Ligouri on the Necessity of Humility and Suffering Humiliation As Means of Attaining Sanctity September 28, 2017
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Holy suffering, Interior Life, mortification, religious, Saints, sanctity, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.comments closed
Some additional excerpts from The True Spouse of Jesus Christ by the great Moral Doctor St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori on the vital role humility, especially in the form of patiently and joyfully bearing humiliations, plays in the process of sanctification/growth in the interior life.
I cut and paste various exerpts from pp. 335-341 below:
Some, says St. Francis of Assisi, imagine that sanctity consists in the recital of many prayers or in the performance of works of penance: but, not understanding the great merit of patience under insult, they cannot bear an injurious word. You will acquire more merit by meekly receiving an affront than by fasting ten days on bread and water. It will sometimes happen that a privilege that is refused to you will be conceded to others; that what you say will be treated with contempt, while the words of others are heard with respectful attention; that while the actions of others are the theme of general praise, and they are heaped with honors, you are passed by unnoticed and your whole conduct is made a subject of derision. If you accept in peace all these humiliations, and if, with a sincere affection, you recommend to God those from whom you receive the least respect, then indeed, as St. Dorotheus says, it will be manifest that you are truly humble. To them you are particularly indebted, since by their reproaches they cure your pride – the most malignant of all diseases that lead to spiritual death. Because they deem themselves worthy of all honors, the proud convert their humiliations into an occasion of pride. But because the humble consider themselves deserving only of opprobrium, their humiliations serve to increase their humility. “That man,” says St. Bernard, ” is truly humble who converts humiliation into humility.”
Voluntary humiliations, such as to serve the sick, to kiss the feet of those who imagine, even unjustly, that we have offended them, and similar acts of humility, are very profitable; but, to embrace with cheerfulness, for the love of Jesus Christ, the humiliations that come from others, such as reproofs, accusations, insults, and derisions, is still more meritorious……..As gold is tried in the fire, so a man’s perfection is proved by humiliation. St. Mary Magdalene de Pazzi used to say that “untried virtue is not virtue.” He who does not suffer contempt with a tranquil mind shall never attain the spirit of perfection…….[Working out our salvation is not easy. Contrary to American protestant claims of “one and done” conversions, which are so typical of the modern American drive-through convenience mentality, God desires of us a total conversion from our fallen human nature, our endless pride and selfishness, to a being dead to self and living only for God and through His Grace. This is terribly hard, but God has given us great guides in the Saints to show that it is possible, and, even more, how to do it. It’s simply a matter of dying to ourselves and living for God through good works done to others. Suffering humiliations tranquilly is a powerful means of dying to self.]
………St. Mary Magdalene de Pazzi used to say that crosses and ignominies are the greatest favors that God is accustomed to bestow on his beloved spouses. [Once again, contrary to protestant, especially modern American protestantism, which preaches that God just wants to shower ease and wealth and comfort on His chosen ones…….is that what He did to His son? Is His Son and Our Lady the exemplars par excellence God has given us on both how to live our lives, and what to expect from the world when we live in accord with His Will? I know even some Catholics who equate being pious with being blessed with happiness, comfort, ease, freedom from illness or financial difficulty, but this is very, very wrong.]
……….The Saints have not been made Saints by applause and honor, but by injuries and insults. St. Ignatius Martyr, a bishop, and an object of universal esteem and veneration, was sent to Rome as a criminal, and on his way experienced from the soldiers who conducted him nothing but the most barbarous insolence. In the midst of his suffering and humiliations he joyfully exclaimed: “I now begin to be a disciple of Christ.” I now begin to be a true disciple of my Jesus, who endured so m any ignominies for my sake……
….Let us then be persuaded that to be persecuted in this life confers the highest excellence on the Saints. “And,” says the Apostle, “all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution” (II Tim iii:12). The Redeemer says, “If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you” (Jn xv:20).
————-End Quote————-
We live in an especially difficult time to acquire the virtue of humility. More than in any past period, today we have paraded before our eyes constantly, especially if we have not yet destroyed our TVs, powerful images extolling pride and denigrating almost all virtue, but especially humility. True humility is an almost unknown quantity in our mass media culture, and tranquil acceptance of humiliations is utterly baffling, especially for Americans, who have been taught for decades that having everything the way they want it this instant is a practical constitutional right. Vast numbers of the younger generations coming of age literally have zero conception of what life is like for the vast majority of humanity today, and, even more, the sufferings and privations involved in existence even a few short decades ago in anyplace but America. Heck, my dad grew up without running water and electricity, and I was born in the 70s! That just one tiny example. Wealth, ease, and comfort are in many ways inimical to growth in virtue: and, of course, our task is made even harder still by the crisis in the Church. It’s a terrible triple whammy.
But God is infinitely greater in his rewards, than what He asks of us in sacrifice. Those who are able to cooperate with Grace in these increasingly dark times, what great Saints they will be, and what inspirations to future generations!
I pray such Saints may be found from among the readership of this blog. As for the author, it is best to do as I say, not as I do…….
Vatican Responds to Correctio Filialis With Offer of “Dialogue”……. September 28, 2017
Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, cultural marxism, different religion, Ecumenism, error, fightback, Francis, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church.comments closed
……..which is rather how they treat they encounter different from their own, isn’t it? The “they,” being the current – and, it must be said in fairness, significant elements of the past several – papal administration in Rome.
At any rate, at least the silence has ended? Is this just a delaying tactic? After all, dialogues with the “separated brethren” and others have been as numerous and endless as they have been ineffectual at winning anyone to the Faith (by design). Look at the Vatican-SSPX “dialogue.” Years spent talking past each other, adherents to frankly different and irreconcilable faiths trying to find a non-existent common ground? Nevertheless, perhaps the tactic of mokusatsu, to kill with silence, attempting to ignore the problem of a growing rebellion against this papal administration from an increasing number of the most dedicated Catholics, has been recognized as a failure?
