Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, different religion, disaster, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
Michael Matt examines a recent interview on MSNBC features Jesuit Father James Martin, wherein Martin manages to cover himself yet again in heaping piles of dung. The Church Militant is bad. The spiritual works of mercy no longer have any application or relevance. “Radical Traditionalists” seek to be a Church Militant, which is completely opposed to Francis’ vision of a new humanist “mercy.” Well…….at least he can get something right:
“This fruit is exhibit A.” Boo-yah. Indeed. Pretty much all that needs to be said regarding Martin. Martin has such a huge signature he sets off my gaydar at about 1000 miles. I don’t pick up Ru Paul until 500 miles, so that tells you something, if you get the joke.
Yes, the Vatican is just infested with “rad-trads.” Yes, it is such a sin to desire a Church that is purer. Yes, Francis’ wrecking ball is just a series of “reforms.” Yes, MSNBC and their ilk have always been concerned with the well-being of the Church. Yes, the term “Church Militant” is a dirty phrase. Jesus Christ was really just a proto-leftist who never preached exclusion on the basis of sin. Martin and Francis and the rest would never subvert Christianity in favor of their true religion, leftist ideology. How much fake news can one 7 minute segment contain? But what else would we expect from the pathological liars at MSNBC?
Bear in mind this very orchestrated set piece attack with yesterday’s post regarding close contacts between Hillary Clinton and Francis. Absolutely nothing the democrat operatives in the media do is accidental. This is all about giving Francis the political cover he needs to execute his revolution.
MSNBC and basically every other leftist media outlet have become personifications of Goebbels. If you have a stalwart opponent, make up the biggest lie possible about them, in this case, that Steve Bannon is a white supremacist, and repeat it constantly as an unassailable truth. There is absolutely no virtue left among these people, they brazenly lie and are positively proud about it.
Exceedingly interesting comments towards the end about who constitutes a “rad trad”………anyone who still accepts the Doctrine of the Faith more or less whole and entire is a “rad trad” in the view of Martin, Francis, and their ideological allies. It matters not a whit whether one assists at the TLM or has problems with Vatican II, even those who fully accept VII as a valid council with valid and good conclusions are grouped into the “rad trad” group of deplorables if they have concerns over Francis’ agenda or simply accept the Doctrine of the Faith. That is to say, the scope of unacceptable belief within the new church of Francis is expanding rapidly and will take in millions more souls than simply those few who have long had grave reservations over the most recent council and the revolution that has afflicted the Church from within.
Leftists cannot stand ideological opposition. Anyone who is not fully on board with the agenda as it is today – and it changes daily – is a deplorable to be ostracized and an enemy to be crushed. The leftist cult demands instant unthinking obeisance to whatever the thought-leading elites in academia, the media, and the political-economic elites demand this instant. 2+2=5. A lie becomes the truth, and then becomes a lie again. Whatever the party needs. Hell on earth. And Christ must be driven from the earth for the glorious new church of man to come into being.
“Francis is shifting the Church so far to the Left that those Catholics who do not go along with him……..will be easily vilified as dangerous extremists. So filled with hate that even our own Church finds us deplorable. Do you see how the persecution is shaping up?”
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, different religion, disaster, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
Maybe not ALL fronts, but on many, anyway. Because I haven’t had time to post much thanks to 3 days of truly interminable meetings (which are, Deo Gratias, now done), I’ll just post a roundup of many of the troubling items that have broken just in the past few days. Much of this may be old news, but sometimes the gravity of things really sinks in when items are compressed together.
First up, last week it was revealed that Francis – in a truly revealing move, as if we needed more revelation of his extreme ideological predilections – had decided to attack “restorationist” religious orders with numerous vocations at a meeting of heads of religious orders last fall, because being a Jesuit, he knows that the only purpose of a religious order is to grow old, modernist, corrupt, and decadent, prior to ending with a pathetic whimper:
Pope Francis has stated that the rise of new religious institutes that attract numerous religious vocations “worries” him because they often promote “rigidity.” Francis denounced new traditional religious orders as “Pelagians,” who want a return to asceticism and penance.
In an obvious reference to the Legionaries of Christ, he called young people in traditional orders “soldiers who seem ready to do anything for the defense of faith and morality, and then some scandal emerges involving the founder [male or female].”
“So, do not put hope in the sudden, mass blooming of these Institutes,” he added.
“When they tell me that there is a congregation that draws so many vocations, I must confess that I worry,” he said during the closed-door meeting with 140 Superiors General of male religious orders and congregations that took place November 25. The transcript of the unscheduled Q&A was published this week by the leading Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera.
Asked about how to fire the hearts of young people for the cause of the Gospel, the pope turned his focus to the training of “seminarians and future priests.”
Francis said that in priests’ training the “logic of black and white” that “can lead to abstract casuistry” must be avoided. [Anytime you see a Church official use the term “casuistry” in a pejorative sense, run, screaming, in the other direction. This is code speak for hatred of doctrinal clarity.]
“Discernment, meanwhile, means moving forward through the gray of life according to the will of God. And the will of God is to be sought according to the true doctrine of the Gospel and not in the rigidity of an abstract doctrine,” he said.
