I really meant to post this on the weekend, or at least on Monday, but events conspired to prevent me from doing either.
Starting Friday night, I began to see videos on Youtube from the Fatima Center highlighting an upcoming atrocity in Rome – the opening of St. Peter’s for Anglican “Evensong” prayers on Monday, March 13 – the fourth anniversary of the election – God knows why – of Bergoglio to the papacy. Fatima Center did a really good job highlighting why this event was so novel, so egregious, and then took steps to mobilize the faithful in resistance.
Unfortunately, the Vatican kept this event intentionally buried, never publicizing it on any of their PR arms (newspaper, radio, website, etc). It had to be found on the website of the tiny Anglican community in Rome. Thus, it was found out late, when there was very little time to mobilize opposition, which I am quite certain was why it was so little publicized. Nevertheless, efforts were made to stop the event, which did, however, go on.
Two videos below, one explaining the event and how it ties in with the overhaul of ecumania occurring under the pontificate of Francis – especially in this both great and dark anniversary year of 2017 – and the other featuring Chris Ferrara, who explains its dark significance. Of course, Anglicans lack valid orders and thus any liturgical simulation they perform anywhere, but especially in St. Peter’s, amounts to sacrilege. Allowing sacrilege within the very Basilica of St. Peter is simply breathtaking in its blasphemy. Ferrara explains how the cult of ecumenism is ultimately behind this latest abomination.
Sorry I did not get this coverage out before the event took place, but I haven’t seen this covered in many other places, so I thought it deserved a post, regardless:
Now Ferrara’s commentary:
And, as usual, so far as I am aware, no cardinals or bishops publicly condemned this ecumenical confab before it occurred. I am aware of few priests who did. I’m sure more will as they become aware of it, but both the indifference and information security on this were really tight.
Matt: Don’t Give Up, Fight for the Church! March 10, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, Francis, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, unbelievable BS.
I really like this video from Michael Matt. It makes a very good corollary to the two videos in the post below. Sort of like diagnosis, and treatment plan.
I should never like to give the impression that I am hopeless or despondent over the state of the Church. Much aggrieved, certainly, outraged, definitely, but not hopeless. I do know God will prevail in the end, and that all of this somehow ties in with a plan of Providence that may well forever elude human understanding. I also know that situations, even extremely dire ones, can sometimes turn on a dime, that what appears a hopelessly lost cause can rapidly transform into unbelievable triumph.
So I really like the last several minutes of the video below, and the exhortation to fight. I agree with Matt that I don’t know how to “define” Francis. I have read and seen some of the same things he has: that Francis is antipope, that Benedict’s abdication was null because it was made under duress, that Francis is the false prophet, that the Chair of Peter has been vacant since ’63, or ’58, or whenever. And while some of these arguments may have more merit than others, I have not – I cannot – fully embrace any of them because I. Just. Don’t. Know. Francis was elected. He sits in Rome. He is viewed by all the world as the pope. He exercises petrine powers. But he also attacks the Faith in ways never before seen, at least not from this most holy office. So what is he? I don’t know. Scary. Terrifying. A destroyer. A fool. A knave. a weak, flawed, failing man. All of the above.
All I know for certain is that he is wrong; dangerously, destructively, wrong. And I know he must be opposed. I have known that for a long time. I also know he – and more importantly the cardinals and bishops who surround his office and who can either put his policy wholly into effect, or block and undermine it – must be prayed for with passionate intensity. I have been doing that, too, for a long time.
As to whether “neo-Catholics” are “getting it,” I really have no idea. I don’t have the time to read their thoughts much anymore. I’m willing to take Matt’s analysis at face value, but I also know a lifetime of intellectual habit and deeply held belief – the pope must never be questioned or doubted, ever – is not an easy thing to overcome. So we shall see. As to whether there are portents to a mass resistance to Francis’ pontificate and the forces that elected, we shall have to wait for the future to see that, too. I a way, I pray that is correct, but what will that mean? Schism? Or simply a formal recognition of the schism that has existed for 60 or more years, ever since the modernist forces that badly influenced, if not hijacked, a council, first started to reveal themselves en masse?
