jump to navigation

Archbishop Lenga – Francis an “usurper……..heretic” March 3, 2020

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, episcopate, fightback, Francis, General Catholic, Grace, manhood, shocking, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

I know this dates from about 10 days ago, but I haven’t commented on it, so it can’t be said to have been done (watch out for the evangelical trolls in the comments at the link – don’t they know that evangelical protestantism is dead, the millenials totally abandoned their WWJD bracelets for bi-curious lifestyles and diabolical social media narcissm?).

So what’s my comment to retired Archbishop Pawel Lenga calling Francis an usurper and a heretic?  If the shoe fits………..and those look like 9 1/2s to me.

I’ll throw in a bit more commentary as we go along:

Catholic Archbishop Jan Lenga,  the former head of the Diocese of Karaganda, Khazakhstan and now retired in Poland, was ordered to stop delivering sermons and speaking with the media because of his frequent statements that Pope Francis is a “heretic” spreading “untruths and sins” and “leading the world astray.” [check, check, and double check?]

Archbishop Lenga has rejected the order to be silent, issued this month by Polish Bishop Wieslaw Mering, because no one in the Polish church apparently has the authority to silence him [because he apparently belongs to a religious order of papal right?  I’m not sure on the circumstances]

Lenga belongs to a religious order, the Congregation of Marians of the Immaculate Conception, and is living as a guest of the order in Lichen, Poland. He reportedly is only subject to an order from the Pope.

“Christ gave me authority through the church to proclaim the truth, and I’ll do so as long as I live,” said Lenga, 69, as reported by Crux.com.  “I won’t yield to degradation by those whose own statements and actions are entangled with heresy and sectarianism.”

“What right do they have to recall what pertains to the church when they themselves have never upheld it?” he said. [Wow.  Preach it, brother.  I guess Lenga is apparently the honeybadger archbishop, because he don’t give a —-.  That, and everything he says is true about all but perhaps 5% of bishops, and I’m being generous]

In a Feb. 25 interview with Gloria TV, Archbishop Lenga said his critics should “form their own church, rather than usurping power in the Catholic Church.” [But that’s not how the Left works.  As Iowahawk brilliantly established several years ago, the Left works by invading a healthy organization, infecting it with Leftism like a virus, killing it from the inside out, and then parading around in its desiccated husk demanding respect.  The Left will continue to occupy and attempt to destroy the human element of the Church so long as it perceives the Church as having any cultural cache and ability to influence people to its ends.  Once the Church or any other organization has been destroyed to the point of uselessness, the Left will then, sometimes, depart.  But sometimes they leave agents behind to make sure it can never resurrect to become a threat. The Left is an endlessly jealous religion that brooks no competition whatsoever.  Thus, our choice is, drive them out by hook or crook, or see the human element of Holy Mother Church essentially destroyed.]

Archbishop Lenga has “co-signed several letters urging Pope Francis to clarify marriage and family teachings after the pope’s 2016 encyclical ‘Amoris Laetitia,'” reported Crux.com.  “He also signed a May 2019 ‘Declaration of Truths‘ alongside U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke.”…….[and many other worthy Churchmen and laity]

…….. In a book-length interview on YouTube, Archbishop Lenga said he still recognizes Benedict XVI as the Pope; Benedict resigned in February 2013, the first pope to do so in nearly 600 years. Lenga also stated he does not include the name of the “usurper and heretic” Francis in his Mass prayer intentions. [I’m not real hung up on whether Francis is the “real” pope or not.  We could argue forever and none of us are going to make the call, unless there is a future Pius XIII among the readers, in which case, hook me up when  you get to Rome!!  The fact is, Francis has the title and the position and virtually everyone responds to his authority, so he is, for all practical purposes, the pope.  I read the book about Benedict still being kind of a pseudo-pope, and I wasn’t exactly convinced. I believe he is the Pope, just the worst one ever – but only so far.  His successor may be even worse.  The fact that Benedict has stubbornly refused to die (thank you, God!) has prevented Francis from enacting many of the travesties he has desired to enact, just as PBXVI and Cardinal Sarah very adroitly and effectively cut the knees off of the “Amazonian synod” (sponsored and wholly funded by the German episcopal conference, which will say or do anything to keep that sweet, sweet church tax money coming)]

“Bergoglio [Pope Francis] has not confirmed himself in the faith and is not passing that faith to others, he is leading the world astray,” said Archbishop Lenga, as reported in The Tablet. “He proclaims untruths and sins, not the tradition which has endured for 2000 years.”

“He proclaims the truth of this world, which is precisely the truth the Devil,” said the archbishop. [Well that’s pretty harsh, but it is also not untrue. However, playing devil’s advocate since he was brought up, could not the same be said, to varying degrees, about the past 5 predecessors of Francis?  What was Paul VI’s laying aside of the papal tiara, and declaring the Church ready to submit to the “wisdom” of the United Nations?]