By the way, the number of signatories to the Correctio Filialis, as of late Tuesday, had nearly doubled. No updates since then:
Rome, September 28 – Vatican Secretary of State Pietro Parolin said on Thursday that “it’s important to dialogue even within the Church”, in response to a letter from a group of conservative Catholics accusing Pope Francis of heresy. “People who disagree express their dissent, but on these things we have to reason, to try to understand one another,” he said, speaking on the sidelines of a conference on Iraqi Christians held by ACS, a Vatican-based international non-profit that aids persecuted Christians worldwide. The letter accused Pope Francis of heresy in his 2016 document Amoris Laetitia – The Joy of Love The conservatives Catholics delivered to the pope in August issuing him a “filial correction” – a measure they said was being using for the first time since the 14th century – over the document, which opens up the possibility of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics receiving communion……….
……..The letter accuses the pope of seven “heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments, and has caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church”.
The signatories said their initiative does not conflict with the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility “since the Church teaches that a pope must meet strict criteria before his utterances can be considered infallible.
“Pope Francis has not met these criteria,” it added.
The conservatives also accused the pope of having Modernist leanings and of being influenced by the ideas of Martin Luther.
Did the letter merely accuse Francis of heresy, or did it, through the ministrations of several notable theologians among the original signatories, substantially prove both direct heretical statements/acts/policies AND a significant penchant towards embrace of both the Lutheran and modernist heresies on the part of Francis?
Put another way, did the signatories not quite irrefutably establish the fact that Francis is, indeed, a Jesuit?
At this point, has anyone seen any substantive attempts to rebut or refute the conclusions reached by the Correctio Filialis? I have not, all I’ve seen is endless ad hominems directed at the authors, but then again, I’ve only checked out a few likely sources (Pray Tell, America, US “Catholic,”, etc).
From my standpoint, the Correctio contains not allegations or accusations, but solidly established proofs. Of course, those proofs are limited in their influence pending their adoption by those endowed by God with the authority to hold a sovereign pontiff accountable – the College of Cardinals. No wonder Francis has hinted at abolishing that body?
Better act quick, Cardinal Burke.
Fr. Martin Makes a Statement September 27, 2017
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, cultural marxism, different religion, disaster, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, sadness, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, the struggle for the Church.comments closed
Rorate has gotten some criticism over a tweet they did of this pic, not so much for the pic, but for what they had to say about it. You can decide for yourself whether you think their commentary appropriate or not.
As for me, both the non-wearing of clerics, and the bottle on the shelf, make a very strong statement.
I highlighted the bottle to help you find it.
As if we didn’t know already.
He would come out, if he didn’t think it would hurt his cause. Once Francis declares the Church for “gay unions,” he’ll be out n’ proud.
Poor soul. He sees in Francis nothing but great victories for himself, but he is just digging deeper into a never-ending pit of sulfur and brimstone.
UPDATE: I read a chapter of the Bible every day. This, providentially, was in the chapter I was to read today (since I go in order from beginning to end):
I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom:
Preach the word, be instant in season, out of season, reprove, entreat, rebuke with all patience and doctrine.
For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:
And will turn away indeed their hearing from the truth but will be turned to fables.
Father James Martin has turned away into fables of his own making.
The TLM Demands More and Delivers More…… September 27, 2017
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Restoration, sanctity, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.comments closed
……..much, much more!
Before I begin excerpting Dr. Peter Kwasniewski’s excellent post comparing the TLM, as predominately offered today (very well and reverently), and the Novus Ordo, as predominately offered today (poorly), I will point out, as Dr. K does, that there are rare examples of the Novus Ordo, offered in Latin, that offer many of the same benefits as does the TLM (while making many of the same “demands,” as well). I have been blessed to assist at Novus Ordos offered in Latin that feature the Asperges and with the priest facing the tabernacle, speaking lowly in Latin during the consecration and with bells and smells lifted from the TLM, and both my family and I derived great spiritual fruit from this. You could easily say the NO in Latin was a quite beneficial and necessary step for us on the way to the TLM.
However, while I don’t wish to be accused of “typical” Trad pridefulness, I do believe that, even when offered as beautifully and reverently as possible, the Novus Ordo in Latin does not quite reach the standard of the TLM in terms of fruitfulness for souls and benefits not only for the life of the Church, but for the world at large. There were simply too many changes. Even the Canon was not left untouched, and most sadly, the very words of the Consecration. Also less beneficial were the massive changes to the readings, and especially the deliberate excision of “problematic” parts of Scripture, the ones that speak of condemnation, blasphemy, even damnation, or – horror of horrors – which point to the Church as the unique body instituted by God for salvation.
But, having said that, if Francis or some other evil force were to somehow abrogate the TLM tomorrow and get all the bishops and priests to go along – if the TLM disappeared – I could probably get by without much ill effect on the best NO in Latin I ever experienced, one that even, perhaps against the “rules,” but of enormous benefit for souls, lifted a few bits of the TLM back into the NO – like the Canon and consecration (yes, that happened). This assumes basically the situation I encountered, that of a fully orthodox priest who desperately desired to offer the TLM but was barred by diocesan regulations – though I understand he is back to offering Mass ad orientem again, now that a certain Cardinal who stopped him from doing so is out of this diocese.
At any rate, to portions of Kwasniewski’s post, about what the TLM demands, but, even more, what it delivers:
We have probably all met people who are thinking of attending the traditional Latin Mass on a regular basis and who, when they actually start going, are struck by how much extra effort it costs. Perhaps we ourselves once felt the same way.
For starters, you are expected to kneel for long stretches of time. There is a lot of silence to get used to (and, if you are a parent, to keep your children relatively quiet in). Sometimes there are lengthy readings, chants, or prayers that may test your patience and stretch to the limit your capacity for meditation. You might be confused about what words the priest or the schola is saying or singing, because the hand missal you picked up from a bookcase in the foyer is over a thousand pages long, and you haven’t figured out how to use it yet. So much is strange, even overwhelming; sometimes it seems random. And the whole of a High Mass might last for an hour and a half or even longer, depending on the solemnity of the rite or the volubility of the preacher. Everyone dresses up more; women are expected to wear veils; the atmosphere is more serious. An eager devotee might volunteer the information that Catholics who come to Mass here often try to observe either the three-hour Eucharistic fast or the fast from midnight. The usus antiquior is premised on asceticism and a reverential beauty in no hurry to be done. This Mass demands a lot of you and your family, physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually. Is it worth the effort?
On the other hand, going to the Novus Ordo can be such a breeze………[I’ll skip the explanation. He means, a breeze, in the sense of making few demands in terms of personal effort]
[Onto the benefits of the TLM]……First, you come to realize that even after years of attending the Novus Ordo, you had not developed much of a “liturgical interior life”—that is, the ability to rest in the mysteries shining forth in the Mass, to absorb the prayers or Scripture texts, to connect deeply with the Real Presence of the Savior. The usus antiquior makes ample room for the growth of the spiritual life at the pace and in the way most suited to each individual, offering many helps or “handles” for penetrating into the marvels of the Eucharist and of the Church’s liturgical year. It gives you a lot more to pray about and a lot more room to pray in.
After experiencing this for a while, it can be like a shower with ice-cold water to return to the Novus Ordo and discover that it is pretty much a non-stop extroverted exchange from start to finish, with now the priest speaking, now the congregation, always “something doing,” and never, or rarely ever, an expanse for resting, absorbing, connecting. Even though the classical liturgy has a lot more going on in its minutiae, it operates on broader lines at a more leisurely pace—an inheritance from the ancient Mediterranean world and the monastery-rich Middle Ages……..
………..Second, at the traditional Mass you start to notice a plethora of little things that serve as windows to the infinite and eternal: the priest kissing the altar time and again; the bowing of heads at certain phrases in the Gloria or the Credo; many signs of the cross made at significant moments; the clink of thurible chains and floating clouds of sweet smoke; the subdeacon holding the paten under the humeral veil; the pregnant silence of the Canon; the lifting of the chasuble at the elevations; the many ringings of bells; the corps of servers with straight backs and folded hands; the touching of sacred vessels and of Christ’s holy Body by ordained ministers alone…. All these little things (and the list could go on) are so many signs or calls of love from God, who is drawing us with exquisite gentleness into the depths of His mystery, preparing us for our beatitude with Him. He would never wish to give us anything less than the fullness of the orthodox Faith, in the fullness of its sacral expression.
(“Now wait a minute,” you may say; “can we not sometimes find the same little things in the Novus Ordo, too?” Yes, you might find some of them, on a good day, if you’re lucky.[1] The problem is that they rarely appear in that context, and when they do, it is with the slightly awkward feel of strangers who have arrived at a casual party vastly over-dressed. [There is something to this. I don’t mean to insult anyone’s preferences, but even at the very best Latin NO there was a little sense that all the pomp and reverence was something of an affectation – and at the very worst it was obvious.The NO was intended to be a Mass in the vernacular, and offering it in Latin comes across, at times, a bit false.]……..
………Third, by immersing oneself in the ancient Roman liturgy, one’s identity as a Catholic, and the content of Catholicism, becomes thicker and richer. With the aid of good illustrated books, sound catechesis at home, and patient parenting, your children will have the opportunity to become more fully Catholic, too, and their unspoken sense of the reality of the Faith, the powerful reality of the things we say we believe (such as the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament), will grow. This, in itself, is worth all that it takes to get to the traditional Mass: children will be confronted again and again with unequivocal signs of the holiness of God, the dignity of priests, the set-apart sacredness of the sanctuary, the altar as a place of sacrifice, and the special privilege of receiving the Lord from the anointed hands of His minister, as we kneel along the altar rail to receive the precious Body of Jesus. [This is something I do see: it’s not universal, but there is frequently a connection children make to the TLM that I’ve simply never seen in the NO of any stripe, no matter how good. You will see little boys literally playing priest at home, asking their moms to make them little chasubles to wear. Their brothers will help “assist” at the play mass, and sisters will be the congregation. Children start paying better attention to Mass at a younger age, in my experience, too.]
The traditional liturgy is like the old catechism writ large, in vivid characters, imprinting fundamental truths on the souls of those who attend it—truths for which there is little obvious support in the Novus Ordo, with its democratic permeable barriers that allow laypeople and clergy to mix roles and functions, its positioning of the priest versus populum as a “presider” at a social event, its treatment of the altar as a table, its dearth of signs and symbols to catch hold of and elevate the mind, its nearly institutionalized use of substandard church music, its lack of intrinsic silence, its encouragement of informal attitudes, and much else besides. If we want to avoid all this, we must not dither and second-guess. We must make up our minds to attend the Church’s traditional liturgy, which enshrines the totality of Catholic dogma and responds to man’s deepest religious needs. Whatever our vocation is, whatever our state in life, whatever the state of our soul, we stand to receive a treasure infinitely greater than any sacrifice we might make in order to obtain it. If we are parents with children, we are greatly increasing the possibility that God may give our families the greatest gift after the Most Holy Eucharist, namely, a vocation to priestly or religious life—a vocation that the traditional liturgy awakens in a disproportionate number of its adherents. [So true – the number of vocations from TLMs compared to Novus Ordo is exponentially higher – by percentage of souls attending who follow their vocation.]
