Counter-Reformation, which solidified the Church’s presence and mission in the world for nearly 400 years.

Pius V knew that one of the major reasons for the explosive growth of protestantism over the 50 odd  years prior to his ascent of the Chair of Peter was doctrinal laxity in the Church, and a weak-willed spirit of compromise which actually revealed a grave lack of Faith in the Church and the Truths Christ reveals through Her.  This lack of faith was most prevalent among the bishops and clergy, far too few of which had the wherewithal to fight the protestant heresies with all the myriad arms Christ supplies to His Church.

St. Pius V, thankfully, recognized the source of the crisis and took immediate and effective steps to rectify the situation.  From pp. 27-29:

The deplorable state in which Pius V found the Church on becoming Pope made him apply himself with the utmost unremitting energy to getting rid of abuses and corruption.  He had to deal with an inherited situation that might have seemed ruinous but for Christ’s promise that the gates of hell will never prevail.  Repeated  yieldings and compromises on every front had allowed protestantism to spread, with its negation of the supernatural, of the priesthood and the Sacraments; and it appeared to triumph in more and more places, affording proof that it was not so much authoritarianism as laxism that, by refusing to issue clear commands and set fixed limits, engendered false creeds, individual rebellion, and contestation.

Not only had feeble resistance to the innovators been offered by Emperor and Catholic sovereigns, but also, in spite of Trent, false hopes had continued to be entertained – it seems even by Pius V’s very predecessor – of winning protestants by making concessions to them regarding the rite of Communion, and ecclesiastical discipline[How much that sounds like today!  Note that all those efforts at conciliation failed miserably and only emboldened the protestants that they were in the right!  So Yves Congar kneeling before a shrine to Luther during Vatican II – and the other numerous bows made to modernists/the world by himself and many others – were always doomed to fail – fail, that is, assuming one has the best interests of the Church and souls at heart.  If one is a partisan of the world and error, then the modernists succeeded at VII and since likely beyond their wildest dreams]

The guiding principle in all that Pius V undertook was the exact and rigorous application of the decrees of the Council of Trent [and the Tradition of the Church]; and it was thanks to his determined energy that these decrees did not remain a dead letter, as those of some previous Councils, such as Constance and Lateran.  The magnitude of Pius V’s achievement is moreover measured by the fact of his reforms having been successfully applied not only in Italy and Europe, but throughout the Catholic world then being expanded by the discovery of new continents………

…….[Pius V] reminded the Cardinals that not least among the causes of the spread of heresy was the lax and unedifying life led by many of the clergy and urged them all to do penance, avoid luxury,  and reform their style of living………”It is an established fact,” he wrote to one bishop, that bad priests are the ruin of the people, and that odious heresy, introduced by force, has no other aim than that of corrupting the faithful.”…………

And, to show that there is nothing new under the sun, a bit more, from p. 33:

…….Abolition of priestly celibacy was advocated by Emperor Maximilian as a solution to the supposed dearth of vocations, and this solution was supported by certain of the Cardinals.  Against this, Pius V unequivocally reaffirmed celibacy and at the same time the obligation of wearing clerical dress and the religious habit – for then, as now, attempts were being made in various ways to make the clergy lose their outwardly recognizable characteristics.……..[It’s all ultimately the same heresy, the same battle.  Good vs. Evil.  Light vs. Dark. Christ vs. satan.]

———End Excerpt————-

I find the example of St. Pius V very heartening, because, while things were probably not quite as bad during the height of the protestant revolution as they are today (there were still quite numerous/populous bastions of faith/orthodox belief then, today the rot is universal save a few isolated pockets of belief here and there), he does show how quickly one man, one very good, saintly pope, can turn things around.  It may be God’s will that the Church be permitted to continue to suffer from horrific leadership and practical apostasy among most of the episcopate and clergy, but it may also be that His will can be moved to have pity on us by great efforts of prayer and penance.

One can hope, anyway.

REMINDER: Courage Apostolate Dinner at St. Joseph in Richardson Aug 11@6:30p August 9, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, family, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Holy suffering, North Deanery, paganism, scandals, sexual depravity, Society, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

A quick reminder, the only Vatican-approved, and essentially Catholic, apostolate for serving those suffering from same-sex attraction and their families – Courage – will be giving a talk at St. Joseph parish in Richardon on Thursday, Aug. 11 at 6:30 pm (buffet dinner – talk starts at 7:15).  The speaker is Fr. Philip Bochanski, associate director of Courage International.

The title of the talk is “Welcoming and Accompanying Our Brothers and Sisters Who Experience Same Sex Attraction: Living Our Our Universal Call to Chastity and Speaking Truth in Love.”

The event will be held in the main dining hall.  Enter the “Columbarium Entrance” that faces Spring Valley Road.

If you want to attend the dinner portion, reservations are required.  Contact joannmurray@verizon.net.  $7 for dinner and you may pay at the door.

I am so happy to see this event take place.  After the recent scandal of the episcopal endorsement of the extremely problematic (and that is being kind) “Always Our Children” pro-gay lobby advocacy groups as the preferred “ministry” for those suffering from SSA in this diocese, as announced at a recent conclave of diocesan priests, it is absolutely vital to have the Church’s true message on these subjects presented in charity.  That truth is simply part of the constant belief and practice of the Faith, going back to the earliest days of the Church, when St. Paul castigated the decadent, amoral behavior of so many in the collapsing Greco-Roman civilization around him.

Same sex attraction is disordered, but not necessarily sinful, while the acts associated with this inclination always and everywhere are gravely sinful.  “Always Our Children” tries desperately to pretend this is not so, even to the point of throwing out from its group meetings those who advocate for the constant belief and practice of the Faith.  “Always Our Children,” then, is in actuality an insurgent group inside the Church dedicated to the overthrow of Christ’s Truth and its replacement with the errors of the world, the flesh, and the devil.  They aim, more or less, to turn the Church into a lightly religiously themed agent of the sexular pagan revolution. They must fail, of course, but the damage wrought on souls in the effort has been, and will continue to be, incalculable.