jump to navigation

Novus Ordo Anointing of the Sick Not a Sacrament – Not “Equivalent” to Extreme Unction? May 31, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, different religion, disaster, error, Four Last Things, General Catholic, horror, priests, religious, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

A very interesting little bit of catechesis below from The Fatima Center.  The traditional Dominican priest who answers these questions (since Fr. Gruner’s demise, RIP), Father Albert, claims that not only is the modern, post-conciliar sacrament “Anointing of the Sick” deficient compared to the Sacrament of Extreme Unction in its practical application, the way “anointing of the sick” is done in most parishes is so bastardized in its minimalist reductio ad absurdam that it no longer even constitutes a Sacrament:

“There is an essential difference between “anointing of the sick” and the traditional Extreme Unction.” “Often, the anointing of the sick that is given in the Novus Ordo is not a sacrament at all.”

I was always gravely disturbed by the monthly “anointing of the sick” ceremonies that occurred in some local NO parishes.  Literally everyone lined up to receive an entirely perfunctory blessing, irrespective of their general health.  I mean 25 year old marathon runners were getting blessed.  There was no examination of conscience, no contrition expressed, only the most minimal of anointings, and, I long ago concluded, little grace conferred.  I have long wondered if such a truncated service could indeed be considered a Sacrament.  According to Father Albert, most of the time, it is not.

So, Extreme Unction, properly received, removes temporal debt due to sin.  It is a Sacrament ordered almost entirely towards aiding those in serious threat of death or with serious health problems in attaining Heaven at their particular judgment.  It is not a “sacrament of healing” as “anointing of the sick” is generally called now in the Novus Ordo world.  It was never a Sacrament intended to be received over and over again on a monthly basis in a totally perfunctory way.  And what is even more sad, is that I have seen the mentality of this bowdlerized group blessing translate into the hospital and sick bed, where only the most dilatory of blessings are conveyed on those who truly are gravely ill instead of the thorough preparation for death and blessing for the passage of the soul from the body which has traditionally been given in the Church.

As with so much in the Novus Ordo, and as Father Albert notes, the accidental aspect of the Sacrament has assumed the primacy, whereas its primary role has been reduced to distinctly secondary place.  In this case, the accidental healing qualities of Extreme Unction have become the focus in the “sacrament of healing”  – and note once again the humanistic nature of the change, with most all the focus on bodily healing in this life rather than the preparation of the soul for its real life, that is the next life, which shall be eternal.

I had long felt there were grave deficiencies with the anointing of the sick as it is practiced in most all Novus Ordo parishes but had never managed to put the concerns so precisely and succinctly.  Thanks to The Fatima Center for these helpful  catechetical videos.

 

Shall We Come to the Point in the Church Where the Faithful Are Legal Schismatics and the Obedient Manifest Heretics? May 26, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, reading, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

From Mitre and Crook by Father Bryan Houghton (sadly long out of print), a fictional discussion between the hero of the story, Bishop Edmund Forester of England, who in the book returned to Tradition in 1977, and another fictional bishop who took him to task for going against the plain will of the then-Pope Paul VI and the “new orientation” of the Church after Vatican II.

The argument is framed around the following declaration the critic of good Bishop Forester made to try to prove why Forester was in the wrong:

“There is only one object of the Faith: the Church.  I am baptized into the Church, and it is she who gives me Faith.  On her authority I believe all other doctrines.  She can deal with them as she likes, since she is the only constant.  Christ revealed no doctrines but a praxis: His Kingdom the Church.”

With this, I think Houghton is trying to summarize the conservative Catholic but hostile to Tradition camp – the my Church right or wrong camp.  Logically speaking, there are giant holes in the above, least of all in that it subverts constant Truth to the will of fallen men – men who have been guided for 2000 years by the Holy Spirit, but a guidance which sad experience has shown they can all too easily reject.

Bishop Forester replies at length, portions of which I excerpt below – see if you will follow his train of logic to conclude that we may well be in a time where the faithful are generally at variance to the expressed will of the hierarchy, if not “legal schismatics,” whereas most of the so-called obedient have truck with heresy:

But surely it is evident that such an argument is tautological or a vicious circle? I am to know what God has revealed by the authority of the Church.  And how am I to know that the Church has such authority?  Because the Church says that God has revealed it.  It is patently nonsense.  [This actually is a subtle and complex argument, but, in a nutshell, keeping the principle of non-contradiction and knowing that solemnly defined Dogma can never change, you can safely exclude appeals to authority such as those above when they seek to change what cannot be changed.]

……You said: “Christ revealed no doctrines but a praxis: His Kingdom, His Church.” You thereby concede that there is at any rate one object of Faith logically prior to the Church: the authority of Christ. And once you admit that, allthe rest follows.  Is His authority divine? Is He God Incarnate, the Second Person of the Trinity, born of the Virgin Mary, etc?  Indeed, one of those things which follows from your prior faith in the divine authority of Christ is the authority of the Church.  It does not work the other way around: you do not believe that Christ receives His authority from the Church.  The Church is the guardian of God’s revelation but not its source.  She herself is one of the objects of Faith: I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Therein, it seems to me, lies the crux of the present crisis. I mean the crisis between honest Catholics……I am not referring to the heretics who have lost the Faith although the Church no longer excludes them……..Faced with the same crisis, we react in diametrically opposite ways.  Your immediate reaction, along with the overwhelming majority of the institutional Church, is to save the Church and the Faith will have to look after itself.  Mine, along with some laymen [and a handful of priests], is to save the Faith and the Church will have to look after herself. We cannot both be right. Indeed, each day the gulf between us is growing wider.  if we pursue our ways indefinitely we shall come to the point when the faithful are legal schismatics and the obedient factual heretics………[What do you make of that?]

……..At this moment of time it is patently untrue to say that in defending the Church one is automatically defending the Faith and this for two reasons: a) the Faith is ambiguously formulated; b) heretics are no longer excluded from the Church.  The fact is that the Faith is exclusive whereas the Church has become inclusive.  She has changed Our Lord’s lapidary sentence, “He who is not with Me is against Me” into the coward’s whine “He is my friend who bullies me.” [Think how much more boldly error is proclaimed in the highest levels of authority even than it was in the time of Paul VI.  We’re well beyond ambiguity and well into full-throated proclamation of error.]

……The fact is, and we know it, that in our own dioceses it is not we who have defended the Faith; it has been left to pathetic little groups of laity, helped or hindered by a stray priest, to do so.  

It is a very different matter when it comes to enforcing the New Outlook.  Have you ever promoted a priest who has stuck to the Immemorial Mass? Of course not……..What has been your attitude to priests who mumble that Vatican II failed to face the facts and that the post-conciliar legislation has been disastrous; who refuse to be brainwashed by attending compulsory study-days, who jeer at the Bishop’s Collegiality, the National Conference of Priests and the new structures generally; who will not give Communion standing and in the hand; who administer Extreme Unction as of yore; who still say the Breviary, the Rosary and make their meditation, who…….?  Have you reserved key positions in your administration for such men of probity and principle? No more than I have.  We have looked after the Church all right but not after the Faith.

The crowning example is Archbishop Lefebvre.  He has been attacked from all sides, yet nobody has dared impugn his Faith and accuse him of being unorthodox.  In fact, if only he would utter the tiniest, wee little heresy, authority could indulge in charity and all would be forgiven.  The trouble is that the old devil won’t, so there is nothing to forgive.  Thus, he gets suspended and threatened with excommunication on a trumped up charge of disobeying ecclesiastical law.

……..Up to and including the Council, Catholics were bound to believe in all defined doctrines and to obey the commands of the Church’s Magisterium.  Now, apparently, [quoting Paul VI] we are expected to submit to “an outlook.” We must all look in the same direction as the reigning Pontiff: “Company, eyes left!”…….Paul VI is absolutely right – the new look in the Church is due precisely to the substitution of a human outlook for Divine Revelation.  [Paul IV proclaimed that] Vatican II has no less authority than Nicaea and in many respects is more important.”  Exactly.  Nicaea merely defined the Divinity of Christ, whereas Vatican II has given rise to an “orientation,” an “outlook.”  As a matter of fact, Lefebvre is defending the decrees of all Councils, from Nicaea to Vatican II inclusive: he is defending decrees as against “orientations.

————End Quote————-

Well, what do you make of that?  Any thoughts? Do you think we are headed – or already well at – a time when the faithful are at least opposed to much of what the institutional Church does, and where the “Catholics” with ecclesiastical approbation are often practical heretics?  Or you think that’s been the case for 50 years?

Does not this point up the ultimate divide between the loosely defined “conservative” and “traditional” camps?  At least how they define each other, if not themselves?

Francis at Fatima: “I am the bishop in white” May 23, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Christendom, cultural marxism, different religion, error, Francis, General Catholic, pr stunts, Revolution, Saints, scandals, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

Well, I guess that’s settled now:

Lots of good stuff from Matt, including expressions of grave doubt against the growing drumbeat towards war with Syria – yet another Mideast country where the US apparently has a grave national interest in seeing the ancient Catholic communities wiped out.

I must also agree with Matt that the very watered-down canonization process that has been implemented in the past 35 years – because the most substantial changes happened well after the Council and were in fact put in place by Pope Saint John Paul II (who wound up, in a certain sense, being a beneficiary of the changes, at least as far as his public cultus goes) – has helped contribute to a “meh, whatever” sense regarding the many canonizations to which we are now exposed.  The dilution of the requirement for miracles from 3 to 1 (or none?), the deletion of the role of the devil’s advocate – these things have I think helped trivialize the process and decrease the general affection souls have towards the Church Triumphant in Heaven.

 

Francis also expresses what must be assumed to be disbelief of several recent – and Church-approved – Marian apparitions, accosting those who believe that Mary’s intercession stays her Son’s wrathful arm as basically an invention of the mind of  some of the faithful.  Mary referred to staying her Son’s arm not only at La Sallete but also Akita.  Apparently Francis takes a dim view of those revelations.  As for imposing one’s own beliefs on the Church – project much, Francis?

There is much more, it’s well worth watching.  The video does close with some good news that the school principal who insulted, cussed at, and threatened some home schooled evangelical kids who were witnessing against abortion outside the public school he serves at has been suspended.  Whether that is with or without pay is not stated.  If it were a Catholic cussing out and threatening some little pagans arguing in favor of abortion, does anyone doubt he would have been fired on the spot?  But that’s what the Left wants, the full measure of the law or social rules (rules they invent) for you, but special kid glove treatment for themselves.  Of course they deserve that, because every leftist knows, they are just better than everyone else.

If this double standard continues, it will be the end of this country.  People will not stand to be treated as second class citizens.  Or will they?  For now, I think, a majority answers no, as the election of Trump, I think, proves.  I think these kinds of social-interaction issues played a huge role in Trump’s election.

Dallas Diocese Opposes Texas “Anti-Sanctuary” Law……. May 15, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Dallas Diocese, different religion, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Immigration, It's all about the $$$, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

……..apparently endorsing lawlessness and law-breaking on the part of municipalities and others. Or, probably more accurately, but even more pernicious, a double standard when it comes to the law: the leftist coalition that provides (bribes) the Church to the tune of about $100 million per year for ostensible services for immigrants, legal and otherwise gets special rights and privileges, while others get the full force of the law.

At any rate, I was very sad to see one local priest I have always thought highly of strongly endorsing this diocesan effort to oppose a very fair and common-sense law.  I should also add that the Diocese of Dallas has stepped up its efforts in support of illegal immigration of late, lending support for a recent mass march in downtown Dallas in favor of immigrants rights (that only drew 3000 people, far, far less than the 100,000 predicted by its organizers):

Their message was direct: Break silence, speak out.

Their target: The impact of a new law that expands local law enforcement power over immigration matters and is billed as “anti-sanctuary.”

Senate Bill 4 was signed into law on Sunday by Gov. Greg Abbott and goes into effect Sept. 1.

“This law does not make Texas more safe,” said the Rev. Rudy Garcia, the Catholic rector at the Cathedral Shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe. “In fact, it makes all of us less safe as it discourages people from reporting crime and wrongdoing to local authorities, who now have to act like ICE agents.” [No, it is intended to avoid things like the recent case in Boston, where a legal immigrant green card holder was deliberately given a 364 day sentence by liberal prosecutors there, because green card holders who serve more than 1 year in prison can be deported.  That is, can be, not automatically or always are.  This was the prison term given for TWO armed robberies.  The same man turned around and murdered two people not long after getting out of jail.  They were unavailable for comment on the Diocese’s reflexive immigration endorsement.]

Garcia quoted from another pastor at a news conference Thursday at the Latino Center for Leadership Development in downtown Dallas, attended by more than a dozen clergy members, lawyers and social activists justice warriors.

It was the now-deceased Martin Niemoller who was an outspoken foe of Adolf Hitler. The lines attributed to him begin: “First, they went after the socialists and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist.” [Got that, Trumpistas? You’re all fascists, just like Adolf Hitler.]

………In a tearful exchange at the news conference, Dinorah Sierra introduced herself as an immigrant mother who was “indocumentada,” without legal immigration status. [She is here illegally.  She has broken federal laws, laws that are far more strict and far more rigorously enforced in Mexico and most lands from which the vast majority of illegals hail.  She is demanding, in reality, special rights and privileges for herself at the expense of those native born.]   She said she didn’t want to leave her home to attend the event. “But it gives me strength to see so many organizations united fighting for our rights,” Sierra said.

“Many of the buildings downtown have been made by Hispanic hands,” she said with her voice trembling.  ”The vegetables have been picked from the dirt by Hispanic hands, even though they don’t want us.” [Note the clever switch, from the issue of immigration to the issue of race.  The not-so-subtle implication is that if you oppose measures to curb illegal immigration and deport those here, you only do so from a standpoint of racism.  This entire press conference appears to have been conducted deplorably, relying on character assassination and reflexive appeals to emotion rather than logic or even rational analysis on the level of virtue.  I imagine that is because there is so little rational argument on the pro-illegal immigration side.]

About that, continued mass immigration, especially illegal but also legal, can often be, and in the case of the US I think manifestly is, unjust to the poorest of US citizens because this mass immigration artificially depresses wages, especially among the poorest and least skilled.  The Church is in this case helping keep wages depressed and tens of millions of US citizens out of work.

Throughout Catholic moral theology, it is an established precept that one’s duty in virtue applies first to those closest, and then radiating in a sort of concentric circles to expanding groups of people from the neighborhood, perhaps then to the parish, then to the city, the state, the region, the country, etc.

Thus Catholics have a higher moral duty to their fellow citizens than they do to those of other nations.

But for what to many appear to be selfish reasons, the Church has chosen to subordinate the rights of those who have a higher moral claim to those who have a much lower one.  So much lower, in fact, that on the matters involved – citizenship, access to social services, access to jobs, etc – it is quite arguable that citizens of those other countries have almost no claim at all, at least not when those claims put them in direct competition with natives of this country.

And I have left out entirely two enormously important factors that almost never get mentioned: the destruction of the family that frequently occurs with illegal immigration, with spouses and children often abandoned in the native land and bigamous marriages conducted here (and entirely as a matter of choice), and the fact that from the Church’s perspective, nearly half of this flood of Hispanic immigrants will leave the Church for the sects within 20 years, and an even larger proportion of their children will do the same, whereas the percentage of Catholics in Mexico (from which a huge majority proportion of the illegal immigrants come) has been relatively stable over the past 20 years, which means support for illegal immigration is support for a clear and present danger to the Faith, and, hence, the eternal destination of millions of souls.

Of course, the super with-it “church of accompaniment” established in 1965 cares little for such minutiae.  As I was told over and over again in San Antonio last week, All Dogs Go to Heaven, and concepts like hell and purgatory are just hoary old obsolete ideas that have no place in the new church, with a new pentecost, established in the sainted Sixties.

We Are in Opposition to the Person of the Pope Out of Loyalty to the Sublime Office of the Papacy May 9, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, different religion, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, persecution, reading, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

From Miter and Crook by Bryan Houghton, a mythical tale of an English bishop consecrated in 1965, just as the human element in control of the Church launched the revolution against her very nature, who “rebels” against authority and re-institutes the Traditional Latin Mass and many other traditional practices of the faith in 1977 after a decade of experience had shown him that the ethos of Vatican II was wholly destructive.  The book follows the repercussions of this most pastoral of decisions and the sufferings and persecutions the good, if fictional, bishop endures.

The book is a bit odd in format, being a compendium of correspondence this sadly unreal bishop (would that we had far more like him!) engaged in from the time he launched his program of restoration until the inevitable conclusion (which I will not spoil).  The excerpt I quote below is between the good bishop and a hostile confrere, one who judged the good bishop rebellious to authority and disloyal to the Holy See for committing the horrific crime of Catholicism.  I copy and paste from various sections, but draw from pages 31-35.  I thought some of the fictional bishop’s commentary highly insightful, and also quite apropos of our present time, when Rome has once again descended into soul-destroying selfishness.  I indulge myself with comments along the way:

I have my own private view of history.  I accept that it is a struggle – even a constant state of revolution.  It started straight away in the Garden of Eden.  I also admit that the revolution always succeeds.  But what is so puzzling is that the moment the revolution succeeds it is obliged to start all over again from scratch.  It always triumphs but never conquers.  The USSR today is a living example of what I mean. [Thank God not so living today, at least not in a physical form, though its spirit lives and has colonized much of the former Christendom]   After sixty years of straining away at the most ruthless and continuous revolution in history it is no further advanced than in October 1917.  It has massacred untold millions of people, all of whom appear to have resurrected again.  In fact it has taken 60 years for it to beget its most astonishing and least desired product, Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Strange, isn’t it? [Quite insightful. Indeed, the revolution never ends.  Not only does it devour its own, but in the end it devours itself.  The revolution against the Church is of a part with the revolution of October 1917, and that of May 1968, but more fundamentally it is an inescapable part of the original rebellion of Adam and Eve, as noted above. The Church is the only enduring construct of the counter-revolution]

This seems to me to be the process [by which revolution is carried out].  Neat, logical little men, often lawyers, are forever attempting to reduce God’s magnificent, incomprehensible, chaotic creation to the neatness and logic of their own beastly little minds. [This is a tremendously meaningful sentence.  Think about it.  Not only have all revolutions stemmed from such little minds, and every heresy, but the entire modern conception of science (as a pseudoreligion) has as well.  Evolution, global warming, and Big Bang are what comes from men who try to reduce God’s greatness down to their own level of understanding.] Of course they succeed in a way, rationalizing everything around them until it stops working altogether.  They can rationalize the egg industry so as to guarantee equality of egglessness for all but they cannot pass a law requiring all hens to lay an extra egg a day.  If they do – and it happens – the hens are unlikely to play ball, or, in the present case, eggs……Hence the endless and heroic fight of the revolutionary.  I suppose that Robespierre will forever remain the ideal type; such a nice little lawyer, as neat and tidy in his mind as in his pale blue frock-coat, and so full of “virtue” and so “incorruptible” that only he could organize the Terror.

Anyway, my point is that the revolutionary process is the eternal attempt of man to impose his order, his law on God’s creation. And this is exactly what is happening in the Church. Until this post-conciliar period, God’s Church appeared almost as magnificent, incomprehensible, and chaotic as His creation. It was cluttered up indiscriminately with tiaras, cardinal’s hats, miters, birettas, rosaries, prie-dieus, saints and sinners, Friday fish, indulgences……and all the rest.  yes, cluttered up it was, as is the universe.  But it all worked incredibly smoothly………

……After Vatican II the neat, logical little fellows were given their head.  Obviously, the first thing to do was to clear the decks.  A clean sweep has been made of absolutely everything.  Not only was the tiara flogged but even the Pieta got chipped.  Then they must produce a neat, logical little liturgy: unpretentious, comprehensible, as dull as themselves.  The laity promptly participated by walking out.  That is the process all along the line.

Now, am I acting as you say “clean against the trend of history?” [You’ve surely heard this argument, haven’t you?  That Catholics – “traditional” Catholics – are contrary to the times?  That the Church “isn’t going in that direction anymore?”  That Latin is “not where the Church is headed?”]  Yes, if you regard the revolutionary process as the constitutive element of history.  No, if you think of me as the dull, elemental matter of God’s creation popping up inevitably from the very nature of things.  That I personally shall be ground to dust [by the Church hierarchy lashing out against this most unspeakable of rebellions, non-acceptance of the revolution they have imposed] is not unlikely; but the reality I stand for will still pop up when the neat, logical little men find themselves holding a handful of dust.

Quite logically, you accuse me of fighting for a lost cause……[This] is among the greatest compliments you can pay me. Perhaps my only inveterate sin is my contempt for those who jump on bandwagons.  Surely lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for?  Why don battle dress for a victory parade?  And surely you do not believe what is lost by men is lost to God? [I appreciate this hopeful segment]

……Colomba was a Dominican nun who lived in Perugia.  She suffered from almost every type of mystical phenomenon – ecstasy, levitation, and the rest.  The Master of the Dominicans felt uncertain about whether her spirit was from God or from the devil.  This was about 1490, when people still believed in both.  In consequence he would have the girl examined by the Holy Father himself who was on a visit……This was duly arranged.  In the great hall of Perugia…..there sat enthroned the Sovereign Pontiff, Alexander VI…..and the Papal Court around.  Colomba was introduced. Upon sight of the Vicar of Christ, she immediately went into ecstasy, as should all good nuns……….She levitated and railed at the pope from somewhere near the ceiling. “You who are the Vicar of Christ and act as the Vicar of Satan! You who hold the Keys of the Kingdom but only unlock the doors of brothels!  You who are captain of the Ark of Salvation and have a girl in every port!  You who…….”  After twenty minutes of this, the Papal Court felt rather anxious for poor Colomba’s safety.  How do you get girls out of ecstasy?  However, Alexander Borgia turned to the Master of the Dominicans: “Have no fear, my son: her spirit is certainly from God since everything she says is true.”

I sometimes wish that I were an ecstatic Dominican nun.  I could keep going for well over twenty minutes.  What i doubt is whether the sixth Paul has the humility of the sixth Alexander.  Admittedly, it is far more difficult to be humble if one sins between the ears than if one sins between the sheets.  Anyway, the point is perfectly clear: Colomba was in opposition to the person of the Pope precisely out of loyalty to the institution of the Papacy[Yes!  That’s it!  And the same is the case today, and dare I say, has been the case with most critics of the leadership of the Church, including the Pope, since the human element of the Church rebelled against the Church’s very nature and being.]

What I find astonishing in our days is that the situation is exactly reversed.  People can attack the Papacy to their heart’s content provided they do not breathe a word against the person of the Pope [the particular pope then reigning]. Our own ecumenists see the Pope as a Constitutional Monarch with plenty of whiskers but no teeth.  Hans Kung is even against the whiskers.  Dom Bernard Bresnet thinks that the papacy should be a committe with, get this, a lady chairman.  Professor Delumeau would prefer the pope to be the quinquennially elected President of the World Council of Churches.  All these – and I could name many others – are in keeping with the present regime, and Delumeau can even expect a gift in his stocking at Christmas from the pope himself.  On the other hand, that benign old gentleman, Archbishop Lefebvre, gets into endless trouble for maintaining that the personal administration of the present Pontiff is an unmitigated disaster[Because he refused to take part in the mutual suicide pact that is the post-conciliar Church]

…...What I am getting at is perfectly clear.  You should think twice before you start talking about loyalty.  It is certainly you who are disloyal downwards. [meaning, to the laity under his charge, by leaving them to the ravening wolves of error and heresy while blithely declaring his “loyalty” by introducing the endlessly destructive conciliar revolution] It is also possible that you are disloyal upwards to the divine institution of the Papacy precisely by toadying to its temporary administrator.

———–End Quote———–

Indeed.  Excellent, excellent summation.

I haven’t got much to add to that, except that it is amazing how little has changed in the past 40 years.  If anything, it’s gotten worse, even acknowledging young priests of relative orthodoxy (few of whom have any idea how much they do not know, nor the volume of what has been lost, some hopeful religious orders, Summorum Pontificum, and other positive developments.

Many hoped that JPII and then Benedict indicated that the tide had been turned, or a nadir reached from which we could hope for steady improvement.  Others, perhaps wiser, believed that the conservativish pontificates following Paul VI were simply a period of entrenchment and solidification. Either way, Francis has shattered many illusions that the Church was on the cusp of renewal.

I do believe there is great truth in the above, wherein the bishop states that no matter how hard they try to kill Catholicism, it will keep popping back up, both because at least a tiny fraction of people recognize its unalterable truthfulness and want it, and also because God is ultimately in charge of all.  God has a penchant for working phenomenal turnarounds, as this series of sermons indicates.

I could say more, but must cut this off now.  I did not want to go an entire week with no posts.  Hopefully you think this post makes some kind of sense. In lieu of reading here, watch one of those five videos on God’s turnarounds a day until I get back.

Thank you for your prayers and well-wishes.  The power of prayer – or at least yours –  is unbelievable. Every day with my boy is a testament to that.  I am in debt to you all.  Thank you again. I pray for you.

 

 

Gavin McInnes: Leftists Embrace Sharia Islam To Aid in Destruction of Christendom May 5, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, huh?, manhood, paganism, persecution, secularism, sickness, Society.
comments closed

I’ve been saying it for years, but I’m glad to see more and more people coming to the realization that Leftism doesn’t want  ultimate freedom, it doesn’t even want to remain in power after it completes the destruction of its primary enemy – Christendom.  They are already embracing islam as a religion and culture both as a weapon to use against the Christian Western culture they hate, and as the replacement they see for Christendom once the battle is won.

Language warning, as is always the case with GM..  McInnes also errs when he compares Wahhabist islam to Christianity “500 years ago.”  He’s definitely on the right track, though.

Am I wrong in picking up in this behavior, this comfort with the types of Linda Sarsour leading their movement, with a certain latent desire to be dominated?  As if on some level what even radical feminists are rebelling against is not really the dreaded patriarchy that obviously no longer exists, but a desire that it would?  So that feminism is actually a rejection of the weakened Western masculinity that cravenly kowtows to their carping, rather than standing up to them, providing firm boundaries, and dictating terms of behavior?

It’s just a hypothesis.  But I wonder more and more if this isn’t something factor, that the rage at dad so many feminists evidence is less about dad being overly controlling, but in reality being overly weak.

I guess I’m on a binge today of divining secret psychological motives.  Ah, well.  I did manage to fling out 4 posts in an hour.  With commensurate quality!

You proud boy, bro?

Around the World, Francis-church Euthanizing “Non-negotiable Principles” April 10, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, asshatery, contraception, cultural marxism, different religion, disaster, Endless Corruption, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, horror, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

Great column by Sandro Magister noting the rapid erosion of the formerly non-negotiable principles regarding the sanctity of life in the only Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself. I’ve no time to add much commentary myself excerpt to say, yep, this is exactly right, this is exactly what one would expect to happen given a pontiff like Francis – the Church abandoning her most sacred beliefs in a pathetically false hope of earning the love and acceptance of an implacably hostile world:

And also to note the sad fact that the philosophy professor at the formerly Catholic, now Satanic University of Louvain I covered two weeks ago was indeed sacked for daring to say that abortion is murder:

There has been an uproar over events at the Catholic University of Louvain, which has suspended and finally dismissed one of its philosophy professors, Stéphane Mercier, for having written in a note for his students that “abortion is the murder of an innocent person.”

The matter is not surprising, seeing the track record of this university which is nonetheless endowed with the title of “Catholic,” the hospital of which has for some time been openly practicing euthanasia procedures, “from 12 to 15 per year,” according to the rector of the twin Flemish university of Leuven, the canonist Rik Torfs.

But what is more striking is the substantial approval that the bishops of Belgium have given to the removal of Professor Mercier.

Also startling is the reticence of the newspaper of the Italian episcopal conference, “Avvenire,” which in giving a concise account of the affair – the more complete documentation of which has appeared on the blog Rossoporpora – avoided taking a position, limiting itself to this: “It remains to be understood what is the meaning of what has been stated by the spokesman of the Belgian episcopal conference.” [Wherein the spokesman completely contradicted Catholic Doctrine by calling abortion a “fundamental right.”  You can’t get much clearer than that, but the disciples of Francis are apparently hopelessly confused by such a statement]

Not to mention the silence of Pope Francis, who however has not failed on other occasions to call abortion a “horrendous crime.”

There is in effect a significant discrepancy between how the papacy and much of the Catholic hierarchy speak out on abortion and euthanasia today and how they used to speak out.

What during the previous pontificates were “non-negotiable principles” have now become realities to be “discerned” and “mediated” both in politics and in pastoral practice.

The Italian episcopal conference and its newspaper “Avvenire” are perfect examples of this mutation.

In February of 2009, when Italy was rocked by the case of Eluana Englaro, the young woman in a vegetative state whose life was taken when her nutrition and hydration were cut off, the current editor of “Avvenire,” Marco Tarquinio, wrote a fiery editorial, calling that act a “killing”.

While today the climate is different. It should be enough to look at the courteous detachment with which “Avvenire” refers to and comments on the law currently under discussion in Italy on advance healthcare directives, abbreviated DAT, the indications to be given to physicians beforehand on what lifesaving measures to take or not take in case of loss of consciousness.

Go to the link and read how differently the Italian bishop’s conference newspaper “Avvenire” covered euthanasia in 2009, and how it covers it today.  Same writer, but much, much more “nuance” now, because the writer obviously understands that Francis believes God lives in the “shades of grey,” which historically had been regarded as the domain of the devil.

But who am I to judge?  One man’s God is another man’s devil, I suppose, especially if that man is consumed with leftist ideology.

What to Make of the Francis’ SSPX Marriage Imbroglio? April 6, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, cultural marxism, different religion, disaster, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, persecution, Revolution, scandals, Society, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
comments closed

I chose the word imbroglio, because gambit felt a bit critical, and indult seemed off the mark, too.

For those who do not know, Francis, Bishop of Rome, extended another “indulgence,” or a faculty with no formal juridical structure, to the SSPX, this time concerning marriage.  Readers will know that since Advent 2015 the SSPX has had faculties to hear Confession granted from Francis himself.  Originally intended for the Year of Mercy, those faculties have been extended indefinitely.  A few days ago, Francis, through the CDF and Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, granted permission to local ordinaries to grant faculties for the Sacrament of Marriage, as well, under some rather odd circumstances.  The “normal” means of doing this would be to have a Novus Ordo priest perform the actual marriage sacrament, or to oversee it somehow?, with the nuptial Mass following according to the ancient Rite and conducted by a Society priest.  But in addition – since this would surely be a huge burden to already overtaxed (or so we are told) diocesan priests – there is also a caveat allowing faculties to simply be granted without the involvement of local clergy.

That’s admittedly a rough summation of a fairly complex initiative but you can read all the details at the Rorate link.  The point of this post is not to haggle over details of this initiative, or whatever it is, and to talk aboutits implications.

I have seen two general reactions to this, and they have followed in line with sentiments folks hold towards SSPX regularization overall.  Some, like Rorate, are convinced that both this latest indulgence by Francis, and the overall process of regularization that now seems coming close to fruition, are unalloyed goods and something every faithful soul should be really excited about.  I would like to present some text confirming this optimistic view, but Rorate seems to have shifted much of their focus to Twitter and while I’ve seen tweets confirming their excitement at this development, such as this: “This is clearly a final step towards full regularization that will go away when the papers are signed. It’s a good thing.”

Others, like Michael Matt below, are far more skeptical.  In fact, in my very narrow experience, it seems a lot of folks who have had a long time association with the Society of St. Pius X are among the most skeptical of both this latest grant of faculties and the overall process of regularization.  The Remnant video:

“They are wrecking the Church, they are enabling heretics everywhere……They are raping our kids, physically and spiritually, and then they have the audacity, to demand obedience.  Oh so pious.  To demand OBEDIENCE, and to hold the threat of schism over the heads of little old ladies to prevent them from in any way standing in opposition to their diabolical agenda.”  Great rant.

Former Catholics are now the second largest “denomination” in the country. 70% of those baptized in Catholics in the US have fallen away. 80% of even those remaining American Catholics never go to Mass (and I bet it’s at least slightly higher than that).  Even the vast majority of “practicing Catholics” are heretics of one form or another.  Almost all of them support the use of contraception, and a large majority do not believe in the Real Presence, the very core, the essence, of our Faith.  And these statistics from the US are much better than one would find in Europe and other locales, the Church’s ancient home.

Matt brings up a key point and one that I have gradually, over the years, come to accept, not as a metaphysical certitude but as being supported by the preponderance of the evidence: that “full communion” is a term much bandied about by those who have wrought the destruction of the Church in this world while demanding obedience from all to go along with a project they can easily see is causing nothing but devastation for souls.   I am not sure what meaning that term means when bishops “in full communion” can declare, with the full backing of the pope, that adulterers can freely receive the Blessed Sacrament, re-crucifying our Blessed Lord over and over and over again in a horrid sacrilege. Given what is going on in the Church and world, as evidence by those statistics above and what we see and read every day, the arguments over the canonical regularity of the SSPX seem like a tempest in a teacup.  Even worse, these same Church leaders who constantly appeal to obedience while snarling at and denigrating all those who strive to practice the Faith as it has always been practiced are the very ones who have placed the Church in the direst straits of her 2000 year history!

Not that the canonical status of the SSPX is a hill I’m prepared to die on, nor something I’m overly concerned about.  I know there are fervent partisans on both sides, and I’ve always struggled to stay out of those endless squabbles where partisans stack up enormous piles of books and quotes from Fathers, Doctors, and Saints to support their favored side.  It just seems to me, practically speaking, all this concern over and focus on the canonical status of the SSPX is just not a huge issue, compared to all else that is going on.  The Church has fallen into the worst crisis of her history and the ostensible imperfect canonical status of the 0.05% of the Church (nominally speaking) associated with the SSPX just doesn’t concern me that much.

I do continue to be very ambivalent regarding this apparently unstoppable ongoing process of regularization.  I’ve been catechized to believe that this must and has to be a very good thing, but something – my own lack of faith, the temptations of satan, worldly experience, natural cynicism, something – keeps shouting in my interior spaces that this is a grave, grave danger, not just to the SSPX but to all the Ecclesia Dei communities and the entire human aspect of the Church.  It is also an opportunity, yes, but given how easily communities like the Franciscans of the Immaculate have been completely crushed by the modernist powers, it seems like the opportunity is far outweighed by the dangers.

If regularization comes to pass part of me will be happy and I’ll pray like mad – as I already have been – that everything will turn out for the best.  In the grand, grand scheme of things I know it will, that the Church will be restored and Christ’s reign recognized by all, but I cannot get over my concern for the millions of souls who will continue to fall into hell so long as the Church persists in this disastrous crisis.  Whether SSPX regularization will ultimately be a massive turning point in the restoration of the Faith, or simply another grim milestone in the chronicle of the Church’s long demise prior to the parousia, I do not know. None of us does.  So I’ll just keep hoping and praying that God will have mercy on His Church and raise up the leadership and laity we so desperately need, and not that which we and the world deserve.

If you want an even more detailed critical take on this initiative, sent in by reader D, read this.  I am concerned that it seems like the leadership of the SSPX is giving evidence of an attitude of appeasement towards the overwhelmingly modernist hierarchy in the Church and not rocking the boat, which bodes ill, I think, for their role in the Church after regularization, but we shall see.

Oppose Fanatical Devotees of the Religion of Sexular Paganism at Every Turn April 4, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, cultural marxism, different religion, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, paganism, persecution, rank stupidity, Revolution, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

When I read the article below, I was struck with the sense that what was being demanded, what these special snowflake university students were seeking, was essentially the imposition of their ludicrous false demonic religious creed upon everyone else.  Without any supporting evidence, they decried the presence of a presumably Christian preacher on their campus who, they claim, “promoted hate speech against marginalized students,” demanding that the ability to speak such heresy be banned from campus.

This is essentially religious speech, if from a pathetically weak, unreasonable (and unreasoning), and false religion.  Fortunately the administrator they were trying to bully – the university president – would have none of it.  At least so far.  We’ll see if the president yields as almost every one of their peers at other colleges and universities has.

But the key point, the takeaway is, if ever confronted by social justice warriors attempting to foist their demonic religion on you, CALL THEM ON IT.  Call them on the essentially religious nature of their beliefs, and the totalitarian nature of their methods.  Tell them you will not be made a proselyte for their (provably) sick and destructive faith.  Call on them to convert:

The president of a US university is facing calls to resign because she refuses to endorse safe spaces on her institution’s campus.

Rita Cheng, who leads Northern Arizona University, sparked protests and a campus walkout by telling students they had to confront ideas they don’t like rather than hide from them.

The university’s Student Action Coalition attacked Dr Cheng’s leadership and demanded that she quit after a tense confrontation at a Q&A session………

……….According to Arizona’s 12News channel, the incident came to a head with a question from a sophomore, who asked:

How can you promote safe spaces if you don’t take action in situations of injustice such as last week when we had the preacher on campus and he was promoting hate speech against marginalized students? As well as, not speaking out against racist incidents like blackface two months ago by student workers followed by no reform and no repercussions? [I would bet dollars to donuts this later event never happened, at least not anything like described.  And these kids demonstrate the validity of my claim, demanding the quashing of one religion in favor of their own.]

Dr Cheng responded by attacking the safe space ideology wholesale, saying essentially that they only serve to coddle students and stunt their development…….

A photo of the “mass protest:”

Now, NAU has over 30,000 students, but barely over a dozen bothered to attend.  This is also typical, however, a tiny but very loud minority comes to dominate not only the political scene on college campuses but the culture and even the material taught.  Over 50 years, the Left has managed to bend almost every of academia outside of the hard sciences and engineering to their lunacy.

Now, I realize there are many ways to verbally/mentally oppose these little leftist ideologues. They can very truthfully be called fascists, totalitarians, bullies, liars, and many other things besides.  But I think the religious angle will really throw them off, because these people almost invariably pride themselves on being wholly fact and reason-based, even if they do nothing but shout back slogans they’ve been indoctrinated to accept uncritically their entire life.  Calling them out in this manner is probably more effective than simply shouting wholly descriptive but more obviously pejorative epithets at them.

Or not. Do what you will.  Notice the makeup of the crowd, over 80% female.  Exit question: what role has the increasing dominance of women on campus played in the steady shift towards leftism and hostility to reasoned argument on the college campus, if any?  Can it not be fairly said that in the general society, granting women the vote played a substantial role in setting virtually all Western countries on an inevitably leftward arc over the past century?

Mass Media Catching On: Leftism Is a Religion April 3, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, cultural marxism, different religion, error, General Catholic, horror, paganism, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

They still don’t seem to understand, or – especially, given that this is the very secular-leaning “conservative” Weekly Standard – want to understand, that not only has leftism “transformed” into a religion, it was always deliberately conceived as a false counterfeit of true religion in order to oppose, subvert, replace, and ultimately destroy (if possible) Catholicism.

I’ve had this confirmed for me in many ways of late, not the least of which is reading William Thomas Walsh’s massive biography of His Catholic Majesty Philip II of Spain.  Walsh, too (writing in the 20s and 30s), assessed the protestant revolt as being the first mass outbreak of leftism, and understood that leftism initially took on the trappings of religion, even the Christian religion, the better to sell itself and achieve maximum impact against its principal target, the Church. In addition, just as it is almost impossible to separate the modern Left from modern Judaism, the Jewish impact on the protestant revolt may have been much larger than is generally recognized. More on that, perhaps, later today.

All of which makes this report from the Weekly Standard at least slightly ironic?  Nevertheless, it is quite gratifying to see (especially coming from a Catholic journalist) that some of the things I’ve realized for years are starting to become more widely recognized:

One of the more prescient essays in recent years is Jody Bottum’s “The Spiritual Shape of Political Ideas,” which I’m proud to say was published in THE WEEKLY STANDARD. The essay posits that religious ideas are transforming politics as we know it, only instead of the hand-wringing about the Moral Majority or the George W. Bush administration’s supposed attempts to impose theocracy, it’s the left that is, ahem, “culturally appropriating” religious ideas to suit their own attempts to seize power. [They’ve been doing so for 500 years.  But the religious nature of the Left has become blatantly obvious of late.]

Take ethnicity, which has become a matter of original sin. Unlike the Judeo-Christian belief, however, this sin does not apply to all of humanity. “So profound is the sin, in fact, that not even its proponents escape. The more they are aware of white privilege, the more they see it everywhere, even in themselves,” writes Bottum. He quotes an essay of University of Texas professor Robert Jensen, who wrote: “There is not space here to list all the ways in which white privilege plays out, but it is clear that I will carry this privilege with me until the day white supremacy is erased.” [Jensen has been a literal nut embarrassing the University of Texas for a quarter century or more. This Jensen creature is the only guy I ever met who talked himself into becoming a sodomite in order to better conform to his political ideology.  I am not much exaggerating.  He is nuts.]

Even Andrew Sullivan recently reached this conclusion, when he recently examined “intersectionality,” the left-wing buzzword du jour, which he accurately describes as “neo-Marxist theory that argues that social oppression does not simply apply to single categories of identity — such as race, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. — but to all of them in an interlocking system of hierarchy and power.” Sullivan further observes that intersectionality “is operating, in Orwell’s words, as a ‘smelly little orthodoxy,’ and it manifests itself, it seems to me, almost as a religion. It posits a classic orthodoxy through which all of human experience is explained — and through which all speech must be filtered. Its version of original sin is the power of some identity groups over others. To overcome this sin, you need first to confess, i.e., ‘check your privilege,’ and subsequently live your life and order your thoughts in a way that keeps this sin at bay.”…….. [In fact, this emergence of obviously religious leftism has come as a result of the steady retreat of Christianity and the growing influence of the Left on society.  This is how the Left behaves when it comes very close to power, dropping the trappings of supposed reasoned argument and appeals to false intellectualism for much more nakedly dogmatic, emotionally-laden claims.]

……….The University of Regina is asking its male students to own up to their toxic masculinity, and they’re setting up a confessional booth—similar to those in Catholic churches—where guys can confess their sins of “hypermasculinity.”………[How does one express a firm purpose of amendment against masculinity?  I’m sure you can imagine the life-shattering behaviors that could result.]

……….Certainly, the religious right has had its excesses. [Such as?  Are you going to quote me Fred Phelps?  But are they even genuinely religious, or “right?”  Authentic Christianity has rarely been seen by most in this country, unfortunately.  Very few Americans below about 70  would even have a recollection what it might have looked like in odd corners of this country, dominated by Catholicism “before the fall” of 1962-5] But if you think that’s bad, just imagine the consequences of a political system dominated by a religious left that doesn’t believe in redemption.

Oh, we don’t have to imagine, the world has seen it over and over and over.  The Soviet Union, China 1949-present, Cambodia, Vietnam, Allendeist Chile, all the East European satellites of the FSU, Nazi Germany, revolutionary Spain, revolutionary France, etc., etc.  Everywhere leftism as religion comes to power it leaves putrid mounts of dead bodies in its wake.

Of course, the religion of leftism has become the predominant belief set of those who claim the name Catholic over the last several decades, infecting especially the hierarchy and then trickling down from there to infect millions of souls.  But a detailed analysis of that is beyond the scope of this post, and has already been done to death not only here but on hundreds of other venues.

A friend and frequent reader of this blog gave me a great quote last week – virtually everyone in the US is born a first degree mason, and a first degree wiccan, etc.  That’s because this country has come to hold, culturally, politically, socially, such extraordinarily liberal and libertine ideas, and we are all so inculcated in the “normality” of these ideas from such an early age, that almost all of us emerge, even from earliest childhood, as little proto-liberals and proto-libertines, unless we are extremely fortunate and have parents who form us in opposition to the dominant cultural zeitgeist.  I thought that was a really good and pithy saying, and I thank TE for sharing it.

Fits in well with the content of this post, anyway.