In a Jan. 20 interview on Polish television, according to Crux.com, Archbishop Lenga “said ‘many bishops and cardinals’ lacked a ‘deep faith’ and had adopted ‘an attitude of betrayal and destruction’ by seeking to ‘correct Christ’s teaching,’ adding that current confusion in the church indicated ‘the Antichrist is here.'” [Wow, as I said, he’s really the honeybadger archbishop, but the Church desperately needs men willing to speak the Truth, and the whole Truth, unadulterated and without infection by Leftism or sops to the world and its lies and evils. Francis’ predecessors have been less direct counters to the Truth of Jesus Christ than weak men more afraid of offending the world than God. Francis is the first pontiff to directly attack and undermine the Doctrine of the Faith in a direct, deliberate, and systematic way.  That is why comparisons between Francis and amoral “Renaissance popes” or the horrid men who occupied the office in the 800-900s is non sequitur and facile. Those men may have been personally immoral, but they never attacked the Doctrine of the Faith in a consistent and systematic manner, as Francis has done.  Indeed, some of them defended the Faith heroically, at times. We have to come to the sad, heart-breaking realization that man is actually a fervently religious man, just one who worships a different religion and a false god. Indeed, he is using his ill-gotten office to proselytize – which means to aggressively promote a religion, or even shove a belief down the throat of another – for his false religion.  He doesn’t mind proselytism at all, he just hates Catholics proselytizing, as he recognizes it as a threat to his own religion.]

I could go on, but I’ll stop.  In short, Francis is a very, very bad man, but he was also inevitable, given that the vast majority of Catholics today are adherents to the religion of secular/materialist modernism, which is just another variant of Leftism, especially within the clergy and episcopate.  Add to that most national episcopates being wholly addicted to government money, and it was actually a great blessing of God that we didn’t have a Francis or worse much sooner, before the traditional resistance had developed some cohesion and, I think and pray, momentum.

God bless Archbishop Lenga!  I don’t know if he’s a bit too strong in his language and assessments but the Church desperately needs much more clarity and leadership right now.

Wonderful Developments, Liturgical and Otherwise, at St. Mark Parish in Plano January 31, 2020

Posted by Tantumblogo in Art and Architecture, awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, Eucharist, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, Liturgy, North Deanery, priests, Restoration, sanctity, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership.
comments closed

He lives!  Sorry for the long absence.  I even missed the 10th anniversary of the blog by a month and a half.

But something important has come up.

I have known the young pastor of St. Mark parish in Plano, Texas, since he was a newly ordained priest.  We were always gratified to see him wearing the occasional cassock and frequent Roman chasuble.  He even wore black at funeral Masses.  I figured we could expect great things from him.

This good priest, Fr. Marco Rangel, had some other assignments in the intervening 10 or so  years, but last year he was assigned as the pastor of St. Mark in Plano.  He has made a number of changes that I believe almost all devout Catholics will find most positive.

First, St. Mark, god bless it and whatever its merits, I don’t think has ever been anyone’s idea of a brilliant architectural and artistic achievement.  A sunken sanctuary with stadium seating and bare concrete and stucco walls, it at least did have one very large stained glass window, and a nice, traditional crucifix (which the former pastor, Fr. Cliff Smith, is to be thanked for fighting for.  He caught surprising flak for replacing the touchdown Jesus, Christ rising on the cross “crucifix” with a far more tasteful,a nd I would say, accurate and Catholic one).  However, Fr. Rangel has made a number of changes, which you can see below.  Most photos were taken during Christmas, which of course includes additional decorations, but most all the paintings and statuary are new.  The angels kneeling in adoration next to the tabernacle are definitely new, and so welcome, as is the Benedictine arrangement on the altar.

The before:

Some initial changes:  Small but noticeable:

The full monte:

Changes to the Eucharistic adoration chapel:

I’m amazed at the improvements these changes have made.  Some – like the addition of the statue of Our Lady of Guadalupe – were made under Father Smith, but most have been made under Father Rangel.

Next, there are major liturgical improvements underway.  Father Rangel offered Mass partially in Latin during Advent and on Christmas, and will do so again during Lenten Sunday Masses.  This included the propers and Gloria in Latin as appropriate, as well as organ music and Gregorian chant.  Father Rangel intends to continue adding more and more reverent aspects to the Liturgy and is open to even becoming bi-ritual, should interest warrant such a move.

And that’s one of the purposes of this post, not only to apprise of these positive developments, and prove I am still alive, but also to ask readers here in the Diocese of Dallas to send a letter of support to Bishop Burns for authentic, orthodox liturgical improvements, the Traditional Latin Mass, and Father Rangel in particular.  Whether  you attend St. Mark or not, if you desire to see liturgy more in keeping with the constant belief and practice of the Church, this is a great opportunity to show both your interest and your support for a local priest who is taking large steps in that direction.  Of course, Father Rangel has encountered a great deal of resistance, so he could use all the support he can get.  This kind of support can be vital in determining how a bishop may respond to these kinds of initiatives made on the part of pastors. I thus implore all local readers, and even interested non-local ones (you should indicate whether or not you reside in the Diocese), to contact both Bishop Burns and Father Rangel.  I provide some form letters below, which you are free to use.  It is quite a risk for a priest to make changes like this, and at this pace.  Father Rangel has not been pastor at St. Mark for even a year, yet, I do not believe.