Asked what should be done about the plummeting number of vocations to the priesthood, the pope said that while the decline “worries me” he is also worried about the rise of new traditional religious orders.
“Some are, I might say, ‘restorationist’: they seem to offer security but instead give only rigidity,” he said. [Yes, we know how you feel about us. You’ve made that abundantly clear.]
I would just add that, coupling this attitude with Francis’ move last fall to reserve approval for most new religious institutes to the holy see, instead of local ordinaries as has been the case for hundreds of years, this kind of mentality has chilling prospects for the formation of new traditional religious orders, and the future of those which are already extant.
Next, in a move that just made be burst out in laughter because it is so predictable, Francis has banished good Cardinal Burke to Guam, at least for the time being (although there are unconfirmed reports that Cardinal Burke had recently started clearing his schedule of planned events going out months). That’s about as far as one can possibly get, geographically, from Rome. I would imagine Francis will soon name Burke apostolic nuncio to Antarctica next:
The Vatican has sent conservative Cardinal Raymond Burke to the Pacific island of Guam to investigate an important case of sexual abuse, dispatching a seasoned jurist who has clashed repeatedly with Pope Francis for a sensitive mission halfway around the world.
The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith back in October named Burke the presiding judge in its trial of Guam Archbishop Anthony Apuron, who is facing multiple allegations of sex abuse of altar boys in the 1970s, the Vatican press office said Wednesday. Apuron has denied the charges and has not been criminally charged.
Possibly related – Bishop Michael Byrnes, formerly Auxiliary of Detroit, was recently appointed co-adjutor archbishop of Guam in a move some saw as a further de-conservatizing of the US episcopate. Tiny Guam is apparently to get some all-star episcopal representation due to its fortuitous geographical location? You can read more analysis and speculation on this development here at One Peter Five.
Finally, and most troubling, the generally quite reliable Hilary White is reporting that some major shoe in the progressive-modernist Franciscan agenda is to drop this fall. She thinks Vatican III will be called, but I doubt it. I think there will be a proclamation regarding deaconessesseses, paving the way for fake priestesses later. Add in perhaps a repeal of the discipline on married priests. White also reported close contacts between Francis and the now never to happen Hillary Clinton administration. The source for this is an unnamed Roman priest, so take it for what you will:
The Catholic TwittFace world is popping and sparking and buzzing and sizzling with this, like an Italian electrical socket.
This anonymous blog in Italian, clearly based in Rome, is the latest coolest thing among the Rome Vatican-watchers. There. Y’all’re running with the cool kids now!
So far we’ve only had it in crappy Google-translate English. But a friend has helpfully helped to clarify the details with a good translation from the Italian original.
Let me tell you a story. Last Thursday, in a coffee bar in front of the Porta S. Anna (facing Vatican City) a Monsignor (very close to Bergoglio) in his 50s and a layman go for a coffee. The discussion turns to the “dubia”.
The Monsignor, with an “enough” says: “The Pope will never answer the “dubia” of the 4 Cardinals. He will never lower himself to their level. Francis has much bigger plans, which do not stop with Italy. The only hitch during this period has been the election of Trump.”
To which the layman replied: “And what has Trump got to do with Amoris Laetitia?”
“He has everything to do with it” replied the Monsignor, continuing: “the aim was to back Clinton, because she has a special relationship with Francis. They’re in frequent contact. And the goal to be reached was that the Catholic Church was to rehabilitate certain “non negotiable” principles in a soft manner, in such a way that the Vatican too would have had strong global political support, which is needed at this time, above all for the big manoeuvres which are coming.”
About this we must agree with the great Assange… read here …
The layman even more amazed says: “And which manoeuvres are coming?”
The Monsignor sips the last drops of coffee and says: “But have you still not understood that the vision which you have of the Church has been left behind?
“…But do you not understand that today the Pope is a world leader? That had Ratzinger stayed we’d all be finished. Do you know what the next manoeuvre will be? Precisely the diaconate for women. Because it’s the only way to show our concrete closeness to the Lutherans and Anglicans. And you will see that by November we will have the diaconate for women.Not of course identical with what you think. But it will come very close.”
If this is remotely accurate – and there is much external evidence to confirm that something along this line is in the works – we see the plan unfolding. Francis will re-make the Church into an inoffensive, completely neutered global NGO ak in to the disintegrating Anglican “Communion” with the backing of worldwide political power to squash whatever opposition emerges in the Church (opposition which, to date, has been depressingly weak and ineffective). All the “offensive” parts of the Gospel will be removed – or rendered mute and pointless – in the interest of worldly political power and the approval of men. If this is true, mass opposition must be the result. But judging by the reaction to the atrocities that have gone before, I have little hope it will materialize.