An awakening to the interior life; the finding of dozens of new paths to the knowledge and love of God; the enrichment of one’s identity and faith as a Catholic—this is what the extra effort of attending the traditional Mass wins for you. Is it worth it? Can we say that this is a “reasonable” demand for modern people?
Maybe that is the wrong question to ask, for the truth is better than we expect or deserve. The tradition makes foolish, unreasonable demands because it aims not at our comfort but at our divinization. Its aims at passion, death, resurrection, and ascension, and efficaciously accomplishes them. We would do well to follow this narrow way that leads to abundant life.
Thanks to MFG for the link.
I know a few folks who tried the TLM once or twice and did not feel comfortable. It is an enormous change. But it is so very much worth the effort. And if you’ve had a bad experience, if you felt lost or not welcomed enough, please, try again. Locally, at any rate, there are strong efforts underway to try to make newcomers feel as welcome and involved as possible. Especially if you go to the 9am High Mass on Sunday.
For those who have never been, it is truly an experience every Catholic should have a serious exposure to – and by serious, I mean, attending at least 3 or 4 times in relatively short succession. If you still don’t like it after that, so be it – and there are a few, I must admit, especially those of the generation that were taught that the TLM was really bad and just had to be replaced, for their own good – but you owe it to yourself to try it, even at the cost of some effort (one which Dr. K does not mention – often very long travel times, and in other dioceses, inconvenient hours).
Out of time. 2000 words anyway. You got your fill!
Hope Amidst Horror in the Bergoglian Church September 27, 2017
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Our Lady, persecution, Restoration, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.comments closed
A really excellent video analyzing the current state of the Church from Michael Matt. He incidentally gets in some digs at that operation in Detroit that still, apparently – I haven’t watched any of their product in years, for a number of reasons – is refusing to address the 900 bazillion ton elephant in the room, while spending enormous effort/volume of fire shooting at various mice and cockaroaches. Sure those latter must be opposed and drug into the daylight, but the house will still be destroyed so long as the elephant is free to rampage, and the damage done by the former is orders of magnitude greater than the latter.
But the main point of the video is not just to expostulate on the dire situation in the Church, a situation likely unprecedented in Her 2000 year history, but also to give hope to know that God is still in charge, that His promise to never abandon His Church and the faithful still applies, and that we must have recourse to Our Blessed Mother as our ultimate intercessor with God to have mercy on His Church and restore sanity to the Church.
Both Matt, and, I should add, Bishop Gracida note that this lay intercession is a necessary step in the path towards a formal correction issuing from a certain body of Cardinals, which, I pray, will be more than two. Bishop Gracida believes that Cardinal Burke, the obvious leader of the cardinalatial “resistance,” should do so before the end of the year. Even if the cardinals do nothing, either because they are unwilling or unable to do so (for instance, if no other cardinal will join Burke), the lay correction still has great value. Francis has been corrected. He has been called out. Future generations, once sanity has been restored to the Church, can and will make use of the historical record this correction provides – and if I were the authors of the correction, I would disseminate hard copies to every chancery and every major Catholic university in the world. The electronic pseudo-records may not be around forever.
The key role for the laity in all of this however is two fold – to keep the Faith, and to pray. We cannot allow ourselves to be drawn into extremes of thought or action because of the daily uber-scandals inflicted upon us. We cannot allow our hearts to become hard and to lose Faith in the Lord. This too shall pass. Not perhaps in our lifetimes, but eventually. And if not, perhaps our children or grandchildren will be witness to the glory of the Lord again on this earth in the Second Coming. Our Lord Himself told us in inspired and inerrant Scripture that at the end of times, the Faith would be all but dead in the hearts of men.
In the interim, we must be doing all we can – more than we presently think we can – in terms of prayer and sacrifice, and in particular prayer for the intercession of Our Lady. Perhaps this October 13 will witness another unprecedented miracle, but perhaps not. Either way, Our Lady’s intercession is our best recourse for bringing about the restoration of Holy Mother Church and, just as importantly, the conversion of so many billions of dead, hardened souls. Even in times when the Faith was infinitely more alive in the hearts of men, at least in parts of the world (the 13th century), the Lord’s hand of judgment was stayed through the enormous piety and noble acts of a handful of great Saints, especially St. Vincent Ferrer. The fewness of the number of the remnant matters not, what matters is their fervor of faith and cooperation with Grace. In this respect, some of us, and I certainly include myself in this number, have not been doing all we possibly can, preferring instead to cast aspersions at the failures of others rather than take out the beam in my own eye.
You may have already seen the video, but if you have not, I strongly recommend you watch it. It’s extremely good. As a final aside, in the interest of time, I have developed the habit of watching videos at 1.25 or 1.5x speed, which makes a 24 minute video last 16 minutes. Any faster and they either sound ridiculous or I can’t keep up.
Pray. And reserve some mercy in your hearts even for those who so despise the truths of our Faith and work so hard to endanger souls – we must, as Catholics, love all, even those who wound us so deeply and spread so much obvious destruction.
Bishop Gracida: Prepare to Live like Catholics under the English Persecution September 27, 2017
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, different religion, episcopate, error, fightback, Francis, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Latin Mass, manhood, persecution, Revolution, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.comments closed
I think this is a most insightful commentary, and one that I agree with. The persecution of Catholics in Tudor/Jacobian England in the 16th and 17th centuries gives us a very clear picture of what it is like to suffer through a Church that allows itself to be whored out to the opinions, desires, and whims of the powers that be. This is precisely what many feel has happened to our beautiful Holy Mother Church in recent decades (though they would probably have the decency and good sense not to use such an awful term, but I feel that is the one that is the most descriptive), and we can expect the faithful remnant – a term I was surprised to see Bishop Gracida, whom I had failed to read for many months, using over and over again on his blog – to be treated as badly or worse by the establishment church as were the “recusants” of Merrye Ol’ several centuries ago.
