jump to navigation

Francis to Canonize Paul VI, and Thus, Try to Canonize Vatican II February 22, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, different religion, error, Francis, General Catholic, pr stunts, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Michael Matt is severely critical of this move below, and asks the question on many Catholics minds – certainly, given the former rigor of the pre-1983 canonization process, when the role of devil’s advocate was taken away, canonizations were always viewed as an infallible act of the Church’s Magisterium.  But that very dogmatic definition depended greatly on the former process of canonization, and the office of devil’s advocate was an instrumental part of that process.  Since John Paul II had that office abolished, the process has been massively changed, and so does the same doctrinal authority still hold?  It’s not an unreasonable question, and it is addressed by Charles Coulombe in the 2nd video below:

These are two well formed, learned men, and they arrive at somewhat different conclusions, I think – Matt seems much more doubtful of the post-1983 canonization process and especially the canonization of Paul VI (what happened to the damning documentation the Cure of Nantes had when we died?), whereas Coulombe seems skeptical and leaves room open for doubting the infallibility of the new process, but seems to lean towards it still being infallible.

Once again, the faithful, in this time of unprecedented doctrinal chaos in the highest echelons of the Church, where high authorities literally contradict one another on matters of grave import, the faithful are left to largely fend for themselves and make their way as best they can in this new revolutionary post-conciliar situation we’re in.  Because of that, I’m fairly agnostic on where one winds up on either side of these kinds of difficult to resolve issues.

That’s speaking generally, but as for me, as Rorate notes, it is very difficult for a faithful soul who loves the Church, or tries to love the Church while being  uncertain just what that massively important word means anymore, to see the destruction wrought by Paul VI and think “now there’s a man worthy of canonization.”  I’m fairly reticent to get enthusiastic about John Paul II’s canonization, as well, not least of which because I think it more than a bit unseemly for the man who radically changed the process of canonization to directly benefit from that process, but much more so because he appointed thousands of modernist bishops and basically had the ability to reverse many of the worst aspects of at least the “spirit of Vatican II,” but chose not to, and in many fundamental ways helped cement that spirit much more firmly into place.

But Paul VI is infinitely more concerning than John Paul II – not only was he the pope that gave the whip hand to the modernists at Vatican II, not only did he impose the new Mass in the most draconian and uncharitable manner possible, and not only did he attempt to abrogate the TLM without justification or, as Benedict XVI proclaimed, even an ability to do so, but the very persistent allegations regarding an amoral personal life and his being blackmailed by modernist/sodomite actors in the Church have been disturbingly numerous, persistent, and detailed for my taste.  These latter may be false, but if there is even a chance that they be true, how much (more) damage will be done should evidence emerge that the recently canonized “Saint Paul VI” in fact carried on a number of sodomitical acts over his life?

Then there is this final factor – what if the critics are right, and the process changed by John Paul II is no longer infallible?  What if these men are not saints? By being declared so, that terminates all prayers on their behalf.  This is all so politicized and wrapped up in what one thinks of the Council, for or against, and the canonizations are coming with such urgency, so much faster than they used to in the past (and involve so much hype and hoopla) that it is very hard to analyze the matter dispassionately.  I really think the best course would be to put an informal ad hoc ban on canonization of popes for at least a century after their death – which is something the Church used to practice just as a matter of course, on almost all Saints, the thinking being that to really determine whether one was a Saint or not, a lot of time had to pass, as did most everyone who was alive during the Saint’s time, and analyze the matter dispassionately and with fairness and rigor.  That is not at all what is occurring here, and represents, again, another major change to the process that could affect its infallibility.

It’s all a bit too much for me to figure out.  Francis can do what he wants, but so can I.  I won’t be directing many requests for intercession towards Paul VI.  I’ll stick to the more established and less controversial Saints.

 

 

 

Dr. Christopher Dawson on the Fundamental Anti-Christian Religious Nature of the Left February 22, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Christendom, cultural marxism, different religion, error, General Catholic, history, horror, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

Dr. Christopher Dawson was one of the greatest Catholic historians and sociologists of the modern era, a man capable of amassing voluminous knowledge and collating it down to a sensible, digestible whole that relatively educated masses could imbibe.  He wrote a number of books, mostly now held by Ignatius (which makes me wonder the degree to which they have been edited for content uncomfortable to the post-conciliar zeitgeist) but there are other titles available from other sources, and you can still find pre-conciliar copies of his works every now and then.

One of the most interesting of his works was The Gods of Revolution, which argued that the French Revolution – the progenitor of the modern Left and all subsequent revolutionary movements – was primarily motivated by the desire to promulgate a new religion and moral order for society, both of which were antithetical to the hated religion and moral order of Catholicism and the Ancien Regime.  Now this realization may be old hat to many readers, and Dawson was hardly the first to make this claim, but in an age where history and science are dealt with, especially in the academic sense, from an overwhelmingly materialist and rationalist perspective, Dawson’s analysis is both refreshing and helpful.  I think there some gems in the excerpts below that may help you in your exchanges with the forces of revolution/post-modernism you may encounter.

Or, it was at least interesting to me, and interesting enough to post, so I shall make you suffer through it, if you read to the end.  The excerpts below come from pages 65-66 and 84-85 of this short book (the excerpt starts rather abruptly, discussing the Jacobin Clubs, the focal point of French revolutionary ferment, as being also the religious center of that movement):

The clubs were in fact the churches of the new religion.  “How was the Christian religion  established?” asks a Jacobin writer.  “By the preaching of the apostles of the Gospel.  How can we firmly establish the [new French] Constitution? By the mission of the apostles of liberty and equality. Each [Jacobin club] should take charge of the neighboring country districts. It is enough to send an enlightened and zealous patriot with instructions which he will adapt to the locality; he should also provide himself with a copy of the Declaration of the Rights [of Man]  , the Constitution, the Almanack du Pere Gerard [a scurrilous source of anti-Church calumnies], and a good tract against fanaticism, and a good model of a pike. [I’m sure you can imagine what that is for.  But it might be helpful to ponder who the cult of liberty was spread in our own nation, and who the apostles were of that new religion, whether its founders intended it to be one or not, it has taken on many overtones of religion nonetheless.]

In many respects the clubs had inherited and absorbed the traditions of eighteenth century Freemasonry………[The clubs] possessed the same ideal of optimistic deism and claimed in the same way as the Freemasons to represent the fulfillment of the Christian ideals of fraternity, charity, and morality……….But the religion of the Jacobins was a far more definite and dogmatic theory than that of the Masons had ever been.  From the first it possessed its creed in the Declaration of Rights and its scriptures on the Social Contract and it gradually developed a regular cultus and ritual centering round the Altar of the Fatherland, the Tree of Liberty, the Book of the Constitution, and addressed to deified abstractions like Reason, Liberty, Nature, and the Fatherland [Which were precisely the objects antichrist directed the false religion of satanic-dominated humankind in Robert Hugh Benson’s Lord of the World]…….[[this new revolutionary religion] was a religion of human salvation, the salvation of the world by the power of man set free by Reason.  The Cross has been replaced by the Tree of Liberty, the Grace of God by the Reason of Man, and Redemption by Revolution. [And here I think Dawson gives as good a description of the totality of the opposition of the new religion of sexular pagan leftism to Christianity as I’ve read.  Benson does an excellent job of prognosticating how this new secular religion will move as it seeks to replace Christianity, and forecasts a sad and infinitely trying future for the Church and faithful souls.  What Benson did not predict was that virtually the entire institutional Church might join the false cult of man.]

This creed was by no means peculiar to the Jacobins; it as common to all the liberal idealists from the Illuminati to Blake, and from Shelley to Victor Hugo.  But with the Jacobin Society it acquired the external organization of a sect, with a strict discipline, a rigid standard of orthodoxy, and a fanatical intolerance to other creeds.   From the first the Jacobins had thrown themselves into the persecution of the Church with the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, and the resultant conflict with the nonjuring Catholics was largely responsible for the sectarian bitterness and persecuting spirit of the Jacobin Society. [today, that spirit has been taken up by the more leftward segments of the democrat party in this country and numerous other parties in the West in the various parliamentary democracies, with the same persecuting spirit and the same fanatical adherence to leftist orthodoxy.  In fact, Leftism has continued a steady process of metastasizing, growing ever more extreme in belief and in the amoral society they wish to achieve.]

…………[Thus] the Revolution was no longer satisfied with the liberal Catholicism of the Constitutional Church [the false, heretical, Gallican state “church” set up with the help of apostate bishops and priests who feared men more than God, just as Francis seeks to support in China today], it had come to regard Christianity itself as a counter-revolutionary force which must be destroyed in order to make way for the new religion of humanity.  As early as 26 September 1792 Fouche’ had announced at Nevers that he thought it was his mission “to substitute teh wroship of the Republic and natural morality for the superstitious cults to which the people still unfortunately adhere,” and in the following month at Lyons he staged an elaborate anti-Christian demonstration in which a donkey wearing a cope and mitre dragged a missal and the Gospels through the streets.  During the autumn all the churches in Paris were closed, Notre Dame became the Temple of Reason, and the Constitutional “bishop” of Paris, Gobel, with his leading clergy, made a public renunciation of their ministry at the bar of the Convention………..

——–End Quote——

There is much more that is great in the book, but Dawson writes compactly and densely, making it difficult to pull out excerpts that make much sense on their own.  I’ve read three books by Dawson now and  have enjoyed them a great deal, but I am looking forward to something a bit more polemical in Coulombe.  But that will be some months off, I have some other history to go through first, including a study of the man who set the entire rationalist/materialist/leftist train in motion, Luther.