This also ties in with changes in catechesis and sacramental preparation at St. Mark, which is my final point.  Father Rangel is working to revamp the materials used in these vital areas, to be in accord with timeless, unchanging Church teaching which goes back to the Apostolic Deposit of Faith, and not just the current theological experimentations presently in vogue.

Letters should be sent to:

Bishop Edward Burns
Catholic Diocese of Dallas
3725 Blackburn St.
Dallas, TX, 75219

A sample letter is included below, just as an idea.  Feel free to compose your own:

Dear Bishop Burns –

Greetings in Christ! I have been apprised of the very positive liturgical, architectural, and catechetical improvements made by Father Marco Rangel of St. Mark parish in Plano, Texas, and I am writing to indicate my wholehearted support for these efforts.  Father Rangel is moving the liturgy at St. Mark to be very reverent and to offer great glory and honor to God.  His artistic and liturgical changes are in keeping with the great patrimony of our Holy Mother Church, and unite our worship with that of millions of Catholics through years past.  His changes incorporating more Latin, Gregorian chant, and great reverence for the Most Blessed Sacrament are all very edifying and are bringing great benefit to many souls.  We implore your eminence to support Father Rangel in this new direction for St. Mark.

I would also like to include in this letter a request for regular Traditional Latin Masses (TLM) in the north deanery of the Diocese of Dallas, most particularly in the Plano/Richardson area.  At this point, St. Mark and Father Marco Rangel would appear to be the most suited for offering this ancient and beautiful form of the Mass, but St. Joseph in Richardson may also be a strong candidate.

We thank you for your continued leadership of this diocese, and  for the many blessings and benefits this leadership has brought.  We pray your leadership, and that of good priests like Father Rangel, will continue to bring glory to God and aid in the sanctification of all the souls in  the Diocese of Dallas.

God bless and keep you,

Name

In all likelihood it will be Bishop Kelly that reads these and responds, but the message will hopefully get through to Bishop Burns.

I also implore you to send letters of support and thanks to Father Rangel at St. Mark.  He can be reached at:

(Pastor) Father Marco Rangel
St. Mark the Evangelist Catholic Church
1105 West 15th Street
Plano, TX 75075

Another sample:

Dear Father Rangel –

Greetings in Christ!  I have learned of late that you are in the process of making numerous liturgical, artistic, and catechetical improvements to St. Mark.  May God reward you!  This is such a happy and blessed development, and will surely bring enormous fruit to souls.   I support you in your efforts to bring more  reverence to the Mass and to bring St. Mark’s liturgical, artistic, and catechetical practice more in union with the great patrimony of our Holy Mother Church.  I am so grateful that some of the fruit of the “reform of the reform” is beginning to blossom in Plano.

I would also like to indicate my interest in having a regular Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) at St. Mark.  I reside in the Diocese of Dallas/North Dallas/Collin County area and would be overjoyed to have a TLM closer to my home and/or place of business, particularly at St. Mark.  If you are assessing the level of interest in this form of the Mass in the Plano area, please be assured of mine, and that of my family.

May God continue to bless and support your apostolate in every way,

Name

Father Rangel can also be reached at pastor@stmarkplano.org.

If at least 12 of you do not contact Father Rangel with support, I’ll never post again.   Like that’ll be any different!

Your Annual Reminder Not to Give a Dime to CCHD or CRS November 22, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

A nice video from Taylor Marshall below, interviewing the long-laboring Michael Hitchborn of the Lepanto Institute, summarizing all the ongoing scandals with the US bishop’s so-called Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), which also ties in with Catholic Relief Services (CRS).  Of course, if you’ve been reading this blog for a few years, you know I’ve covered the scandals and moral atrocities of both organizations repeatedly, and have constantly advised readers not to give to either organization.  However, I go much further than that, and advise that faithful Catholics do all they can to “hide” their money from the bishops in every respect – meaning trying to be very careful about what you donate to your parish, because parishes are taxed (“assessed”) by the dioceses, and the dioceses are taxed by the USCCB, to the extent that the Archdiocese of Philadelphia was forced to kick up a quarter of a million dollars to the USCCB in one recent fiscal year alone.  All charitable organs of the USCCB and its affiliates are, at the very least, extremely dependent on government money, and as such, they drift ever leftwards in their cultural and moral outlook as time goes by, as the Left is seen at being more generous with the taxpayers dollars, and because the large majority of the bureaucrats who staff the various organs of the USCCB are leftists themselves (leaving aside the large and, under Francis, growing number of bishops who are also socially, morally, and religiously left-leaning).

In the 2nd video below, at about 18 minutes in, Michelle Malkin notes the connection between the US “episcopate’s” leftward drift (I put episcopate in quotes, because the vast majority of actions taken by the USCCB and its many subsidiary organizations are actually taken by lay staffers, with minimal if any actual episcopal oversight) and its growing dependence on government money.  Of course, the direction in which Francis is taking the Church is only accelerating this trend.

This is only part of the reason why (other reasons – rampant sodomy in their ranks that bishops refuse to police, the extremely dubious nature of national episcopal conferences with regard to the Tradition/Doctrine of the Faith, the deleterious effects of national conferences on right moral and doctrinal government by local bishops, mass-scale embezzlement and financial abuse, etc., etc.) I have long advised souls to do all they can to donate to their local Catholic parishes in ways that prevent their money from being assessed by the bishops and used for immoral purposes.  Once souls become aware of the constant, ongoing, and massive scale of the abuses of virtually all dioceses and the national episcopal conferences, it is arguable that they have a moral duty to do just what I am recommending.  That being said, diverting money to areas of parish finances that are not assessed is not easy, and bishops will react violently if lay Catholics do things like starting up lay-administered funds with which they pay for various parish needs.  The bishops really, really, REALLY do not like that, because  they know if the laity were to ever, en masse, start to make serious efforts to shield their money from assessment, the party would be over, and that right quick, in spite of the billions flowing into their coffers from the US taxpayer.

Fortunately, there do remain certain means to divert funds from sources that will be assessed by diocese.  Building funds are often a convenient location, that if assessed, are assessed at a much lower rate than the general parish income.  Saving money and making direct purchases for items such as objects of art, large capital equipment expenses, etc., are another means.  You might speak with your good, traditional pastor about other means of support.  If these steps are taken, they must be done individually, and not in an organized fashion.  Organization by lay people to fund their parish in ways that deny the dioceses ability to assess that money will bring down the wrath of iniquitous men upon you.  This has been tried, more than once, and the response by the bishops was always severe.

Today’s Leftist Extremism and ‘Cancel Culture’ Was Baked Into ‘Liberal Democracy’ From the Outset November 15, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, cultural marxism, different religion, disaster, error, General Catholic, history, Revolution, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

One of the most disturbing trends in American, and broader Western, culture today, is the fact that any deviation from leftist orthodoxy, from ‘woke politics,’ can get one’s life destroyed in a matter of minutes.  An offhand joke made waiting on the tarmac for a flight can lead to a reaction that means no job, no friends, and no home by the time one lands at their destination.  Holding to beliefs that were completely unremarkable and widespread a mere 5 or 8 years ago can do the same.  Merely standing in a public space waiting for a bus and minding your own business can, with the right kind of propaganda, lead to a nearly life-destroying episode before one’s life has even begun.

Most people wonder what in the heck has happened.  How have we gone from the free speech extremism of the 1960s to the totalitarian speech policing of today?  I might argue that all have been part of the same overarching movement, a movement intended to destroy Christendom, that uses different tools at different points of its long march through the institutions, and which has no problem at all in contradicting itself, or spouting literal double-think almost constantly.

Still, most would conclude that there was a sunny, happy time in liberal democracy, a golden age we’ve somehow lost.  Many people believe the closer one gets to the roots of today’s liberal free market state’s founding, the closer one is to an ostensible ideal.

But this may not be the case.  In fact, many of the intellectual framers of today’s liberal state, from back in the time of the endarkenment, realized some of the tragic implications of the godless, at-war-with-the-Church system they were proposing.  In fact, several of the most key “enlightenment” thinkers realized that what they were doing was proposing a contrary religious-cultural system to the then-existent Christendom, and that they looked forward to war with Christendom, and that to the hilt. Some of these thinkers were very explicit about this, as you will see below.

From Rousseau’s The Social Contract, an exegesis on how those who rebuffed the new order would have to be treated, and that quite savagely:

While the civil profession of faith (in the civil authority) can compel no one to believe them, it can banish him, nor for impiety, but as an anti-social being, incapable of truly loving the laws and justice, and of sacrificing at need his life to his duty.  If anyone, after publicly recognizing these dogmas, behaves as if he does nto believe them, let him be punished by death: he has committed the worst of all crimes, that of lying before the law. [These same liberals supposedly hated blasphemy laws, and yet here is one of their leading lights publicly calling for death for blasphemy against the “sacred” state’s “sacred” laws!]

The dogmas of civil religion ought to be few, simple, and exactly worded, without explanation or commentary……..Its negative dogmas I confine to one, intolerance, which is a part of the cults we have rejected……Now that there can be no longer an exclusive national religion, tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothign contrary to the duties of citizenship. But wheover dares to say: “Outside the Church there is no slavation,” ought to be driven from the State,  uless the State is teh Church, and the prince the pontiff.

So much for the tolerance of the new religion!  Let no one think to be joined to Christ who is not prepared to be crucified under Pontius Pilate, for the godless state is ever satan’s arm.  

And the revolution made clear from the beginning that any deviation from it’s orthodoxy, no matter how slight, would eventually be brutally punished, even with death.  It was politic for the revolution, for a time, to pretend otherwise, to pretend open-mindedness and magnanimity, but no longer.  As it nears its Omega point, the revolution drops the mask, and even schoolchildren can be crushed and destroyed – and that, for doing nothing at all wrong – solely for the ease of the revolution.

It was the same, of course, in the Soviet Union, and Maoist China, and Ortega’s Nicaraugua, Venezuela, etc., etc.

The only force capable of resisting this always advancing secularist onslaught is Catholicism – traditional Catholicism, since there are so many fake varieties today.

The Episcopate of the United States Catholic Church Has Always Been Americanist, Indifferentist, and even Heretical November 15, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Dallas Diocese, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, history, Immigration, priests, Revolution, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I mentioned recently I have been reading books by Solange Hertz.  They are very valuable and enlightening reading, providing great insight into how the almost universally rock-solid Church of the 18th century became the structurally modernist, indifferentist, and leftist body that it is today.

Reading Hertz has been part of a broader study I’ve been blessed to make over the course of much of 2019, reading histories of the Church over the period 1800-1950, principally in the  United States but also Europe.  This is history that is almost entirely forgotten, and deliberately so, as it reveals the means and methods by which the Church was first penetrated, and then overtaken, by revolutionary forces.  While many faithful Catholics today point to AA-1025 and communist penetration of the Church in the first half of the 20th century, to be frank, that analysis misses the mark.  In point of fact, most of the damage was done in the 19th century, and came not from European revolutionaries (they more or less took advantage of an already existing situation), but from American ones.

American, ahem, Catholics, were responsible for much of the most destructive beliefs that burst into open view, with apparent approbation of the institutional hierarchy, at Vatican II.  Indifferentism (rejection of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus), almost a maniacal focus on both materialism and ecumenism, the exaltation, if not practical worship of, democratic forms of government and the free market, tacit endorsement of blasphemy and sacrilege under the guise of “freedom of speech” and “freedom of expression”………..all these ideas came primarily from the United States and, it must be said, mostly Irish-lineage bishops and priests, though they did find fertile ground for these ideas throughout much of Europe.

A few datapoints to illustrate.  The first American bishop, John Carroll, was a thoroughgoing Americanist, practically seeking to create an Americanist Gallist Church (a national church free from Rome’s influence).  He practically worshipped the US Constitution and the American state and was influenced, to an almost unbelievable degree for a man who called himself Catholic, by the liberal wing of the protestant sects in the United States. He was also extremely close with the freemasons who dominated the American elite.  He insisted, for instance, on the election of bishops, and even wanted election of priests, to go along with a vernacular liturgy and many other items protestants/masons would like to see changed regarding Church Doctrine.  He was only just prevented from doing this by intervention from Rome, and his death.

Carroll also did all he could to upset and frustrate attempts by the constant waves of immigrants to maintain their traditional Church structures and parish lives within their own communities.  Carroll and his disciples waged constant war against German, Polish, Italian, and other priests and lay people who sought to maintain the traditions of the Faith from Europe. They insisted all immigrants should be swiftly and thoroughly “Americanized,” bowing to the unique genius of the Constitution and the American(ist) way of life.

Thus, the tragic situation we see today, where the US episcopate demands unconstrained immigration in order to make up for the falling away of tens of millions of Catholics, has persisted throughout the Church’s history in this country.  In the latter half of the 19th century, 25-30% of recent Catholic immigrants fell away from the Faith within 25  years of arriving in the US.  Most became some flavor of protestant.  This has been the regular reality of Catholic life in these United States, save perhaps for the brief period of the 1920s to the 1950s when the Catholic Church appeared much more orthodox, reliable, and robust compared to its rapidly collapsing mainline protestant counterparts.  This was about the only period in US history when, subtracting immigration, there was a net inflow of converts into the Church, as against Catholics falling away.

The following quote sums up the situation in Amchurch circa 1900 rather nicely, from The Star-Spangled Heresy: Americanism, pp. 186-188 (I add comments):

…[D]efenders of the Faith had little difficulty linking Americanism to communism, not to mention Semitism, Protestantism, Masonry, and outright Satanism. A Catholic paper in Paris accused Cardinal Gibbons [I haven’t even touched on Gibbons, but he is perhaps the principal villain in the Americanist story] of partiality to masonry on the basis of his persistent defense of such organizations as the Odd Fellows, Knights of Pythias……….all condemned by Rome, and of secret societies generally in the States. The French Canadian Jules Tardivel dubbed America “the eldest daughter of the sect,” and Leo XIII’s Belgian biographer stated its true center was located here.

In 1899  Leo XIII was finally forced to write Testem Benevolentiae condemning Americanism specifically as a heresy.  In the face of the threatened withdrawal of American support for Peter’s Pence, however, [the American Church, like the German Church today, routinely used its massive financial resources to threaten Rome with denial of funds – and this, at a particularly critical time when the Papal States had been stolen by Garibaldi and the Church was in desperate financial straits] none of the heretics was designated by name, although everyone knew who they were and had expected them to be formally excommunicated. Robert Cross relates that one Roman periodical, referring to the “satanic spirit” of America, exclaimed: “Put the mask aside, O Monsignor Ireland: bow down before the Vicar of Jesus Christ, Cardinal Gibbons, and deny the blasphemous theories of the heretical sect which are embodied in you!” Civilta Cattolica dubbed the heresy:

…….purely American…….employed at first to indicate in general the ‘new idea’ which was to rejuvenate the Church, and in particular the ‘new crusade’ against the uncompromising position of Catholics of the ‘old creed.’