It’s all a bit much for me to figure out. I shall be content to continue to do my part in bringing awareness, as Matt says, to how extremely radical and unprecedented this pontificate is. All else I leave in the hands of Almighty God, whose Will shall eventually triumph.
While much of what the priest in the sermons below presents is somewhat old news to any who have been following developments in this pontificate with any closeness, it is still extremely handy to have it all gone over in detail and explained just exactly how pernicious, destructive, and even blasphemous Francis’ efforts to wholly remake (as in destroy) the moral edifice of the Church are.
It is also very edifying to know there are priests out there – I certainly won’t ID him, but non-SSPX, traditional priests – who are calling a spade a spade and demonstrating clearly that, given the choice between “the pope and Jesus Christ,” this priest, at least, intends to side firmly with Jesus Christ.
There is much good formation here. Both sermons are well worth your time and constitute elements of a 6 part sermon that has all been uploaded to the Sensus Fidelium channel on Youtube.
Sermon one reviews the travesty that is Amoris Laetitia, and the clear “interpretations” Francis has given to bishops in Argentina, Malta, and other locales, which clearly demonstrate the revolutionary intent of this unprecedented encyclical. There are many clear judgments and hard-hitting phrases that we most certainly need to be hearing from our priests:
The second sermon deals with the reaction to Amoris Laetitia in the form of the dubia submitted by 4 cardinals asking very pointed and clear questions of Francis. As is already widely known, Francis has chosen to simply ignore this dubia. One hopes eventually the cardinals will then take the issue to the next level, which is to publicly examine Francis’ works in the light of Tradition, but we shall have to see:
I disagree slightly with this excellent priest in one area, that is in referring to this as a “real Henry VIII moment in the Church.” Elsewhere, he says more correctly, to my mind, that the Church has never, ever, in her entire recorded history had a pontiff make such direct, destructive attacks on the Doctrine of the Faith.
We are in a completely unprecedented situation. This post-modernist crisis is the worst the Church has ever seen for the completeness of the embrace of error and the tiny scope of the remnant faithful, but Francis has taken it to an entirely new and different level.
But while Henry VIII was certainly a lout, a glutton, a destroyer of religion, and a persecutor of the Church, he was, after all, a layman. He started the process of destruction of the Faith in one country and was rightly excommunicated for his crimes, but what we have in Francis is something entirely different. Here it is an attack from within, from the highest office in the Church, the man given such enormous torrents of Grace to correspond faithfully to the tenets of his office and the Doctrine of the Faith that his heart must be as hard as diamond to be executing the plan he is so obviously carrying out. Not only is the scope of destruction Francis can achieve infinitely larger than anything Henry VIII could have done, but after decades of neglect and collapse the forces of orthodoxy and resistance are so much smaller than they have been at probably any other time in the history of the Church.
To me, Francis’ destructive potential is greater than Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, Zwinglii, and all the rest combined, because he presents himself as not only within the House of God but as its head! Catholics will for decades to come be fighting off arguments from protestants, atheists, etc., based on the errors that Francis has introduced. Even worse is the aid, comfort, and intellectual armament being conferred on those modernists within the Church. Now we shall be forever quoting pope against pope in trying to defend the Faith.
And we haven’t even begun to see this play out. Francis will be gone in a few years, more than likely, but what will follow in his wake? Even if that next pope is not as radical as Francis, will he roll back any of the revolutionary changes already under way? Or will he allow them to persist and continue to rot the Church from within, as the appeasement of the use of contraception did to the Church during the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc?
The only way forward for the Church, then, is for some future pope to deliberately refute the errors abounding today and anathematize the current resident of the
Vatican Doma Sancta Martha. We have got to pray that such a future pope, with enough backbone and love of Christ to do so, emerges.
On a lighter note, is not this priest a most effective, practiced speaker? Few other priests use so much inflection, emotion, and vary their meter as much as this one does.
US Bishops Oppose Appeal of Johnson Amendment – Why? March 7, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, different religion, Endless Corruption, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
I saw the following excerpt of a lengthy interview Archbishop Lori gave to the Catholic Register recently on the subject of the new presidency and the prospects it brings to the Church, and in addition to being generally disappointed with the bishop’s general view of much of the Trump agenda he was queried about, I was very surprised by this particular excerpt:
What is your assessment of the president’s proposal to eliminate the Johnson Amendment?
That’s, of course, a very complex question. We would certainly want to see, more specifically, what the president might have in mind. As a general rule, it is not a good idea for churches to engage in partisan politics. I believe that, generally, that proves to be a great distraction from our central task and mission, which is to preach the Gospel. Furthermore, I think it would have a tendency to unnecessarily divide our congregations.
I would recognize that the Johnson Amendment is lived out fairly unevenly, across religious lines, but in general, I think we would eye the adjustment of this amendment warily. I think that’s the best adverb I can give you. We are looking at this carefully and warily.
The Johnson Amendment, for those who don’t know, was something created by the corrupt, racist Lyndon Johnson in 1954 and tacked onto a defense appropriations bill to punish the churches who had opposed his 1952 candidacy to the US Senate from Texas. Johnson only won by literally manufacturing votes in magical ballot boxes, but he had faced criticism from various churches for some of his stands and he did not want to have to deal with that again. So, he created an amendment that churches that endorse or oppose specific candidates would lose their precious tax-exempt status. The amendment was shockingly non-controversial at the time, but it has had enormous ramifications.
Now why would the bishops not favor being freed from this restriction on their ability to speak freely and endorse the most moral, most worthy candidates, and oppose those who are unworthy? There are two reasons, really – money, and ideology.
Regarding the money, the USCCB – and Lori was speaking in at least a semi-official capacity for the USCCB in this interview – is wholly dependent on federal funding for almost all of their activities, activities which have come to be thoroughly politicized by this very same funding. Something like 90% of Catholic Charities and 92% of Catholic Relief Services funding comes directly from US taxpayers. One could imagine that, if freed of the Johnson Amendment the bishops would be placed in a very difficult position, not wanting to anger either party by openly opposing some or many (or all) of their candidates. Such politicking could place their precious, precious billions at risk. Can’t have that.
In addition, one can easily forecast how divided and lukewarm the bishops would be in determining which candidates to endorse or oppose.
Think how many very difficult, uncomfortable stands out milquetoast bishops would have to take should the Johnson Amendment be repealed. The house divided they worry about is their own conference’s alienation from faithful souls. Either way they went, they’d be angering a large proportion of their sharply divided flock, but in most of these cases, there is a clear, Catholic moral imperative to support one candidate and oppose another. Right now, they have the perfect excuse not to speak out much more forcefully against pro-abort, pro-contraception, pro-perversion, etc., candidates. They simply can’t speak out for fear of losing that “holy” tax exempt status. It’s great cover.
But it’s also a huge shirking of duty and conduct unworthy of a shepherd of souls. In fact, much of the division among those in this country who apply the name Catholic to themselves stems precisely from the bishop’s unwillingness to take clear stands on moral issues, and, more importantly, impose ecclesiastical penalties against politicians and others of notoriety who advocate for positions contrary to the Doctrine of the Faith. How many pro-abort politicians have been denied Communion, for instance? How many have been condemned by name? How many morally worthless, mealy-mouthed “voting guides” have been trotted out over the years, always containing just enough morally ambiguous language to give a shade of cover for those who want to vote for politicians who advance morally reprehensible positions?
Overall, this commentary reveals the moral corruption at the heart of the USCCB and most national episcopal conferences. Not only do they try to enforce a rigid conformity, blocking individual ordinary’s ability to speak out by imposing penalties against those who do, they also reveal a bureaucratic contractor more concerned with getting paid than saving souls. Repealing the Johnson Amendment would allow the Church and the protestant sects and others to have a stronger impact on the electoral landscape than they’ve had in decades, and thus materially improve the moral condition of this nation. In point of fact, one can trace the steady decline in morals in this country almost in a direct line back to 1954 – that is to say, the silencing of the churches played a significant role in the subsequent moral collapse of this nation.
But perhaps many of our shepherds today consider that much more of a feature, than a bug. Whatever keeps the gravy train rolling……is that their primary concern? And how many of them favor the Church to be a mute, subservient, loyal and dutiful NGO-type contractor to the government, rather than the radically countercultural Body of Christ and vehicle of salvation she is intended by our Lord to be?
You won’t get much argument from me. Of course, we know that, in the end, Christ and His Church – including all the Truth He has revealed – will prevail. But we also know that the end of the world will be preceded by a great apostasy, the horrific persecution of true religion, the standing up of a satanic cult in the place of that religion, and a man of sin preceding the antichrist. That is to say, the Church, in her human element, will all but be destroyed. The preponderance of thinking among Fathers and Doctors has been that this would be a rapid process, taking place over a few years. Maybe it will be more drawn out, however.
Michael Matt categorizes just a small number of the recent atrocities emanating from Rome and the episcopate at large. It seems Soros money may well be pouring into Amchurch and significantly influencing attitudes – or at least making possible closer coordination between already progressive bishops and the broader anti-Trump push that is presently ongoing (to a degree that is astounding – virtually every single protest, town hall, riot, etc., has been astroturf, planned, organized, funded, and directed by Soros money. None of this is genuine).
What we are seeing certainly seems like a coalescing – in the open, as opposed to the dark corners in which they normally operate – of a transnational one world one religion global elite. Note Matt’s comments that what is being pointed at in all this is a call to conversion, but a conversion to what? There are strong rumors of an intercommunion declaration for Lutherans, whether they want one or not (that is, a wholly one-sided, Catholic affair, a surrender). I’m quite certain that won’t be the end of it. I also like the note that they seem to be rushing to get things done, this year. Given the portentuous anniversaries this year represents, that’s something worth pondering.
What do you make of the conclusion that Francis must be opposed? Is Francis not deviating from the Faith, and obviously, openly so? Goodness now even open fornicators/cohabitators are to be “welcomed,” not admonished or exhorted to convert!
And we all know just what this means – as the initial arguments by Church (maybe I should say “Church”) leftists like Curran and others in favor of contraception were supposed to be limited to mature, faithful, devout married couples, discerning in conscience whether to use contraception or not, we have seen how the Church, as people experience it in almost all local parishes, in practice tacitly now endorses, or at least never condemns (which is the same thing), contraception use by anyone at any time. So it will be with communion for divorcees and now, apparently, fornicators – there will be much brave talk of “paths of discernment” and “mature accompaniment,” but in the end – and it will take zero time – we all know that what will emerge is a deliberate, if unspoken, destruction of the Church’s condemnation of fornication and adultery (with many more coming).
That’s the end goal. That’s your “new church” coming into being. Liberal protestantism. The far left of the Lutheran spectrum and/or US mainstream Episcopalianism, which is beyond moribund and will soon die. That’s what the West’s elites want to propose as a one world religion, but islam will mow it down.
IOW, viz yesterday’s fisking, it is about subordinating the Faith to the progressive zeitgeist. You can see exactly how that will play out in that post.
Uncovering scandals in the Archdiocese of New York, or chastising Bishop McElroy’s latest idiocy, is essentially meaningless if you refuse to discuss the elephant in the Church. I assume you know to whom I am referring.
I’ve had an odd day, so didn’t expect to post, but I saw this and had to share. Does Time Magazine bother to mention that “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good” is nothing more than a leftist front group intended to provide pseudo-intellectual cover for liberal self-described Catholics to vote democrat, no matter how egregiously the D candidate offends against the Doctrine of the Faith? Do they relate that “Catholics in Alliance” has a tiny and severely aging membership, and that they have been roundly decried by bishops and even the Vatican for spreading falsehoods regarding the Faith? Of course not.
Miraculously, it seems, for this leftist writer, the Truth Our Blessed Lord revealed just happens to align perfectly with his particular brand of leftism, feminism.
But, preach, brother, tell us all about this Jesus fellow we’ve been so mixed up on in the past. I pray you won’t mind if I add my own comments:
Jesus, the great protagonist of this holy season, shows us that life and redemption aren’t achieved through strength and power but by rejecting privilege and taking up the sufferings of the entire human family. [Actually, Christ spoke greatly about religious hypocrisy, but never denounced privilege – such as political or economic power – as such. He denounced the Pharisees because they twisted the true faith and used it to serve their own prurient interests. But being rich or powerful or privileged is not a sin in itself, so long as that wealth or power is turned towards the practice of virtue in sharing it as Christ demands with others]In Jesus, God takes on the fullness of human dysfunction — its disloyalty, its violence, and its terror — to redeem everything. He goes all the way down to bring everyone up. No one is excluded. [No. This is horrifically wrong. Christ did not take ON human dysfunction, in the sense that it corrupted His perfect being as both God and Man. Christ ENDURED human dysfunction, he was the victim of it, but he did not succumb to it, as this writer perversely says. The horrors that can emerge from this fatal misunderstanding of who Christ is cannot be overstated. This is an egregious error far beyond even what the Arians claimed. God is not “dysfunctional.” Sheesh.]
[Here it comes……..] As a white heterosexual Christian man it’s a reminder that if I am to authentically honor the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ this holy season, I must acknowledge and reject the privilege afforded me for the sake of taking the path of Jesus Christ. [And there it is. See my conclusion below. This poor lost soul has made the Truth of Jesus Christ subordinate to his ideology. Those privileges, for instance, should be viewed as gifts God has provided someone – gifts of normal, non-perverse sexuality, gifts of a stable home life as a child, gifts of being inculcated in the Faith (though it appears this one was done badly) – these are things to be cherished and recognized in order to demonstrate our thanks to God for them. How does one show thanks by loathing all that one is and has? That is precisely what SJWs of the feminist type demand of men, especially non-perverse white males. That loathing is the height of presumption and, yes, diabolical narcissism. Of course all sin and all are dependent on God’s Grace for salvation, but that doesn’t mean we have to bemoan whatever goods and privileges God has given us. We must simply, like the good stewards, take these gifts and make them profitable, returning 10 fold or 5 fold on them in the service of God and Holy Mother Church.]
There’s nothing better for me to do this Lent than to abstain and fast from the sexism that too often colors my life. [Speak for yourself. And perhaps you might focus on some of your more significant sins, such as finding nothing wrong in supporting politicians and policies who make baby killing their highest and most sacred belief.]
Now, let’s set the record straight: there are those who are blatantly sexist and there are those who unintentionally perpetuate micro-acts of sexism in their everyday lives. I’m most certainly a sinner, but on my best days, I’m hopefully more of the latter than the former. And perhaps that’s more pernicious in a country where Donald Trump is President. [And now we get to the point. This isn’t about Catholicism, or providing counsel to souls in need, this is about getting democrats elected and defeating Donald Trump – which is the sine qua non of the so-called Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.]
His election certainly reminds us that sexism still runs rampant in the world’s longest lasting democratic republic. But to pretend that this problem is spread equally throughout the nation is to ignore the reality that some communities and institutions are the greatest offenders. [Republicans and conservatives, we can be sure. But how sexist is it to support the brutal murder of 50,000,000 million babies worldwide, which are disproportionately female (in some countries, over 80% female)? This is nothing but SJW politicking disingenuously and cynically wrapped in religious language.]
As a sinner who does his best every day to follow Jesus Christ, [I think I can safely say, you’re doing it wrong]it’s time to admit that the Christian community runs rampant with sexism, [So having a traditional family with mom at home, dad working, raising kids to do the same, going to church, and opposing abortion are now “sexist.” And the stupid link doesn’t even begin to provide any evidence of this supposed sexism, it’s another opinion piece written by – get this – a rock n’ roll front man] and that — yes — I am a big part of it. All men are. [To attribute a negative characteristic simply on the basis of one’s being – black, white, male, female, whatever – is the height of whatever “-ism” the SJWs purport to oppose. All men are sexist, and we can only redeem ourselves by completely surrendering to the leftist-feminist zeitgeist. Convenient, that. Thus, politics are made the only means of redemption, a complete perversion of the Faith.] That’s the nature of societal sin: no one is truly devoid of responsibility, though some are more responsible than others. [Christ is far less concerned with societal sin, than he is with personal sin. Once again, you reveal how you have TOTALLY subordinated whatever faith you purport to have to your ideological predilections]
I am responsible, and I ashamed. The words of the Psalmist ring in my ears: “Forgive me, O Lord, for I have sinned!” [Get this: ashamed of imaginary sexism, things he isn’t even able to be conscious of, but not of baby murder. Got it.]
………“Rend your hearts, not your garments!” It’s time for me and for the Christian community to reject artificial penance and to open our broken and confused hearts to authentic conversion and to see what it is inside of us that constantly allows us to debase and devalue women. [Again, speak for yourself. And perhaps, consider this (which is huge, and perhaps explains why leftists project so much). And this. This is again naught but a massive guilt trip – vote democrat OR YOU’RE GOING TO HELL!!!!]
[Now here we go, with such totally devastating truth bombs your mind will EXPLODE!!!!] …..M y journey towards an authentic Christian feminism isn’t novel. In fact, it’s a rediscovery of the faith as it was in the beginning. [See, Christianity was always intended to align perfectly with leftist-feminist views, before evil men – like St. Paul, St. John, St. Peter, and, oh yeah, the Holy Ghost, as He inspired all Scripture – ruined it.] Jesus Christ himself was the faith’s first feminist. The great heroes of this holy season are the strong and courageous women who stayed with Jesus through his final hours, while most of his male disciples ran away in fear.
This is really disgusting and egregious. These poor lost creatures never miss an opportunity to co-opt a great Holy Day to advance their agenda.
Here’s a notion our emasculated hero might want to contemplate: this Faith Jesus Christ conveyed is meant to be much larger than your political preferences. Indeed, the Doctrine of the Faith is meant to inform and, most importantly, transform your pre-existing notions, about, say, how wonderfully good and holy it is to murder 125,000 babies a DAY worldwide through elective abortion (Catholics in Alliance being notoriously pro-abort). I’ve radically changed numerous beliefs to conform with the Truth Jesus Christ reveals. THAT is the fundamental transformation that has to take place within each individual heart and mind before this transformation of the culture the author so longs for can even begin to occur. All else is just a fallen human construct, even diabolical, and will end in horror, as all history has shown leftism invariably tends to do.
But what a feeble, pathetic, obvious attempt.
If the SSPX Regularizes Under Francis, There Will Be No Going Back February 28, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in different religion, error, Francis, General Catholic, persecution, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
Rorate Caeli, with all the good work they do, continues to hint strongly that an accord regularizing the SSPX is very close to being finalized. Rorate has also long indicated their unqualified support for this regularization to occur, even, or especially?, under Francis. The great hope, I believe, is that regularization of the canonical status of the SSPX will introduce a great leaven into the Church, strengthening the cause of Tradition all around and hastening the much longed for restoration of Holy Mother Church. Of course, most feel there is much to be desired in regularization as an end to itself, as something that is very necessary for the good of the souls within or associated with the Society of St. Pius X.
I have not been so wholeheartedly in favor of this regularization, at least not now, under Francis, because I see the man as having a very clear agenda to wholly remake the Church, and that does not include long “permitting” recalcitrant recusants like the SSPX and others who hold to the great Tradition of our Faith to remain even a minor annoyance. Many in the Society seem aware of the potential for danger, even what might be called a “betrayal,” in the regularization, for the same penalties and attempts at co-opting made in the 70s and 80s seem to be at least quite possible in the present-day Church environment, but some tend to brush these concerns aside, claiming that if the Society could “escape” the post-conciliar milieu once, they can do it again. It is this kind of thinking I’d like to address in this post.
But before I do, at what cost will the regularization be granted? I am supremely doubtful that Francis regularizing the SSPX without any changes in thought, practice, or behavior on their part is simply one of his patented acts of mercy. Indeed, some believe there already exist hints that the Society IS changing in response to the potential for regularization. An anonymous priest recently levied the charge that the SSPX has been noticeably quiet in response to many of Francis’ errors and attacks on the Faith. A brief review of the SSPX website covering articles going back a month or so does not reveal any specific criticisms of the present pontificate, even though there are continuing general explorations of the problems of the post-conciliar Church and even the notion of papal heresy considered generally. Those who follow the SSPX more closely than I do (which is hardly at all) may rebut this particular claim. Even still, I would find it remarkable if this pontiff would really regularize the SSPX without some kind of quid pro quo. And let’s consider this, even if there is no quid pro quo demanding SSPX silence on certain matters, is it not human nature to want to play it safe during periods of delicate negotiation and subsequent “re-entry” into the full, regular life of the Church?
I’d also like to note that I am not entirely comfortable with the sense of fear and trepidation I have over regularization now, under Francis, while I certainly desire it as an overall objective to be realized. Part of me desires to see the SSPX enjoy full canonical recognition/regularity instantly, which would largely simply recognize their reality as being Catholic and part of the Church. I have a certain measure of guilt over my sense that this accord, if it occurs, will be supremely dangerous to the cause of Tradition and could even set it back decades, erasing all the small gains made in recent years and pushing whatever tiny bit of tradition remains to the extreme fringes of the Church, if not wholly outside it. But I completely understand the “regularization now is the only acceptable stand” arguments and on many levels wish I could share them.
But regarding regularization and then some kind of betrayal, could the SSPX simply “go back?” We have to look at the history. Archbishop Lefebvre did not set out to create a canonically irregular body “separated” from the Roman authority or somehow at odds with it. He simply wanted to preserve some semblance of the traditional practice of the Faith amidst the insanity of the immediate post-VII years, so he started a seminary to continue training priests in the pre-conciliar ways. As was inevitable in Church of the 70s, most bishops and powers in Rome were overtly hostile to this new priestly society. It didn’t take long before charges of disobedience were levied and refusals to abandon the traditional practice of Faith – the Catholic Faith – resulted in a certain ostracization from the “mainstream Church.” Eventually the issue was forced by various matters, especially the consecrations of 1988, for which Lefebvre, the four consecrated bishops, and others directly involved were excommunicated. Some of those excommunications were lifted by Pope Benedict XVI, but the canonical irregularity has remained.
The reason I go over this very complex history, admittedly very briefly, is because it is critical to understand that what happened then is radically different to what would have to occur if the SSPX is regularized, finds its situation intolerable, and then tries to revert to its present status. What occurred very gradually and under very different circumstances then – a gradual process of alienation between the SSPX and the authorities in Rome – would have to occur suddenly, almost violently, should the Society be regularized. Back in 1974, say, no one knew what would develop 5 or 10 or 15 years later, what the “end point” would be. But today the situation would be inverted, where all would know exactly what was in the offing and what the final destination would be – more excommunications, loss of canonical status, etc. This is huge.
Then there is the factor of human nature. After fighting a long, lonely struggle for decades, and finally achieving fully regular canonical status, would the wherewithal really exist to separate themselves again should things go south? It took an enormously charismatic, convicted figure in Archbishop Lefebvre to create and hold together the SSPX during its initial, very trying period of formation and then alienation from authority. Does such a figure exist today? Again, it is so important to note that everyone now knows where another irreconcilable dispute between Rome and the SSPX will lead to, instantly, this time. None of that was certain or known when Archbishop Lefebvre was treading these choppy waters decades ago.
From a psychological perspective, for a very long time, the Society maintained that they did not need to “return” to the Church, but that the Church needed to return to herself, and then reconciliation would occur naturally. Almost, in a sense, “Rome” coming hat in hand to the Society begging forgiveness for having lost its collective mind in the 60s and 70s and asking readmittance to the Church the SSPX had maintained. Whether that notion was ever realistic or not, the point is, Rome has not changed. In fact, under Francis, it has gotten far worse than it’s been in decades. Will a return at this time not entail a certain surrender of the vital, animating focal point of the Society’s existence?
Our experience in recent years with other, admittedly much more secular organizations, is that those who have resisted the secular pagal progressive zeitgeist for years, even decades, and then surrender on some key point – like the Boy Scouts – quickly surrender on all or many points of vital import. Resistance becomes totally untenable. They become co-opted, as it were, by the process of accommodating whatever it is the powers that be demand of them.
I’m sure people within the SSPX ,or closer to it than I am, have hashed over these matters in far more detail than I can. Indeed, the SSPX-SO split off because they see regularization as tantamount to surrender. I’m sure they’re aware of the risks. At least, I hope they are. Because I fear what is at stake in this process is far more than the canonical status of the SSPX, but possibly the entire traditional practice of the Faith, extending to the Ecclesia Dei communities, tradition-embracing religious orders, and even Summorum Pontificum and the ability of some diocesan priests, under friendlier bishops than we’ve had here in Dallas, to offer the TLM. All of these latter entities either came into being as a direct result of the SSPX’s existence, and the pressure that existence exerted on the Church. Indeed, many of them were created or allowed to exist both as a form of pressure on the SSPX (keeping people who otherwise might have associated formally with the SSPX from doing so) and as a carrot to lure them “back.” If the SSPX is regularized and back within the fold, then what purpose do those things serve anymore, from a realpolitik point of view? None. How long will the be permitted to continue to exist?
These men in power today in Rome, they do not fool around, and they despise all things traditional to a degree many readers would find unimaginable. Is this a leap of Faith, trusting in God’s Grace to prevail in the end, or a leap into the abyss? On a cost-benefit ratio, do the benefits come close to equaling the dangers here?
Anyway, those are my concerns. Some will think this makes me a bad Catholic and short on faith, but I simply see so much danger here, and we have the example of the Franciscans of the Immaculate to guide us. I’m also less and less sure what real meaning canonical regularity has in a Church where adultery is praised and fornicators are held up as virtuous examples for the rest of us, while being a faithful soul is excoriated as the very worst kind of person to be. With this kind of rank (and mass) moral inversion ongoing, the finer points of canonical regularity seem like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Tagle to Replace Muller at CDF, Francis Grooming His Ideal Successor? February 24, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
A lot of people hold the pious hope that this Francis phenomenon will simply be a short lived nightmare, a sort of slumbering return to the horrifying days of the late 60s and 70s before we wake up and get back to “normality,” meaning something more conservative-ish like JPII and Benedict (leaving aside how much these two pontiffs leave to be desired compared to, say, a Gregory XVI or Leo XIII, let alone a Pius V).
I have been trying to steel folks in my inner circle – and, to some degree, readers of the blog – to the fact that Francis and those who elected him are not at all satisfied with a trip down memory lane to their salad days as bead wearing long haired hippy revolutionaries in the Church. They mean to make the revolution they’ve always sought permanent. Even though Francis has behaved almost frenetically in trying to impose this agenda, he’s old and his pontificate could end at any moment. More importantly, he could be replaced by someone sane and possessed of a Catholic sensus fidei, and the dream would go into remission, again.
Unless, of course, they can so arrange things that Francis is simply the first of an endless line of progressive pontiffs who will “sing their new church into being.” Rorate holds similar concerns, as expressed below, considering the rumors that arch-liberal Cardinal Tagle of Manila is going to replace Cardinal Muller at the CDF and thus have a powerful resume for the next conclave:
To the recent reports from other sources that Cardinal Müller has already offered his resignation from CDF, Rorate can now add, from its own very well-placed sources, that there is a plan at the highest levels to replace Müller as Prefect of CDF with no less than the Asian “Pope Francis”, the man seen by many as Francis’ dauphin, Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle.Müller, appointed Prefect in July 2012, has been effectively marginalized in the past years over the Family Synods and most importantly over Amoris Laetitia. Questions about his future in the Roman Curia have been persistent through the years. It remains to be seen whether he will eventually be sent back to Germany to take the still-vacant see of Mainz (traditionally a red-hat see), or be tossed to a ceremonial position, or whether, like Stanisław Cardinal Ryłko last year, he will simply be retired long before turning 75.Tagle’s own theological oeuvre is very thin and his academic reputation rests mainly on the essays he wrote as part of the Bologna School’s History of Vatican II. It is his slick promotion by the mainstream Catholic media, his reliably progressivist views (couched in “moderate” language) coupled with his stint at the International Theological Commission and the patronage he received from Joseph Ratzinger, first as CDF Prefect then as Pope, that have combined to give him an aura of learning far beyond what is supported by his real output. His election as President of both the Catholic Biblical Federation (in 2014) and Caritas International (in 2015) and his designation as one of three Delegate Presidents of the Extraordinary Synod of 2014 further guaranteed his prominence in the universal Church.Should this latest plan come to pass, Cardinal Tagle, who will turn 60 in June, will have an enviable “CV” for a conclave frontrunner: a long stint (more than 15 years and counting) as diocesan bishop then archbishop, followed by a stint as head of a Curial dicastery.
The scope of Catholic deplorables is steadily expanding February 17, 2017Posted 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?”
Bad News on All Fronts With Francis February 16, 2017Posted 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.