The tactics, liturgical changes, and theology are virtually identical to the most militant, leftist wing of the protestant revolutionaries of Elizabethan times, too.
But I’ll let Bishop Gracida make his points, and add a few comments. This commentary was an answer to a question asked by a 70 year old Catholic regarding that septuagenarian’s sense that the Church of today is not the one he grew up in – when the Church fails, where do we go?:
Don’t you realize that you have become part of the Remnant?
Your situation, our situation, is analogous to the situation in which Catholics found themselves in 16th Century England. All of a sudden Catholics woke up and found that the Church in which they had grown up had changed. The head of the Church in England, the Archbishop of Canterbury had come under the influence of liberals and progressives like Martin Luther and John Calvin. Worse, the King, Henry VIII, had become a serial adulterer and he felt it was ok for him to ‘re-marry’ and still receive Holy Communion while living in an adulterous relationship because the good of the Nation required it. [or the good of the groin -as Henry fell deeper and deeper into total incontinence, even the pretense he was doing all his adulterating for “the good of the nation” dropped away] And to put a proper face on it the King declared himself the Head of the Church, the Liturgy of the Mass changed with the genius [“genius”] of Archbishop Cranmer and all of a sudden Catholics in England woke up and found that they had become Anglicans.
Well, not ALL Catholics. Some, like the author of the above article still considered themselves to be Catholics, not Anglicans and because they now constituted a small number of people compared to their Anglican neighbors they became a Remnant of the Catholic Church.
That is what you are. That is what many of us are.
And as a consequence, we are going to experience persecution. Not the same kind of persecution that English Catholics experienced under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. [Ummm……wait and see. It might get pretty close, at least so far as being treated as heretics, schismatics, outsiders, and hateful bigots] You will cherish the Traditional Latin Mass when you can find it and you will learn to avoid the absurdities liberal priests and bishops introduce into the Novus Ordo Masses.
Just as English Catholics learned to avoid Anglican Masses celebrated by priests who were ordained not to offer the sacrifice of Jesus Christ but to set the table for a community meal, you will seek out priests, bishops (yes, and even popes) who manifest their belief in the Incarnate Lord Jesus Christ who suffered and died for us and who revealed his plan for us in the 2000 year magisterium of the Church we have possessed up to the present pontificate.
More from Bishop Gracida here, on why he signed the filial correction.
Lord, what good could be done with a few more such men. Of course, he’s retired, and so it’s a lot easier for him to speak – and probably therein lies very much of the problem.
I’m not quite certain what the good bishop means about seeking out “popes who manifest their belief in the Incarnate Lord….” except that I’m certain he doesn’t meaning finding our own little Pope Michaels, et. al., to follow. I am sure he means we turn to the popes of the past, the holy fathers who safely guided the Church with a far surer hand than the present trustee of the diocese of Rome.
At any rate it seems Bishop Gracida has become much more clear in his appreciation of the crisis facing the Church and the reality of the tiny number of the faithful. But our paucity of numbers is not a reason to lose hope, as I pray the next post may elucidate unsurreptitiously.
Today I can use my big boy words!
Epochal History: Faithful Deliver Charge of Heresy against Francis, Bishop of Rome September 25, 2017
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, cultural marxism, different religion, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, manhood, priests, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church, true leadership, Virtue.comments closed
I’m sure all readers are already well aware of the unprecedented submittal to Pope Francis of a letter of Filial Correction against heresy from several dozen people, clerical and lay, this past weekend. I say the letter is unprecedented, because while, once, in the long history of the Church, a living pope has been formally corrected by his subordinates on a matter related to faith or morals, that was on one, very specific, and rather detailed, matter. The correction of John XXII (and thus it was 645 years before that name was taken by a sovereign pontiff again, and isn’t THAT revealing) had to deal with whether the saints in Heaven partake of the Beatific Vision at death, or only at the last judgment (John XXII erroneously believed the latter). This was not heavy, vital to the every day life of the Church kind of stuff.
No, the matter with Francis is entirely different. He is accused of promoting errors which, if allowed to stand and metastasize as they inevitably must, will, with shocking speed, result in the destruction of the entire moral edifice of the Faith. Francis intends a revolution so radical that, as his closest allies contend, no roll back will be possible. He intends to change how the Church believes and practices, root and branch. That some people still do not see this, still refuse to see this, shows just how deeply the papalotry has become.
Several specific errors were challenged in the letter called Correctio Filialis. I will not go into those in detail, but they all revolve around the entirely novel, and erroneous, contentions put forward in Amoris Laetitia that people in the manifest state of mortal sin through adultery (aka attempted bigamy) may receive the Blessed Sacrament as if they were in the state of grace. That this destructive proposition is Francis’ intent with the document is amply supported by his direct intervention with two episcopal conferences -those of Argentina and Malta – directing them, when asked whether to implement Amoris Laetitia (AL) in line with the constant belief and practice of the Faith – that is, to continue denying the Blessed Sacrament to public adulterers – or to allow these adulterers to receive, as they read AL to mean, Francis both times answered that the adulterers were to be allowed to receive. Thus Henry VIII becomes a “saint” in the new church of Francis?
The authors of the correction further note that Francis, in AL and in many other regards, appears to operate under the influence of two condemned heresies – modernism and Lutheranism. This is, from all the available evidence, an extremely difficult accusation for Francis to disprove, as are the detailed points of accusation regarding AL.
So, Francis has chosen to respond as he usually does to those questioning his authority and his doctrinal integrity, with personal silence (for over a month since the letter was first delivered) and an orchestrated campaign of character assassination by his allies, within and without the Church, against his “enemies” (enemies who are striving with great might to inspire him to convert and, almost certainly, save his soul). However, that campaign is being conducted, thus far, almost entirely by “inside baseball” publications, websites, and social media networks. The leftist state media have chosen to almost wholly embargo this massively important development, the first time a reigning Bishop of Rome has been formally accused of error amounting to heresy in nearly 700 years (actually, that was the case until just an hour or two ago, when a rash of articles appeared). Time will tell how this will play out, but, so far, the media is largely presenting this correction as coming from a kooky fringe, invoking quotes from the usual sources, but never, in the slightest, actually attempting to argue against what the letter of correction actually claims.
A further note regarding the letter of correction: it is claimed that no (save one) bishops or cardinals signed the letter of correction because they were not asked. That would be a fine and possibly sensible response, but why, then, did Bishop Fellay sign? He was invited to sign, but no others were? The first line of attack by the leftists against this correction is that it comes from a tiny element with no influence in the Church and no support from any bishops or cardinals – to this absence may lessen its influence. Similarly interesting – one might say concerning, even frustrating – to me, was the fact that no priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter signed. I know that this is an extremely difficult issue for the, the Fraternity’s very founding was based at least in part on a perceived need to be “more” obedient or submissive to the Holy See than those in the SSPX, but I also know there are a number of priests in the FSSP who are as aghast at and opposed to the errors emanating from this pontificate as anyone. Perhaps no one in the FSSP was asked, then, either. Some diocesan priests were, as were a number of theologians. Good on you, Philip Blosser. I pray this doesn’t cost you your job at Sacred Heart seminary in Detroit.
I pray we will see many more signatories in the days to come (In fact, we have. The wonderful Bishop Emeritus Rene Gracida of Corpus Christi has signed. This is a great credit to this steadfast bishop and friend of Tradition, but it does also indicate that, while bishops perhaps were not asked in advance to sign the Correctio, basically none so far have volunteered to do so). I know of at least one wonderful, traditional priest who has submitted his name for inclusion. I pray some bishops do wind up signing, but I’m sure the vast majority will sit tight and see which way the wind blows. True heirs of St. Paul. Not.
The question is being asked by some: is this a big deal? Will this have any real effect? The answer to the former is, yes, it is a YUGE deal for all kinds of reasons. It is huge historically. It is huge doctrinally and ecclesiastically. It is hugely significant as a sign of formal, PUBLIC resistance to the revolutionary leftist agenda in the Church, something that was notably absent during the first outbreak of full-on revolution in the period 1958-78. Thousands of people attempted private interventions with Pope Paul VI, and hundreds or thousands have done so with Francis, but these private interventions have had no effect. Cardinals have publicly questioned the pope’s doctrine – the next step was for a group of laity to do so in an even more detailed manner. If there is no adequate response or change in behavior, the step after this is, given Francis’ response to the Dubia and his seeming total resistance to the effect of prayer and sacrifice on the part of so many, for cardinals to move from question to accusation (probably using this Correctio Filialis for support), and from accusation to judgment. I am certain Cardinal Burke is striving to find collaborators in this process right now, and I pray he has the health and faith to continue on with formal opposition to Francischurch. To the extent he succeeds or fails will determine whether this interim step of filial correction will have any real effect on the life of the Church.
And that, I think, will very much depend on priests but, particularly, bishops and cardinals to be willing to man up and add their name to the Correctio. However, recent history, where over a thousand priests worldwide publicly proclaimed that they would not administer the Blessed Sacrament in accordance with Amoral Laetitia had no apparent effect on Francis, does not make me sanguine at the possibilities. Furthermore, I doubt a single further American bishop signs, and I will be surprised if more than a handful worldwide do. Perhaps there will be several hundred priests sign, but that is unlikely to have much effect.
It is opposition from bishops that is most key. We’re 4 1/2 years into this pontificate, with Francis’ appointments growing always in numbers, and there has yet to have been any significant public opposition from the episcopate to Francis and his revolution. Even privately, during the sin-nods, opposition was wholly insufficient (it should have been practically unanimous). I am not certain what we as laity can do to inspire bishops to start defending the Faith (for some, for the first time in their lives) beyond always trying to increase prayer and sacrifice. I’m all for cutting off funds in a very public and concerted way, but tying cutting off the local bishop to lack of opposition to Francis would be a really far stretch for a lot of people.
There are some easy things you can do, right now, to witness to your own appreciation of the Faith, to indicate your solidarity with the Correctio, and to hopefully inspire more priests and some bishops to do the same: you can sign the petition supporting the Correctio here. You can follow who has signed the letter at this site here.
Beyond that, I think far more Catholics need to start publicly voicing their opposition to Francis and his pontificate. Refusing to give to Peter’s Pence is one thing, but getting active on social media or out in the real world with activities to support and defend the Faith while politely noting opposition to the revolutionary direction emanating from Rome is something more people should consider getting behind – and I don’t mean just leaving comments on blogs like this one. Heck, start your own. Send a polite letter to your bishop. Ask your priest to unequivocally address this crisis – at our local parish, little has been said of late, sadly.
Make your own suggestions in the comments. I have spent much of the afternoon on this post and I’m out of time. Man do I love Bishop Gracida, though. Since our local ordinaries have never seen fit to offer Confirmation at our TLM parish, maybe we should extend an invitation to Bishop Gracida? I have no idea if he would come, but he’s a rock and deserves our support, prayers, and love, as do all those who are willing to take the most uncomfortable step, for any Catholic, of accusing their very father, their spiritual father, of error amounting to the horror of heresy. What a tragic time we live in.
I Don’t Lose a Wink of Sleep over North Korea September 25, 2017
Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, foolishness, It's all about the $$$, rank stupidity, self-serving, silliness, Society, technology.comments closed
Several people have asked me what I think of North Korea and all these threats emanating from Kim Jong Un. What I think is………don’t fund their weapons development, otherwise, just totally ignore them and encourage every possible economic sanction. They are a one trick pony. All they have is threats. If they ever act on those threats, their one trump card is gone and they are utterly destroyed. So, it is best to just ignore them.
But we, the US, have paid for their atomic weapons and ballistic missile development efforts. In 1994 Kim Il Sung precipitated a fake “crisis” over a nuclear weapons program that resulted in a total cave from Billy Boy Clinton and North Korea receiving several billion dollars in US aid, upon the false promise that the Norks would stop their nuclear weapons development program. Lo and behold, 12 years later North Korea explodes a low tech, low yield fission implosion device (similar to Little Boy of Hiroshima), and Bush ’43 rewards them with more US aid for another totally empty promise. Several billion dollars later and the Norks have at least IRBMs and now, it seems, a thermonuclear device. Now they are out of development funds, I surmise, again, and so are rattling their sabers to complete their weapon miniaturization and RV development efforts (with massive aid from Iran, who Obama showered with tens of billions of dollars in unfrozen Iranian assets all for a totally empty promise that they won’t further develop the nukes they already surely have) and so are looking for another 5 or 8 or 10 billion US dollars to help them complete their fully operational nuclear deterrent force, which we have, in all likelihood, already funded to its present state of completion.
What they are already doing is ALL they can do. They have one play and one play alone: the crazy man saber rattle bluff. The last 3 US presidents have fallen for it. Don’t let Trump be the fourth, and, thank God, I don’t think he will.
Look, North Korea can inflict grievous harm on the US with either an EMP -which I doubt they have the capability to execute, it’s much trickier than it’s made out to be – or with a strike on any US targets within their missile range (which is quite unclear at present). But US strategic nuclear forces were designed to ride out an attack 100s of times more massive than anything the NorKs can do and hit back with enough force to effectively decapitate and devastate another superpower, let alone a broken peasant state with entirely centralized command and control. And the NorKs know this. They attack, they die.
Sure they can engage in various levels of malfeasance short of nuclear warfare that may deserve varying levels of responses, but the one response you don’t do is to give into their shakedown tactics yet again. If they stage another commando raid on the South, as they have done many times in the past, you respond in kind or let the RoK do so (people forget, Korea, Republic of, has an extremely capable and highly motivated military). Let the RoK and/or Japan start staging “accidental” penetrations of North Korean airspace by armed tactical aircraft. There are myriad things to do, short of all out war.
So let them keep flapping their gums and staging whatever missile flights they can, but don’t let it bother you any more than any test flight of a Russian or Chinese ICBM, which occurs almost monthly, as well, and to no great fanfare. Communicate in no uncertain terms that THIS administration will not be shaken down by a bully, and this will all quickly pass. In the meantime finally get serious about continental missile defense and start deploying far more X-band tracking radars and GMD interceptors. The fact that we still only have about 40 interceptors deployed, enough to have a 99% assurance of taking out 10 RVs, after 10 years in service is criminal negligence.
Unfortunately Trump’s only response will probably some angry tweets with no actual policy follow-up. Even this is forgivable if he just won’t cave into this shakedown racket.
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System deployment to cover CONUS could emulate proposed Sentinel system of late 1960s. Relocate West coast sites 500 miles to the east just for spite – say, northern Idaho, central NV, and AZ-CA border. Add a site to the MS-TN-AL border triangle.
Approximate defended area for a single Sentinel site. GMD sites can actually defend a much wider area as they have higher-performing missiles. Nevertheless when it comes to strategic defense overlap is GOOD.
Today’s strategic interceptors are designed to work on a shoot-shoot watch shoot-shoot basis. That is, each inbound gets 4 interceptors nominally assigned. Since RVs will be coming in along a generally restricted corridor missiles can be reassigned to new targets as targets are destroyed. Unfortunately the current command and control infrastructure is only set up to handle one off or very limited attacks. To provide continental coverage and deal with much more massive raids the C2 infrastructure would have to be significantly beefed up if not totally redesigned from the ground up.
Of course the Russians and Chinese would lose their minds if we pursued this objective but defense is inherently moral while relying on threatening the deaths of tens of millions of innocents in retaliation is inherently immoral. That is to say, money spent pursuing missile defense is an objective good, while that spent on offensive retaliatory systems is much more morally problematic. You cannot uninvent nuclear weapons or wish them away. They are, in fact, proliferating far more rapidly now than at any time since their invention, along with the means to deliver them.
And yes of course there are other means of delivery but do we send men into combat without body armor because the other side has guns? Of course not. There are defenses against the other means of delivery AND there are huge problems with things like “sticking a nuke on a container ship” and sailing it into Los Angeles harbor. How does the bad guy know the ship will wind up in Los Angeles, and not, say, the harbor of one of his friends? Or his own? The fact that people make frequent recourse to these rhetorical red herrings when arguing against missile defense – THE primary means of delivering nuclear weapons today and for the foreseeable future – says to me that they know missile defense is extremely effective, but they, for reasons known only to God, deny to see their own nation defended from this threat.
At any rate I’ll get to the stuff you really care about next, God willing.
850 ton Active Electronically Scanned Array Sea Based X-Band Radar. Reputed to be able to track a baseball off the coast of San Francisco while floating in the Chesapeake Sound, a distance of over 2900 miles.
Flightline Friday Extra: More Than Everything You Could Possibly Want to Know about APR-25/6 September 25, 2017
Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Flightline Friday, foolishness, fun, history, non squitur, silliness, Society, technology.comments closed
Early in the Vietnam War, partly due to amazingly poor planning, but even more due to unbelievably onerous targeting restrictions, US tactical aircraft started racking up heavy losses to North Vietnamese Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs). The SAM in question was the SA-2, which had been known about half a decade at that point, the SA-2 having played a role in the shoot down of Francis Gary Powers’ U-2 in 1960.
Since the rules of engagement imposed by the Johnson-McNamara Administration forbade attacks on SAM sites under construction, or even possibly under construction, for fear of “accidentally” killing any Soviet “advisors” present and thus potentially escalating the war, US airmen had to wait until positive proof that a SAM site was operational before they could attack it. The only positive proof accepted was their being attacked by that very SAM site. Obviously this gave enormous initiative to the enemy, and made attacking SAM sites when they were most vulnerable impossible.
Defensive measures were needed, and needed quickly. But how to defend against a radar guided flying robot whose only purpose in life was the kill you? Fortunately, the problem was well understood. Indeed, specialist aircraft like intelligence gathering types had been equipped with limited numbers of what were then called radar homing and warning receivers (RHAW) for years. SAC’s big bombers also carried radar warning and electronic countermeasures (ECM) gear of varying degrees of effectiveness, but much of this was far too large and heavy to fit into a tactical aircraft.
Fortunately, a small company in northern California, Applied Technologies, Inc, later part of Litton, now part of Northrop Grumman, came rushing to the rescue, in late 1965, with their “Vector IV” product. Consisting of 4 roughly equally spaced radio frequency receivers and some very basic analog processing equipment, Vector IV entered service as the AN/APR-25/6. This equipment was first fitted to specialist “Wild Weasel” SAM hunter aircraft, and later, to almost every tactical aircraft in theater – certainly, every one that went up North. It was fairly effective, but became much more so when coupled with the North American “SEE SAMS” (clever) system, which added capability to discriminate targeting and launch radar signals from regular radar tracking signals.
The equipment worked pretty well, and losses were reduced. The seesaw battle of the electronic wizards on both defense and offense continues to this day, but, generally speaking, since the APR-25/6, the US has held the upper hand (we think/hope – we haven’t been seriously tested in 25 years).
The video below is an actual training film for USAF aircrew in APR-25/6 operation and tactics. It gets way down into the nitty gritty, discussing import of length and intensity of strobe, billboard notifications and their meaning, and the varying sounds the equipment picks up when illuminated by various kinds of search, tracking, and fire control radars (a radar is like any other radio frequency device, and thus its signals can be interpreted as a sound). Techniques used to spoof APR-25/6 are also discussed. Very interesting if you are a slavishly devoted geek like me, all others will probably find it mind-numbingly boring.
I post this mostly to keep a record of this highly esoteric material since this video was posted once before but pulled because someone asserted the data therein was still classified. Of course, it is not.
A picture of what modern radar warning receiver (today’s term) displays looks like. Gone is the analog signal intensity reading and guessing, replaced by digitally processed symbology indicating the type of threat, distance and bearing, with priority ranking, etc:
Flightline Friday: Early Vietnam Helo Operations September 22, 2017
Posted by Tantumblogo in Flightline Friday, fun, history, non squitur, silliness, Society, technology.comments closed
This is a really excellent video find from December 1963, featuring very tired old Piasecki H-21 “Shawnee” (aka the Flying Banana) and brand new (if more than a bit underpowered) Hueys of the UH-1A and UH-1B models.
There is some excellent footage of very rare early Huey attack model setups, including fixed forward firing M1919 .30 cal machine guns of WWII vintage mounted on the landing skids, and the first attempts at mounting rockets on the Huey design. The UH-1B came from the factory with the XM-6 armament subsystem, which included dual M-60 machine guns on each side of the aircraft in trainable mounts. This was a vast improvement over the fixed machine guns of the UH-1A. Also discussed is the original US Army air assault unit in South Vietnam, the Utility Tactical Transport Company. At this time, Hueys were used entirely as attack birds or for medevac. The stretched UH-1D capable of carrying 9-11 troops would not enter service in Vietnam until the 1st Air Cav arrived in numbers in mid-1965.
The UH-1A was always badly underpowered*, with an armament load of fixed gun and dual 8-shot rocket stacks, they could barely manage 80-85 mph, which allowed even the lumbering H-21s to “race” ahead of them. This problem was solved by the UH-1B, which had a more powerful engine, allowing the Hueys much better speed to escort the Shawnees, but the problem repeated itself once the UH-1D and UH-1H entered service. The slicks were again much faster than their escorts, weighted down with heavy loads of weapons and ammo in very draggy mounts. This problem was initially solved by late B model and then Charlie model Hueys being equipped with still more powerful engines, but was ultimately dealt with by the introduction of the AH-1 Cobra in late 1967.
There is also demonstration of early tactics among both the troop carrying and the attack helos. It is rather amusing to watch discussion of basic tactics which were described as being so effective the VC had no response to them – well, you could say, they figured out plenty of responses as the war went along. The very simple tactics described in this video would be replaced by ever more sophisticated ones as the war went along, but the ever-resourceful Vietnamese were almost always a match for Yankee ingenuity, finding their own responses to evolving American methods.
There is a great deal of rare footage in this video, covering a critical phase of the War in Southeast Asia as combat became more and more Americanized – just as certain elements of the US military establishment desperately wanted:
*- UH-1A had a little more than half the horsepower of the later H, E, L, and M models.
A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics 