jump to navigation

Lovely Video on the FSSP Seminary in Nebraska November 30, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Art and Architecture, awesomeness, Basics, Christendom, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, Liturgy, priests, Restoration, sanctity, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Via Rorate, a PBS News video on Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Denton, NE.  It covers the Gregorian chant that is of course a central part of the seminary’s daily life, as well as the CD the Fraternity produced last year.  That record apparently “topped the charts.” I doubt that means it’s sold a million copies, but one takes what one can get.  In fact, the second video gives a bit more coverage of the seminary’s vocal efforts.

I was tickled to see a local boy young man presently enrolled in the seminary around the 1:41-1:44 mark and at 2:14-7.

I wonder if the people who saw this segment thought: “Finally, some priests who look like priests?”  Love to see all the birettas and cassocks!  Bring back the tonsure!

A bit more for you:

The album is available for sale on most online music outlets, including the Christ-denying (well……) Amazon.

Was that a surprisingly friendly take from PBS?

Sermon on The Evil of Religious Liberty November 30, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, cultural marxism, Ecumenism, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, priests, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

Reader MFG sent the following link, and a very helpful summary, on the following sermon regarding the grave error of so-called religious liberty.  The sermon generally follows the logic of Christopher Ferrara’s Liberty: The God That Failed.  It is especially harsh on the founding and ordering of the US government, wherein endarkenment deists established a government built upon Lockean principles, with the state stepping into the place of God as the supreme arbiter and ultimate object of allegiance.

But I thought MFGs summary was as concise and as good (or better) than anything I can write, so here it is, along with the sermon.  I add a few thoughts onto his.:

Wow – this is a quick but incisive sermon on religious liberty’s dangers. It’s from a slightly different angle than what’s covered in the past. We could unpackage it for weeks…Here are a few takeways.

  • Founding Fathers thought they needed to set limits on Christ’s reign [Informed by endarkenment philosophy, especially that of Locke and Hobbes, that was indeed the case]
  • They undid time and founded a government that was pre-Christian in its governing philosophy. [a return to paganism, undoing 1700 years of Christian civilization]
  • They founded a government which relied on man’s own reasoning unaided by revelation or sanctifying grace (i.e. based on darkness/blindness).
  • It was worse than the governments of the pre-Christian Jews who at least had revelation to guide [And had the excuse of ignorance]
  • The US Govt is like the Roman Pantheon – people can have their own gods as long as these gods are not exclusive or hostile to government (religious freedom) [But what matters most to the US gov’t, or where its cultural loyalties lie, can change radically over time. For the first 150 years, the US gov’t was more or less a mainline protestant gov’t, because that was the dominant culture.  But the seeds of that culture’s destruction were sewn in the US founding, so that 60 years or so ago sexular leftism became culturally dominant, and now the US gov’t serves to advance THAT culture, which is intrinsically hostile to Christianity.  Of course, it took decades of unprecedented, dedicated mass infiltration and undermining of existing cultural bulwarks to achieve that switch, but here we are, and I do not think there is any going back, not with this present form of gov’t.]
  • By keeping all religions equal, there needs to be a referee to manage or balance these religions – hence the government steps in.
  • To permit the govt. to be a referee, the people elevated government above religion
  • State becomes the supreme god. [yep]

My thoughts [MFG’s thoughts]: This accurately and deeply describes our situation – governing in blindness. It also explains why liberalism and to some extent conservativism (or GOP Republicanism) becomes its own orthodoxy and religion. When someone opposes a political policy that contradicts church’s teaching (unjust/unlimited wars for example), the person is treated like a heretic or apostate (whether on the left or right).

Shreds post-conciliar notions of ecumenism, don’t it?

I really liked MFG’s summary and hope it turns into a basis for discussion. As he noted, this is a very complex subject and could take many hours of argument to fully analyze, but even as it stands, I think the sermon very much worth listening to (it’s only about 15 minutes) and considering.  Another great upload from Sensus Fidelium.  At core, it reveals we get the society we make.  If we turn away from God and try to create a secular humanist paradise, human “paradise” (as in not) is what we will get.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the notion that the US as founded was disordered at best and a diabolical inversion of right government at worst, the key point to take away, I think, is that any government, any human society, not oriented with Jesus Christ as its visible Head and King is doomed to failure.  All human creations fail.  Only the Church, wounded though she presently is (and has been at a few times in the past), has survived, because the Church is not a human construct.  It has a human element, prone to failure and corruption, but it will always retain its supernatural, perfect, indestructible element.

If we wish to create human societies that will endure, we shall have to do the same. But it’s been often said, our fallen natures make us prey to self-destruction.





New Mass Schedule for Mater Dei FSSP parish November 30, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, Restoration, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
comments closed

Goodness.  18 Masses a week.  5 on Sunday.  Somewhere around 36 man hours of Confession a week.

We be growing:

I’m really grateful for the additional evening Mass.  Not sure what happened, it was announced there would be 4 weekday evening Masses, but in the event, “only” three materialized.  Was really hoping for an evening Friday Mass, for those of us who work, but maybe someday.  Maybe that will have to wait until a 5th priest is assigned?

Nutty.  Why Dallas has grown so rapidly, one might even say violently, is an interesting point of speculation.  There are other places that have had TLM parishes much longer (the community dates to ’91, but the parish only to 2010), but they have not grown nearly so fast.  One reason might be the near total dearth of any really solidly orthodox alternatives, aside from St. William in Greenville, and the total ban on the TLM outside Mater Dei that has been in place since Bishop Farrell’s infamous prohibition of 2008.  But I still don’t think that explains a nearly 600% growth in Sunday Mass attendance in less than a decade, from about 200 to nearly 1200.

Dallas is a strange place, from the standpoint of Catholicism.  The suburbs in particular are hyper-conservative while the diocese is fairly liberal.  Perhaps this disconnect somehow plays a role.

We’ve had above average priests, even by Fraternity standards.  I’m sure that’s helped. I don’t think there’s been any watering down going on, to “sell the product” to TLM newbies. In fact, I think the opposite has been more the case, that the parish has grown because of Fr. Wolfe and other really orthodox priests. Still, why Dallas has grown almost exponentially while growth at other very solid, well run TLM parishes in similar settings has been solid, but much less spectacular, remains rather mysterious.  I guess it was just meant to be.

Anyway ad multos annos, Mater Dei.  Maybe we can live the experiment of a 5000 soul TLM parish someday.  Won’t that be grand.


Feminist: “Bible Much More Violent than Koran, I Know, I’m a Former Catholic” November 30, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in General Catholic.
comments closed

Yeah baby, tell us all about that in-depth biblical catechesis you got going to CCD (or whatever they call it in England) once a week for a few years.  I’m sure it was most impressive.

Content warning below.  Lauren Southern has been interviewing Britishers in London on various subjects, and recently asked the female participants of a supposed feminist march whether they would, if it came down to it, choose women’s rights or islam.  The women’s reaction ranged between total confusion and severe hostility, but none, not a single one, was able to either answer the question or comprehend the fact that islam might treat women much worse than anything they imagine they are enduring in a Western nation.  No wonder they hate Ayaan Hirsi Ali so much.  Since these are leftists, you can be sure that the enraged f-bombs will be flying when they have their carefully crafted cultural indoctrination shattered by a simple question:

My favorite response came at about 1:49, when a woman said, in response to being asked if she knew how the Koran recommended treating women (simply see how they are treated today across any Muslim-majority nation), that “I’ve read passages [of the Koran] and the Bible is a lot more violent.  I should know, I’m a former Catholic.”  Another triumph for the post-conciliar Church!

But is she right?  No, not in the slightest, either in terms of percent of content supposedly dedicated to descriptions or calls to violence (by some accounts – all of which I found were faulty as all get out – constitute about 9% of the Koranic verses, and about 5% of the Bible), or in terms of context.  First of all, the New Testament contains no systematic calls to violence of any kind whatsoever.  It may contain descriptions of violence, such as the Crucifixion (which, amazingly, figured in the percentage totals I give above), but no exhortations to ongoing violence as the Koran repeatedly does.  And, as Catholics know, keeping due context in mind, the New Testament was just that, a NEW revelation that superseded and replaced, in many regards, what had been revealed in the Old Testament.  In fact, the New Testament is so ordered towards peace and turning the other cheek that the opposite strain has been a recurring conundrum within Christendom, that towards hard pacifism.  Indeed, even after centuries of horrific attacks, invasions, marauding, and enslavement, it required no less than the direct intervention of the Supreme Pontiff to finally evoke a systematic response to constant muslim predation.  But I digress……..

The etymology of this warped exclamation came from an article that appeared  in the hard-left The Guardian newspaper in England in late 2015, trying to advance the claim that the Bible was somehow more bloodthirsty than the Koran because the Bible contained more “violent verses.”  Again, the definition of violent was very expansive and much of what was attributed to the Bible often served as a condemnation of violence, and even more, what the Guardian missed but which was pointed out at length in numerous rebuttals is that the Bible is much, much longer than the Koran, so that the relative number of violent verses in the Bible was actually much less.  So even this thought is not original, it is merely the parroting of something this woman read in a leftist rag.

But I think all the responses are very revealing, but especially this one.  For one reason, why bring up Christianity or the comparison to the Bible at all?  That comparison involves a huge set of assumptions, an entire worldview that basically posits that Western society, and the religion that created it (Christianity), are just as bad if not worse in terms of false women’s rights than islam.  This blatantly false, but that’s the unstated assumption in that claim.  een more, I think it shows once again how the seeming leftist blind spot towards islam is no blind spot at all, but a sort of recognition of kindred interest and a growing modus vivendi – Christianity/Westernism is the enemy that must be crushed first, after that, if they have to don the hijab, they’ll be happy to do so.

Which brings me to my final point – I will probably offend some in saying this, or how I say this, but I have long had a sense that many feminists are really little more than out of control teenage daughters who keep acting more and more outrageously in the increasingly forlorn hope that “dad” – society, males at large, whatever – will rein them in.  And the longer they are allowed to continue acting out, the more hurt and upset and, subsequently radicalized, they become.  It’s like they are a toddler constantly trying to find some boundary that daddy will set for them.  In their rage in finding none in the collectively weak Western men of the past 60 years, they will even turn to the cruel, draconian authoritarianism of islam to find some entity that seems to care about them enough to tell them no, to set firm limits, and make them turn over the dang car keys.

Too simplistic or psychological?  Perhaps.  But I increasingly think there is something to it, when we see how women have achieved more than equality in the West politically, economically, and culturally, and yet they shrieking louder than ever about how oppressed they are.  This is about something other than the thing they say it’s about.

There’s a bonus night post for ya.