More from the Italian priest, “Fra Christoforo:”
Now let us take a moment to reflect. Saint Peter’s Square is by this point almost always empty (and ‘Tv 2000’ only films that small group of people crowded together in front of the window.)[This is true. EVERYONE I know who has gone to Rome has managed to get quite close to Francis. This would not be possible were the square thronged with tens of thousands of people.] What do the faithful matter to Bergoglio? From the contents of this conversation it can be inferred that the Argentinean has plans much broader than evangelisation. Often and willingly he has said that evangelisation is a form of proselytism, which is not OK. Just recently he even said that he is worried that in certain congregations there are many vocations.
There you are. He seeks only himself. He seeks to keep the spotlights on himself, and not to tread on anyone’s toes, because he is the LEADER.
And Jesus Christ does not concern him. How unlike St Paul. The Apostle to the gentiles said “we are become as the refuse of the world” (1 Cor 4,9-13) precisely because in first place he put evangelisation. Bergoglio instead, to the prejudice of Christ and of the salvation of souls, wants the first place for himself.
Dear readers, this is the reality. And in a week there will be more appalling news. But I won’t anticipate the press releases.
Some final thoughts from Miss White, including her prognostication about what this “appalling news” will be:
And the question about the “bomb” Perp Francers is preparing for the “whole world” is running around Rome journalist circles. Everyone seems to be talking about “the big one,” though no one knows exactly what it’s supposed to be.
Personally, my money’s on an Ecumenical Council. Vatican III that his buddy Kasper has wanted all these years. But if this is true, there is an even bigger question. Councils aren’t just a happy little get-together. They always have a stated goal. They are called for particular ends.
It might be a good idea to ask ourselves, what could Jorge Mario Bergoglio want badly enough to call an Ecumenical Council to get?
I think the synodal process proved to this point that a), he doesn’t need a council/synod to achieve his goals, and b), in spite of his best efforts to pack the court, so to speak, councils and synods work as a gathering place for opponents as much as they do for supporters. At a general council, while the opponents might be in the distinct minority, there would still be enough to raise a serious stink and possibly block some of the more extreme proposals. Thus, this bomb, if it materializes, will not involve a council or another synod, but simply an “executive order” a la Obama. Progressives despise democracy, anyway (or even the false impression of democracy), and would rather rule as an autocrat.
But I could be wrong. We’ll see, but I suspect the bombs being dropped will simply come down as orders from on high from the Argentinian publicly occupying the Chair of Peter.
Posted by Tantumblogo in different religion, Ecumenism, foolishness, Francis, fun, General Catholic, silliness, the return, the struggle for the Church.
I actually thought it would be Calvinism, but I guess the “god” of surprises has shocked again. From Eye of the Tiber, which I have neglected for too long:
Just hours after Pope Francis published his latest work Reformatio Si, Catholic theologian Cardinal Walter Kasper told reporters that, though Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation mandating all Catholics convert to Lutheranism might be tough to comprehend, he nevertheless prayed that they have faith in the same Holy Spirit that not only chose Francis to become pope, but also “was the instrument behind the works of St. Martin Luther.”
“I would like to say that, though this new exhortation is a few hundred years coming, it’s finally here,” Kasper said. “Honesty, I think that controversies surrounding Reformatio Si are ludicrous. Luther reformed a corrupt Church, meaning that his ideas were superior to the Catholic faith, and since God calls us to greatness, we then ought to except the superiority and greatness of Luther’s teachings.”
“Listen, and listen to me clearly,” Kasper went on to say. “I got 95 thesis but a pope ain’t one. I understand that and Francis understands that. And that’s why, as of tomorrow, Pope Francis will relinquish his title as Head of the Whore of Babylon, and will kindly ask to simply be called ‘Pastor Jorge.’ He has been given a part-time job as Associate Youth Pastor in Training at Atonement Lutheran Church in Louisville Kentucky. We ask everyone to pray that he does well.”
I needed a laugh. But then again, maybe it’s not so funny after all. A little too close to the mark. More on that tomorrow, God willing and time available.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Bible, catachesis, different religion, Ecumenism, error, Francis, General Catholic, paganism, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church, Virtue.
Saint Matthew Chapter xiii verses 11-13, to be exact. The verses are directly below, followed by handy commentary from Fr. George Leo Haydock. Some brief and powerful refutations of protestant errors are contained in the commentary, and I think very strong, almost prophetic refutations of modern errors can easily be extrapolated from the commentary for verse 13, including those promoted by the clique surrounding the Bishop of Rome, as he frequently styles himself. I add a few comments of my own:
11 He answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given.
12 *For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound, but he that hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath.
13 Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Commentary from verse 11 (edited in some respects):
To you it is given. The mysteries of the kingdom of God are not disclosed to the Scribes and Pharisees, who were unwilling to believe in Him, (though it was the duty and occupation of the Scribes to expound the sacred oracles to others) but to those who adhered closely to Christ, and believed in Him: let us therefore run in company with the apostles to Jesus Christ, that He may disclose to us the mysteries of His gospel. (St. Thomas Aquinas) — Can we then suppose, for a single moment, that the mere putting of a Bible into every man’s hand, will convert the world. The command given to the apostles and their successors in the ministry is, Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, &c. teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And lo, I am with you all days, even to the end of the world. (St. Matthew xxviii. 20). There is not a single word to them about writing.During 2,500 years, from Adam to Moses, were the patriarchal families and other servants of God in a state of ignorance, concerning either the positive instructions of the Almighty respecting the sabbath-day, the rites of sacrifice, or their moral duties? Yet there was no Scripture during all that period. For more than 400 years after Jesus Christ, the canon of Scripture, as now generally received by Protestants, remained unsettled. Had the apostles and evangelists done nothing more than publish their writings, and disseminate them to every pagan country, not a single nation, not a single pagan, would have abandoned their gods to believe in a crucified Jesus.
Now the commentary from verse 12:
But he that hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath. We read again, (Matthew xxv. 29.) That also which he seemeth to have, shall be taken away; and in St. Luke, (Chap. viii. 18.) That also which he thinketh he hath. One passage helps to expound another: so that each of these texts, with a little reflection, will be found true; and such a truth, as ought to be a subject of fear and apprehension to all that are negligent and indolent in the service of God. For, as St. Augustine observes, they who have received graces and favours from God, and have not made good use and profited by them, they may be said not to have them, although they are not yet taken from them. And why but because they make no more use of them, than if they had them not. See the parables of the talents, Matthew xxv, and Luke xix. (Witham) — He that hath, to him shall be given the knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God. But such as are incredulous, and resist my words, like the Pharisees and other Jews, so far from being enriched with my spiritual gifts in my kingdom, shall even be deprived of the benefits they now possess. Thus the Jews were deprived of their temple, priesthood, kingdom, and even the true worship of God. (St. Jerome) [And so we may fear the human element of the Church may be deprived of much, if it continues to stray from right belief and worthy worship of God. Yay, perhaps even Rome itself may be overrun by the heathen.] — They rejected Jesus Christ, the fountain and corner-stone of virtue; all therefore they had acquired, or possessed, shall be taken from them, and given to the apostles. (St. Jerome) — Whoever has a desire of complying with the divine precepts, that desire shall not only be increased, but all other virtues shall be added unto him; but if he be devoid of this desire, the virtues he already possesses, or seems to possess, shall be taken from him, not that God will deprive him of these without cause, but he will render himself unworthy of them. (St. Chrysostom)
And the final commentary from verse 13:
Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, &c. This passage, by which the prophet Isaias (vi. 9.) was ordered to foretell the obstinate blindness of the Jews, in refusing to receive and believe in their Messias, is cited six times in the New Testament; to wit, here in St. Matthew, also Mark iv. 14[12?]; Luke viii. 10; John xii. 40; Acts xxviii. 26; and Romans xi. 8. In all these places we must detest the false interpretation of those who, not without heresy and blasphemy, would have God to be the author and cause of sin. [And yet isn’t this heresy and blasphemy rife in the Church today, even, I might say especially, among the hierarchy, when they pretend that God does not provide sufficient Grace to souls to overcome sins like fornication and adultery, who claim it is “too difficult” to abstain from grievous sin when one is in “difficult circumstances?” Is this not virtually the entirety of the “Franciscan” moral program, proclaiming to the world that God is fine with sin and fails to provide the means to overcome it? I agree with Father Haydock, such claims should be detested for the hideous blasphemy and heresy they are] When it is said, (Isaias vi. 9.) blind the heart of this people, &c. the prophet is only commanded to foretell their blindness, of which, by their willful obstinacy, they were the true cause. And when we read in St. Mark, that to those that are without, all things are done in parables, that seeing they may see, and not see, &c. the word that does not signify the cause, nor the end, but only the event, and the consequence of what would happen by the willful blindness of the Jews, and by the just permission of God. St. Matthew here expounds to us the words of the prophet, by which it clearly appears that they were the cause of their own blindness; and that, by their obstinacy, they had made themselves unworthy of particular lights from God. For the heart of this people (ver. 18.[15.?]) is grown gross … and their eyes they have shut, &c. The Jews therefore shut their own eyes, hardened their own hearts, which God only permitted. [Has God not permitted a similar blindness to descend upon the minds and hearts of the progressive modernists in the Church?] — If this blindness were natural, then indeed I would have opened their eyes to see and understand, but since this blindness is voluntary, he says, that seeing they see not, and hearing, they hear not; i.e. they have seen me cast out devils, and they said, in Beelzebub he casteth out devils; they heard I drew all to God, and they say, this man cometh not from God. Since, therefore, they assert the very contrary to what they both see and hear, the gift of seeing and hearing me shall be taken away from them.
Regarding that last, ominous statement, this occurs to men when they have chosen lies over truth, sin over virtue, for so very long, God allows their sense of faith to become so corrupted they are said to develop a contrary sense, a diabolical sense – the reprobate sense. I would not hazard to guess whether individual souls are afflicted with this terrible, almost always irreversible state – readers may draw their own inferences as they like – but I would say there is serious danger of a general reprobate sense descending upon the great mass of people who claim the name Catholic. That would be if they continue to accept the protestantization of the Church, other modern errors, and the immorality rampant in our times. Such is to be greatly feared and lamented, so disastrous it would be not only for the souls in question, but for the entire Church and world.
Take this as a corollary to Fr. Rodriguez’ excellent video from yesterday, which I highly recommend all of you to watch. Anyone attached to the Traditional Latin Mass and the traditional practice of the Faith will be enormously impressed by Father’s catechesis, and his strident denunciations of the heresies, blasphemies, and impurities which have deeply invaded the (human element of the) Body of Christ.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Admin, Basics, Dallas Diocese, different religion, episcopate, General Catholic, priests, Sacraments, self-serving, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church.
A few weeks ago, I did a post announcing Cardinal Burke coming to the Diocese of Dallas to offer Mass on 01/22. I received some hot criticism of this post, offline. Those upset over the post were either involved in bringing Cardinal Burke in, or were particular admirers of the pastor of the parish that hosted him.
So, what is at issue in this little local imbroglio? Confession, and whether I was unfairly harsh towards a local priest my local correspondents feel is very good. Admittedly, I was pointedly critical in a post that perhaps should have been both happier and more bland, simply announcing the good Cardinal’s upcoming arrival and congratulating those who arranged for his visit (both were in the post, along with some other more critical thoughts).
Now, everyone’s definition of good is relative. My definition of a good priest in these days starts with offering the TLM, or at least the Novus Ordo in Latin, or having serious aspirations to do either but being frustrated by episcopal obstinance/malfeasance. Frankly, a handful of exceptions aside, all the extraordinary priests I know are members of explicitly traditional orders.
Taking Confession extremely seriously is requirement #2. This is what separates the men from the boys in my mind. Confession is the great ignored, even inconvenient Sacrament of our time. It is inconvenient because it is a standing rebuke to much of the new theology and ecclesiology that has been imposed on the Church in the past several decades, beliefs that say that whether one is Catholic or not doesn’t count for much, that basically all men are saved, that virtually no one ever commits a mortal sin, etc. These kinds of beliefs are the primary reason why Confession is so little available.
There used to be a sort of rule of thumb in the Church, back in those dark unreconstructed manualist days before the “sainted” Council, that for every hour of Mass, there should be at least an equal number of hours of Confession. In fact, most pre-conciliar parishes had priests (plural) in the Confessional before, during, and after virtually every Mass, along with other set times. This was when the Church, and the souls within, took things like sin and Grace and damnation and redemption very seriously.
But today, in this Diocese as in almost every other, Confession is limited to perhaps an hour a week, if one is lucky, or “by appointment only,” if one is not. This in spite of the fact that our former Bishop, now Cardinal, Kevin Farrell, repeatedly (and a bit uncharacteristically) exhorted his priests and especially pastors to have more REGULAR hours of Confession. Many pastors responded to these exhortations, by adding one more hour weekly to the one they already had (such generosity!), while some did not. A few relative heroes did even more, adding maybe 2 or 3 hours more Confession, and staffing those hours with more than one priest.
In the dearth of Confession, the tyranny is in the numbers. If there is only one priest hearing confessions for one hour a week, and each soul has only 3 minutes with the confessor and there are no gaps in people in the confessional, that one priest can hear 20 confessions a week or 1040 a year. That may sound like quite a lot, but when you have numerous parishes with 7,000, 8,000, 10,000 souls ostensibly belonging, one can instantly see the problem. Of course, the reality is different. What tends to happen is that the same handful of relatively serious souls go to Confession with at least some regularity, while the great mass never go at all.
Couple this with what is known of Catholic belief, even among self-described regular Mass attendees, and the crisis grows into stark relief. The vast majority of Catholics, regular Mass-goers or not, find nothing immoral in contraceptive use or fornication. A near majority even think abortion is morally permissible in at least some cases. The large majority are fine with pseudo-sodo-marriage and think divorce and remarriage are perfectly acceptable. The vast majority believe the Blessed Sacrament to be nothing more than a symbol. The former, if engaged in personally, constitute grave sins requiring sacramental Confession before the Blessed Sacrament is received (recent emanations from Rome notwithstanding). The latter places one outside the community of the faithful; reception of the Blessed Sacrament in this state constitutes the horrible sin of sacrilege and again immediate recourse to Confession is vitally necessary.
Taken together, what we have in the Church today is a great mass of people regularly receiving the Blessed Sacrament in a state that St. Paul decried perfectly in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 (a bit of Scripture infamously and deliberately excluded from the readings of the Novus Ordo Mass), and with little to no means to correct this dire condition. Adding to that, the very lack of Confession time communicates to the faithful that this is something that isn’t to be taken very seriously. Writ large, this is very close to what Pope Saint John Paul II decried as the “fundamental option,” the idea that God is infinitely loving (and apparently no longer just) and that virtually no one, if anyone (short of evil right wingers like me) is damned. That this is utterly contrary to our Blessed Lord’s clear Word as revealed repeatedly in Sacred Scripture and the guidance of vast numbers of Saints and Fathers seems to count for very little these days. Confession remains generally unavailable.
Not only that, but we have numerous warnings from the Blessed Mother and many of these same Saints about the number of souls condemned to hell. While such warnings are widely viewed as quaint relics from a benighted age to most priests and prelates in the Church today, they have been so numerous, so consistent, and so emphatic that to doubt or deny them is a fool’s errand. I certainly do not. I take these warnings deadly seriously, as I take the biblical types that reveal to us the very small number of the elect, and the great number of the damned.
So, yes, I take Confession very seriously, and its lack of availability as one of the greatest scandals afflicting the Church today. In fact, lack of Confession and unwillingness to take its vital necessity seriously constitute very large elements of the present crisis in the Faith. Thus, the great number of souls falling to hell like so many snowflakes, to quote Our Lady of Fatima.
Several years ago, at the time when former Bishop Farrell was making his exhortations, I did a post that summarized the availability of Confession in the Diocese. I checked most every parish. Some had zero regular hours for Confession. Most had one. A few had two. A tiny handful had somewhat more. Two parishes stood out as placing a great (or, one might say, adequate) emphasis on Confession. I’m sure locals know which two those are (Mater Dei, and St. William in Greenville).
So, even as someone who has admitted mistakes and made public apologies in the past, I don’t feel particularly bad about the post announcing +Burke’s visit and Mass. I didn’t criticize Cardinal Burke in the slightest (in fact I praised him quite a bit), all my critical comments were directed towards confession and the probability, the virtual certitude, that, on a daily basis, souls with unconfessed mortal sins receive the Blessed Sacrament – and the role the diminution of the importance of Confession plays in that. Perhaps I erred in prudence in combining critical commentary in an announcement post for a happy event. Perhaps I could have chosen more artful phrases. But if I erred in charity, it was for the souls of those in gravest risk of eternal damnation, preferring their eternal destiny over more human concerns like the feelings of my correspondents or the pastor of the parish I criticized. Of course, even that may be argued as simply misplaced zeal, but that was my intent, nonetheless.
PS – There were claims I had erred in stating Mary Immaculate – the parish that hosted Cardinal Burke – had only one hour of Confession a week. That was all that was listed on their website (in addition to “by appointment”). I also perused a few bulletins. I saw no other times listed. But apparently, there is a monthly meeting/confab called “Arise” (not entirely unproblematic in its own right) where priests hear Confession. I have no details as to how many priests are present, or for how long Confession is available. Whether this constitutes “regular” Confession or not is arguable. But I thought I’d include this only substantive rebuttal of my arguments for completeness’ sake.
I certainly welcome your comments and appraisal of the matter, if you have any. Thank you.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, different religion, disconcerting, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, Latin Mass, priests, Restoration, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
There have been growing pronouncements from both the Vatican and the SSPX leadership that the two camps – if that is the right term – appear close to a formal accord regularizing the SSPX’s canonical situation. Just today, the Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, Archbishop Guido Pozzo, said full communion is near:
We are working at this moment in the completion of some aspects of the canonical frame, which will be the Personal Prelature.” Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei commission, charged with dialogue with the Society of Saint Pius X, confirms [SSPX Superior-General Fellay’s words] to Vatican Insider that the stage of full communion with the Lefebvrians is near. The accomplishment of the agreement is now in plain sight, even if some time is still needed
I am of two minds over this: I have prayed for this for years, and there would be tremendous potential for great benefit to the Church by this successful regularization. However, I am exceedingly troubled that it is occurring during this most perilous of pontificates. Outbreaks of persecution against Tradition seem to be growing around the Church. More and more regions are implementing Amoris Laetitia, and thus radically changing both public belief and practice, along the lines of Francis’ own interpretation of that document. This means a crisis over doctrine appears to be inevitable. While it would be wonderful to have the SSPX back in full, regular canonical status and thus adding a great voice to the defense of the Faith (not that they are not already doing this), I have great trepidation for the future.
I am curious what people affiliated with the Society think about this. I am an outsider looking in, but I do have a great deal of interest in this matter, as I am convinced that there will be strong impact on the Ecclesia Dei groups no matter how SSPX “reconciliation” turns out. Is there an element of regularization at any price in this? Is this the pontificate under which it would really be optimal, even sensical, for regularization to take place? What happened in Campos? Was the SSPX-SO critique basically accurate, then?
What will the impact be to the Ecclesia Dei communities? Once the SSPX is regularized, a major reason for their existence would seem to have been removed. If Summorum Pontificum is truly under threat, as many feel, is it beyond reason to envision a perfect storm settling not only on the availability of the TLM but on the entire traditional movement? After the rape of the Knights of Malta and the crushing of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, is the risk in moving at this time warranted?
The question is not whether this is desirable. Of course it is. The question is whether this is wise now, with this pontificate, with this most underhanded and authoritarian of men wielding ultimate power in the Church? Bishop Fellay and some of his close associates maintain that if there is any kind of double-cross, the SSPX can simply return to their current status. Perhaps. But that entire structure required a very unique personality (Archbishop Lefebvre) and a very particular series of events to evolve to the current status quo. I am not entirely certain the personalities and the potentialities would be prevalent for a repeat. In fact I tend to think they simply will not –after all, +Lefebvre did not set out to wind up in a canonically irregular status when he founded his seminary for training priests back around 1970. He wanted to remain within the structure of the Church, but was forced by conscience, circumstance, and frequent bungling, even ill-will, on the part of Church authorities to arrive at the destination arrived in 1988. That is, my read on this whole history was, none of it was premeditated, the arrival at a canonically irregular position was achieved by circumstance. But to leave after regularization would mean to premeditatedly return to irregularity (or whatever one wants to call it).
Plus, moral surrenders – if this be one, and I’m not certain that it would be, but it has potential to be one – are (humanly) impossible to recover from.
I am more or less convinced that should this regularization take place, there will be no going back, for good or for ill. I also badly fear the example of the sons of Bishop Castro-Mayer in the Diocese of Campos, Brazil. Many feel a near total capitulation to the post-conciliar ethos has transpired in that odd subset of a diocese.
Again, I’m especially interested to learn what people with a close association with the SSPX are thinking, but all comments are welcome on this most complex of topics.
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, cultural marxism, different religion, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Immigration, Restoration, scandals, sickness, Society, Tradition.
……and what it says about the growing national divide between Americans.
Good piece below from fellow trad Patrick Buchanan. Thanks to reader TT who sent it along (my emphasis and comments):
The opposition’s arguments are usually rooted in economics or practicality. The wall is unnecessary. It will not stop people from coming illegally. It costs too much.
Yet something deeper is afoot here. The idea of a permanent barrier between our countries goes to the heart of the divide between our two Americas on the most fundamental of questions.
Who are we? What is a nation? What does America stand for?
Those desperate to see the wall built, illegal immigration halted, and those here illegally deported, see the country they grew up in as dying, disappearing, with something strange and foreign taking its place. [Not only strange and foreign, but a country that will be much poorer, much less Christian, more violent, and with third world style impenetrable social strata. Our elites seem to want that very much, especially the last bit. They don’t seem to like having to rub elbows with the hoi polloi, and want a nation in which economic and social mobility is strictly limited. I want a country where my kids have a chance at a happy life and a moral environment that is conducive to their final end, eternal happiness with God. Everything the Left advances gravely undermines both of those fundamental needs]
It is not only that illegal migrants take jobs from Americans, that they commit crimes, or that so many require subsidized food, welfare, housing, education and health care. It is that they are changing our country. They are changing who we are………
………What those with memories of that America see happening today is the disintegration of our nation of yesterday. The savagery of our politics, exemplified in the last election, testifies to how Americans are coming to detest one another as much as the Valley Forge generation came to detest the British from whom they broke free. [Indeed. Some prominent commentators wonder whether we are not already in a de facto state of civil war.]
In 1960, we were a Western Christian country. Ninety [plus] percent of our people traced their roots to Europe. Ninety [plus] percent bore some connection to the Christian faith. To the tens of millions for whom Trump appeals, what the wall represents is our last chance to preserve that nation and people.
To many on the cosmopolitan left, ethnic or national identity is not only not worth fighting for, it is not even worth preserving. It is a form of atavistic tribalism or racism. [This is really key. The Left is a tribal grouping based on ideology. Conform to the ideology cum religion and you are a member of the tribe. Members must constantly make demonstrations of their professing the required ideology, and imposing it on as many other people as possible. The more aggressive the profession of leftist faith, the higher one’s standing in the tribe. A key component of the tribal ideology is that all those outside the tribe are inferior, practically sub-human, and must be destroyed. Thus, the stage is set for endless conflict, which is indeed, exactly what the Left wants.]
The Trump wall then touches on the great struggle of our age.
Given that 80 percent of all people of color vote Democratic, neither the Trump movement nor the Republican Party can survive the Third Worldization of the United States now written in the cards.
Moreover, with the disintegration of the nation we are seeing, and with talk of the breakup of states like Texas and secession of states like California, how do we survive as one nation and people?…… [Breakup of Texas? Zuh? I don’t think so.]
………..President Trump’s wall is a statement to the world: This is our country. We decide who comes here. And we will defend our borders.
The crisis of our time is not that some Americans are saying this, but that so many are too paralyzed to say it, or do not care, or embrace what is happening to their country.
Especially the latter. Nice summation of the current state of affairs. The Left is in wholesale meltdown mode, because I think they see in Trump – I pray rightly so – someone who, contrary to his predecessors, actually MIGHT roll back many of the gains they’ve made over the past 50 years. That it would be a man of such troubled personal morality that would do it would be incredibly ironic. But that’s history for you.
I do wish Buchanan would also more regularly inveigh against the USCCB and most individual bishops, who are fervent promoters of the cult of holy immigration. Aside from a few high profile issues like abortion – to which they primarily pay lip service, not real action – if there is a socially divisive question of the day, you can almost rely on the USCCB to be on the wrong side of it. Of course, it’s not as bad as it was during the 70s and 80s, when the conference was deeply and radically left wing, but it’s also far from great and with Cupich and his ilk assuming more and more important sees, we’re headed back in that direction. But there I go, being hard-hearted and impossible to please again………
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, different religion, episcopate, error, Francis, fun, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, silliness, the struggle for the Church, Victory.
I guess today is Video Thursday. Sorry for the flood. This is the last one. Greatness from Laurence England:
Lots of good laughs. I really enjoyed that.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, different religion, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Latin Mass, Liturgy, persecution, priests, Revolution, scandals, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
……..a site has been constructed to help keep people informed. There is a meeting for concerned parishioners and others interested in maintaining orthodox catechesis and reverent liturgy in the San Antonio area this Thursday, January 26, at the Embassy Suites hotel ballroom at 7750 Briaridge, San Antonio at 7:00 pm.
The website only has basics on Fr. Phillips and the Atonement situation at present, but hopefully it will be updated to indicate how people can help. You might consider contacting the chancery of the Archdiocese of San Antonio directly at 210-734-2620 or perhaps the Vicar General or others listed on this site, like the communications director Jordan McMorrough at the same number, x1128.
Raise a ruckus. Get their attention. Don’t cuss, don’t proclaim them to be bound for hell, but do express your exasperation and scandal at this development.
Naturally, no contact info for either of San Antonio’s bishops was provided. We wouldn’t want the bishops to be bothered by puny little things like the spiritual lives of hundreds of distraught souls. They’re much too busy, and frankly too good, to deal with any little thing like that.
In the interim, the Diocese of Dallas will breathe a hefty sigh of relief that the mighty triple 16″ 50 cal guns of veneremurcernui.wordpress.com are directed on another target………….heh.
UPDATE: IMPORTANT! Commenter Richard Malcolm had this to add:
I think it’s important to note that Mr. Wilson’s letter at the SaveAtonement site is urging those interested NOT to contact the chancery, as he thinks this will be counterproductive. “Any individual action such as writing to the archbishop or demonstrating at the chancery could be counter-productive. Please use common sense.” However, he seems to favor bombarding the Congregation for Clergy.
I don’t know enough to say. I suspect he’s right – he seems to know his stuff – though the faithful of a parish have a right to express their concerns about their parish and pastor to their ordinary, even when they know it may be futile. I think non-OLA people may want to confine themselves to the Congregation, though.
Tantumblogo comments: I can understand Mr. Wilson’s point of view. You can certainly do what you feel best. I have seen both approaches. Whether being meek and silent or loud and boisterous works better depends much upon the situation. I’m on the outside here, so I’ll tend to defer to what the locals think, but I will add this little bit of opinion: letters to the Vatican will have even less impact than those sent to the chancery. Especially with this pontiff.
I know of only one priest who faced a railroad job like this that survived it. And he “survived” by being banished to the furthest reaches of the diocese, but he did not cave on authentic catechesis and reverent liturgy. He did that by being prepared well in advance with very strong canon law representation. He also had all the facts on his side and not a single complaint against him. That why I tend to default to the make a ruckus approach. It’s high risk, yes, but also high reward if the ruckus is loud enough and garners enough media attention. It could the only thing that “saves Atonement.”
Mr. Malcolm may offer a middle way: outsiders like most readers of this blog may want to demure from contacting the Archdiocese (in my experience, not many would, anyway). Let the folks in San Antonio deal with this matter for now. But do as the Spirit moves you.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, awesomeness, contraception, Dallas Diocese, different religion, Eucharist, General Catholic, priests, Sacraments, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church, Virtue.
It would be awesome if it were at a TLM Mass – which would of course mean Mater Dei – but then again, I wasn’t one of those who put in what I am quite certain was most significant effort in inviting Burke and making arrangements for his travel, etc. So good for the folks in the “Catholic Action for Faith and Family” who pulled this off. The Mass is at 10:30am at Mary Immaculate Parish in Farmers Branch. This is a Mass of Reparation for the sin of abortion, marking of course yet another sad anniversary of this nation’s genocide against it’s own young.
I don’t plan on assisting at this Mass, as grateful as I am for Cardinal Burke’s relative orthodoxy and his stand against the increasingly unhinged and egregious errors and abuses emanating from the pontificate of Francis. I will note in passing that Mary Immaculate is one of a number of parishes in this diocese with only one hour of Confession a week. I do pray that Cardinal Burke’s presence and example encourage a much more generous attitude on the part of Fr. Michael Forge and Daniel Rendon to this most vital of Sacraments. It is a metaphysical certitude that there are numerous souls receiving Communion weekly and even daily at Mary Immaculate in a state of mortal sin, and who have not availed themselves of Confession in years if not decades. And why should they, when it is evidently of such low priority to those with the solemn duty to pastor their souls to Heaven?
I am a bit reticent to introduce this rant into a post on what is really a different subject and should be a happy occasion, but I must wonder how many souls who may assist at what will surely be a glorious event in the life of this parish (and a significant statement on the part of the clergy in hosting Burke) do not have unconfessed involvement in the deliberately willed termination of perfectly innocent life on their conscience, and who will receive the Blessed Sacrament, in an act of terrible sacrilege, without a second thought? I’d be willing to bet it’s more than a handful.
Please God that I am wrong, but I strongly suspect I am not.