All the heresiarchs loudly disclaimed being tainted by what they termed a ‘phantom heresy’ existing largely in the minds of the Curia or at best in a few French dioceses, and they continued on as before. [Indeed – an encyclical sent to the lead American cardinal, talking only about the United States, only applied to a few foreign dioceses, and those strangely French.  But do we not see the exact same kinds of dissembling tactics today, especially in the US episcopate?] The American flag was displayed ever more prominently at altar-side, as if also intended for worship, despite the frowns of Rome, which steadfastly refused approval for the tricolor within the sanctuary.  Episcopal progress in socialism was steady. At the close of the First World War the American bishops under the leadership of Msgr. John Ryan became so convinced that “so-called  ’socialistic’ measures were practically synonymous with Catholic moral principles” – to quote a popular Catholic history textbook – that they boldly embarked on their own social program. Advocated were minimum wage legislation, unemployment and old age insurance, prohibition of child labor, legal protection of unions, national employment service, public housing for workers, control of monopolies, curtailment of ‘excess’ profits, participation of labor in management and wider distribution of stock ownership.  Christ was now harnessed to the Revolution as to His Cross. [These efforts were through the “National Catholic War Council,” supposedly set up to help fight WWI, but then extended after the war as the National Catholic Welfare Conference. The first permanent episcopal conference in Church history, it was banned by Pius XI but later, of course, was given approval at Vatican II, where the Church awoke and groaned to find itself Americanist.  Of course, episcopal conferences have turned into  charnal houses of sex abuse, graft, larceny, and radicalization political agendas, along with constantly reducing the Faith to the lowest possible common denominator, in concert with ‘right democratic principles.’]

……[I]n 1928 indulgent America permitted a Catholic, Al Smith, to run for the Presidency for the first time in the nation’s history. Ten years later in Madrid the anti-Catholic writer George Seldes was able to say in The Catholic Crisis:

The future of Catholicism may lie in America because of the growing Catholic population, the large increase of bishoprics, the financial support of the Church which is said to be larger than that contributed by the rest of the world.  But it may lie in America because America is the stronghold of democracy. American Catholicism is the Catholicism of the famous credo of Al Smith……which states that the Syllabus of Pius IX which is anti-liberal, anti-democratic, and in a way anti-American, has ‘no dogmatic force’ as Cardinal Newman said long ago……..[I hope Cardinal Newman did not say that.  I don’t know]

By the Smithian system of dialectics no Catholic need fight Socialism, or Communism, or pay any attention to Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno, Casti Connubii, Lux Veritatis, or the late Pope’s utterances in favor of Franco’s Spain, if he individually disagrees.  The American Catholic, according to its most important spokesman, can take it or leave it. [The primacy of the individual conscience, circa 1930!] However, no Catholic outside the United States has ever expressed the same views and remained in the Church.

Thus, the Americanist heresy is at the root of the crisis in the Church, and contrary to the relatively conservative body most Americans are propagandized to believe it is, has been one of the key driving forces behind the revolution against the Church conducted principally by those given sacred trust to promote and defend the authentic Faith.  Unfortunately, Americanism is deeply rooted in the basic patriotism of the United States, and so constantly finds new adherents.  It’s a difficult and tragic thing to find one at odds with one’s country, but that is exactly the position thinking, informed, believing Catholics find themselves in.  That this nation has produced so precious few of that group only demonstrates how insidiously effective that propaganda is.

They have now. Apparently, As Bishop O’Gorman once wrote his friends from Rome, “Americanism, which was supposed to be our defeat, has been turned into a glorious victory. We are surely on top.” The lucrative waters of the Potomac were now flowing freely into the Tiber. Only a faithful few in the US today recall that their Lord “suffered under Pontius Pilate,” after Pilate and the “religious” Herod became friends. “If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you…….The servant is not greater than his master.” And “no man can serve two masters” (Jn xvi:20).

Mindful of this difficulty, Hilaire Belloc predicted the “necessary” conflict between the civil state and the Catholic Church in America. He said in so many words, of course, “the Catholic Church in America.” He was not referring to the star-spangled “American Catholic Church” which is after all only a modernist sect of long standing, with a large growing membership. No conflict with Pilate should arise there. [Since, after all, for Cardinal Gibbons and most current and historical American bishops, their greatest fear was and is that they might ever give offense to the protestant majority, and especially the formerly protestant but now thoroughly secularized and leftist political-cultural elite.]

————End Quote————-

This post is already very long, and I hope to get out one much shorter post today, but I’ll conclude with this: it is a profoundly unsettling realization to make, that one’s Faith, and one’s country and culture, are totally at odds.  It is even more discomfiting to realize that, in many ways, only one can ultimately survive.  It was, of course, fear of this realization that drove the thoroughly American bishops and priests (again, most all of them, strangely enough, Irish) to attempt to posit a typically American ‘new and improved’ church, one that fit in fine with the surrounding culture and political landscape, one that wouldn’t make any waves, and one that would rarely, if ever, expose its practitioners to persecution.

But Our Blessed Lord told us that if we love Him, the world will hate us, and that if we are faithful, it will persecute us like it persecuted Him.  This is the narrow path of salvation.  The Church in the US, by and large (there were numerous countervailing elements, especially German), chose the wide, soft, easy road.

We all know how those two stories end.

Bishop Barron Gives Invocation at US House, Fails to Use Sign of the Cross, or Holy Name November 11, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Revolution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
comments closed

I know some people think he does some good, but this guy to me is a snake, worse than an out n’ proud leftist like James Martin SJ, because he mixes in orthodoxy with diabolical error.  Also, his attempt to give Vatican II an orthodox theological explanation is a catastrophe, it basically just defines the Church as starting in 1962, and all that came before, no matter how solemnly defined or obviously the will of God, can be jettisoned:

Man Taylor was born again hard about August 2018. He has been a rock, on fire, since then.  Not that I mean to call him brimstone.  Just love mixing metaphors.

I took a screen shot for something at work one day while I was (unusually) listening to TnT on my work computer (which is a four monitor setup).  As I took the bit I needed for work, I saw I had captured this.  I thought it was funny.  Nice pink shirt, Tim Gordon, do you shop at the same store as your wife? Oh well, he does live in California.

Just a tease, both Ts are great but Taylor has really been fantastic the past 15 months.  I hear he gave a good talk at the Catholic Identity Conference.  Hope I get to go sometime.

I’m reading a wonderful book by Solange Hertz, who (whom?) I’ve never read before.  Goodness, Tumblar House is a great outfit and deserves the support of all faithful Catholics.  I sure like Charles Coulombe.  She (Hertz) has a wonderful quote, to the effect that the Bishops of the United States – and this goes back to the very first one, Bishop Carroll – have always feared what non-Catholics would think far more than God, or the Holy Father, or the Doctrine of the Faith.  That is soo true, and is perfectly exemplified in Bishop Barron.  If he, and the American episcopate generally, could be summed up in one word, I would choose………craven.

Unfortunately, the Americanist heresy that was part and parcel of the Church in this country from before it’s founding (read Hertz excellent book) was deliberately evangelized upon a weakening Church by the Americanist hierarchy (e.g., the Paulist order), especially in Europe and South America, where it found many willing adherents among Catholics – lay and cleric alike – who sought that same approval of the world, and wanted to be for “liberal” and “progressive” ideologies.  Thus, Americanism is the seed-bed upon which modernism sprang and grew, and then ultimately took over the Church at Vatican II, which was little more than the implementation of Americanist principles upon the Church at large.  Rome was unable to interfere due to their lack of influence over this nation and its hierarchy, and their need for American funding during the very difficult times that occurred between the fall of the Papal States and the (extremely troubling) Concordat with Mussolini in 1929.

This is a huge subject and I’d like to go on for hours.  Not sure if anyone would like this kind of content in a podcast form?  I don’t know that I will find the time to write what would have to be a tl;dr 5000 word post, if not much longer. I used to do radio but all the back-end was handled by others,  I just had to show up and talk.  Doing justice on this subject would be thousands of words.

Dominus vobiscum!

Saint Alphonsus on the Proper Hearing of Mass November 11, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, Grace, Interior Life, Latin Mass, priests, reading, Saints, sanctity, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

From Volume XV of Saint Alphonsus Ligouri’s Ascetical Works, Preaching (only get the translations by Father Eugene Grimm, CSsR, the others are markedly deficient and full of modern errors and radical changes to Saint Alphonsus crystal-clear theology), an exhortation on the proper hearing of Mass, including what constitutes, in the Saint’s mind, irreligious and even sinful hearing of Mass:

Before I begin the excerpt, I should note that the section below regarding not going to Confession during Mass does not mean Sacramental Confession, which is of course not only permitted but encouraged during Mass or any other time, but the “implicit Confession” of the Confiteor.  Alphonsus is saying that if you have some grievous sin on your conscience, Mass does not remove the guilt of that sin, and explicit sacramental Confession must first be sought before assisting at Mass (this could of course be ongoing during Mass, but certainly before receiving Communion).

How should one hear Mass?

To satisfy the obligation of hearing Mass, two things are necessary: an intention and attention.

It is necessary to have an intention of hearing Mass, so that a man who is force into church against his will, or who enters only to look about him and see the place (NB: as many tourists do during Mass at famous churches throughout Europe), or to wait there for a friend, or for any other purpose except hearing Mass, does not fulfil the obligation.  But, should a person hear Mass through devotion, believing that the day is not a holiday, he is bound, when he finds that it is a holiday, to hear another Mass?  No; it is enough to have done the work commanded without having adverted to the intention of fulfilling the precept of hearing Mass.

It is necessary to hear Mass with attention – that is, to attend to the Sacrifice that is celebrated.   This attention may be external and internal.  It is certain that a person who hears Mass without external attention does not fulfil his obligation; for example, if during the Mass you are asleep, or are drunk, or are employed in writing, talking, or other external operations, you do not fulfil the precept of hearing Mass.

It is disputed among theologians whether a person who attends Mass without internal intention satisfies his obligation’ that is, if he sees what is going on, but is at the same time distracted, and employed in thinking not on God, but on other things.  Many theologians say that he is guilty of a venial, but not a grievous, sin, as often as he is voluntarily distracted, and that he fulfils the substance of the precept because he hears Mass with a moral presence. But the greater number of theologians, following St. Thomas, teach that such a person does not fulfil the obligation of hearing Mass, namely, when he is conscious that he is distracted, and not attending to the Mass, and positively wishes to continue in his distractions.

Hence I exhort you, in hearing Mass, to reflect on the great Sacrifice which is being offered. Meditate on the Passion of Jesus Christ; for the Mass is a renewal of the Sacrifice that Jesus Christ offered on the cross. Or meditate on some eternal truth – on death, judgment, or hell. Let him who knows how to read make use of some little book, or let him recite the office of the Blessed Virgin……..say the Rosary, or some other vocal prayers: let them, at least, attend to what the priest is doing.

Does a person who makes his confession during Mass satisfy the obligation of hearing Mass?  No; for then he would attend it as a criminal accusing himself of his sins, and not as a person offering sacrifice; and it is certain that all who hear Mass offer sacrifice along with the priest.

Hence it would be advisable during Mass to offer the Holy Sacrifice for the ends for which it was instituted: adoration, contrition, thanksgiving, and supplication.

During the Mass, then, we ought, first, to offer to God the Sacrifice of His Son in honor of His Divine Majesty; secondly, in thanksgiving for all the benefits we have received from him; thirdly, in satisfaction for our sins; and fourthly, to implore of God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the graces necessary for our salvation.  At the elevation of the Host, let us ask God to pardon our sins, for the sake of Jesus Christ, and at the elevation of the chalice, let us beg of God, through the merits of that Divine Blood, the gift of His love and holy perseverance. And during the Communion of the priest, let us make a spiritual Communion, saying: My Jesus, I desire to receive Thee; I embrace Thee: do not permit me to ever be separated from Thee.

———————-End Quote———————

No special message in this post, just some hopefully helpful reminders and exhortation to even better devotion and practice at the source and summit of our Faith, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Highlight from First Pontifical High Mass in Dallas Diocese in over 50 Years October 24, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, fightback, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, priests, Restoration, sanctity, Spiritual Warfare, thanksgiving, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

Probably quite well over.  I don’t know when Bishop Gorman offered the last Pontifical High Mass, but it had to be before 1969.

The Mass was wonderful.  I had never assisted at one before, and didn’t know quite what to expect, but it was essentially a Solemn High Mass with additional elements according the presence of a bishop.  It lasted about 2 1/2 hours including the introductory processing in of Bishop Schneider and the additional prayers he made before vesting.  It was very beautiful. We arrived an hour early and queued up to get seats in our too small parish church.  Even though there an hour early, there were easily 200 people in line in front of us.  So, we sat towards the back.

Unfortunately, I forgot my phone (after deliberately leaving it charging right by the door specifically so I would NOT forget it) and I had to use my wife’s, which……….is set up very different from mine, had no memory left, and was also low on power.  So, with the pics and video, you get what you get.  Complaining won’t solicit any more, though if you’re on Facebook I think the parish will have professionally shot photos and videos of the event there.  My rather poor stuff below:

Processing in:

Preliminaries, vesting:

Part of the sermon on the life of Blessed Karl:

Recessional 1:

Recessional 2:

A number of photos from the Mass:

WordPress seems to not be liking many of my pics and refuses to upload them.  I may try again later, but I only have so much time and have other topics I’d like to get to today.

His Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s Visit Was a Remarkable Blessing October 21, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, FSSP, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, Restoration, sanctity, Spiritual Warfare, thanksgiving, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

I will try to post a thorough recap of yesterday’s Pontifical High Mass tomorrow, but for now a few pictures of my family with Bishop Schneider which we were blessed to take after receiving the bishop’s blessing and having a short conversation with him.  He is a gentle and virtuous man, whose concern for souls is eminently apparent from even brief interaction with him.  I thank Bishop Burns of the Diocese of Dallas for letting both the Blessed Karl Symposium and the Pontifical High Mass, involving a foreign bishop, to take place, and I again thank David Ross for putting together the symposium and making this Mass possible.  That was a most commendable work, and I know it required a huge amount of effort.

Well, it only took 9+ years, but a bishop finally offered a Pontifical High Mass at Mater Dei, and he was from………….Kazakhstan.  Hurray for the Catholic Volga Germans:

Just a note, one of the kids in the picture was not mine, and one of mine was not present.  Also, my oldest daughter got cropped out of the picture by the person taking it, but you get the idea.

I hope to post more on the Pontifical High Mass tomorrow, I planned to post complete coverage today but the Pachamama destruction came up and that was most important.

A few more to tide you over:

Our Lady of Good Success Warned (and reassured) Us About This Sin-nod October 21, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, episcopate, fightback, Francis, General Catholic, history, Our Lady, Restoration, Revolution, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
comments closed

A nice and brief cartoon via reader TT, which reminds us that Our Blessed Mother has prophesied and warned of these days, but also given us reassurance as to the ultimate outcome of this war for the soul of Holy Mother Church: