jump to navigation

Two Powerful Sermons October 12, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Immigration, priests, sanctity, Society, the struggle for the Church, true leadership, Virtue.

The first has already been widely seen, but I did want to comment on it a bit.  Fr. John Lankeit, rector of the Cathedral of Saints Simon and Jude in Phoenix gives an excellent sermon outlining the difference between the two primary political parties in this country, and how well each aligns with Catholic moral principles.  It’s an excellent sermon overall, as many have previously noted, but I did want to bring out one point:

One thing I disagree with is that one “party” favors serious limits on illegal immigration, while the other is in favor of maintaining and even extending the lawless free-for-all we currently endure on our southern border.  This is not correct . One candidate, Trump, favors – at least in his rhetoric – limiting illegal immigration to the greatest practicable extent, but in doing this, he has infuriated many of the establishment players in the Republican party, which is probably a driving factor for some in their openly acknowledged hatred of him. While there are some good Republican Congressmen, Senators, and governors around who do favor sensible and just limits on immigration, the party as a whole is very nearly as in favor of maintaining or expanding the current status quo as are the demonrats.  Whatever the Chamber of Commerce wants, the Chamber of Commerce gets, apparently.  This divide between the will of the base, which overwhelmingly favors at least some kind of limits to immigration, and the elites, who have tried to shove amnesty down our throats multiple times, was the single biggest factor, in my mind, behind Trump’s rise.  He was believed to be serious about limiting immigration, even building a wall, while more “inside” players were seen as less serious, or more apt to compromise or even sell out.

Later in the sermon Fr. Lankeit makes a bit of distinction between the candidate and the party, but overall he sort of holds them to be the same.

I guess one other point I feel compelled to make is that while Hillary is probably the most evil, amoral candidate for president in this nation’s history, and quite likely the most pro-abort, too, Trump is not exactly an all-star in this regard, either.  I very much hope he is honest in his purported pro-life beliefs (which, to be frank, have varied wildly) and, most importantly, that he will nominate the very solid kind of Supreme Court justices he has made public, but there is reason to have qualms.  In comparison to the vile, deplorable Hillary, however, there is really no choice, tragically.

I’m also glad Father brought out both the subject of intrinsic evils, which the Bishop of San Diego McElroy atrociously, I might even say diabolically, attempted, in very Jesuit fashion, to reduce to meaninglessness, as well as noting that neither major party in this country is close to being fully Catholic in its platform and views.  I would go further, and note that this country’s entire orientation at its founding as a liberal republic and epitome of the revolutionary, anti-Catholic beliefs of the late 18th century, is not only disordered, but on a fundamental level, practically anti-Catholic in refusing to recognize Jesus Christ as the King to which all rightly ordered nations must look to as their Head.

Again, overall, it’s a really excellent sermon and the kind of catechesis all too rarely heard outside traditional parishes.

Now, another interesting sermon on the changes made to the Rosary by John Paul II and what boundless effrontery were represented therein.  To think that a prayer given us directly by the Blessed Mother needed “improvement” by sinful, fallen men is the height of hubris, but, of course, nothing characterizes the post-conciliar Church more than its constant exaltation of itself and denigration of its own past.  Heck, nowadays you can’t find a regular Rosary (using one set of mysteries consistently) at virtually ANY wake in a Novus Ordo parish, getting instead a bastardized mish-mash of mysteries from different sets, all oriented towards assuring all present the departed soul is an instant saint, I guess to spare the family and loved ones the duty of having to pray for the departed.  After all, we all know the greatest sin in the known universe is to ever make someone feel bad, even for an instant.  Francis the Great told us so.

Even then, half the time the priest leading the Rosary, if there is one, behaves as if he has rarely, if ever, prayed it before.

As for me, I’ve never prayed the “Luminous Mysteries.”



1. Baseballmom - October 12, 2016

TB, I got that sermon from a dear priest friend of mine this morning. I texted it to all my siblings and my nieces, nephews and friends. It was EXACTLY what I had been looking for, He really nailed it.

2. docmx001 - October 13, 2016

Father Lankeit is my pastor, Deo gratias.

Tantumblogo - October 13, 2016

Oh, I did not know that. Congratulations. Obviously a helpful source for you. No wonder you so smart.

3. c matt - October 13, 2016

He sort of glossed over the war thing, but even with that issue one candidate this time around is far more hawkish/interventionist and likely to lead us to war than the other. No surprise she would also support abortion – kill ’em at home, kill ’em abroad.

4. Camper - October 13, 2016

I am just about sure that I remember Fr. Terra, FSSP, praying the Luminous Mysteries once at the Carmelite Chapel one Friday evening. At least I think he supported their existence once. Very bad.

Just another reason to join the SSPX!

5. Magdalene - October 13, 2016

I like and pray the Luminous Mysteries along with the other Three Mysteries every day.

Tim - October 13, 2016
6. Tim - October 13, 2016
7. c matt - October 13, 2016

It is not so much that the luminous mysteries are “wrong” or such, it is just that it seems quite arrogant to believe you can “improve” on something that has served the Church spectacularly for centuries (not unlike the entire NO debacle, although that one DOES have substantive issues).

Emil - October 17, 2016

C Matt, you are so right! In which case, wouldn’t you agree that we should eliminate the last Gospel in the Traditional Mass, since the Mass didn’t have the last Gospel for centuries, and you can’t improve on something that has served the Church spectacularly for centuries?

8. Brian E. Breslin - October 14, 2016

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: