I’m reading a very good book containing St. Francis de Sales writings against the protestants of the Chablais from the 16th century. These pamphlets were combined into book form under the title The Catholic Controversy. St. Francis is a very thorough writer whose pamphlets tend to be quite complex. As such, they are not easy to condense to blog post length. I’ve been meaning for weeks to try to share some of this content with you, but I’ve had a hard time finding excerpts of appropriate length that would still be understandable.
Deo Gratias, I believe I’ve found some in the chapters on protestant butchery of Sacred Scripture in order to justify their false beliefs. This is quite key, and really shocking, in that protestants who claim to rely on Scripture as the sole rule of Faith, in fact excluded many books (for reasons that are false, as St. Francis clearly demonstrates) specifically because they contained matters of belief they refused to accept! That is to say, they did not start out honestly examining Scripture and somehow found that books present in the Canon of Scripture since the 4th century were somehow false or “apocryphal,” quite the contrary, they started with false beliefs and then modified Scripture to only support those beliefs. Furthermore, in addition to excluding various Old Testament books, they also edited the content of others that they retained, even including the New Testament.
With that background, the great Doctor of the Church, St. Francis de Sales (my emphasis and comments):
What likelihood is there that the Holy Spirit has hidden Himself from all antiquity, and that after 1500 years he has disclosed to certain private persons the list of the true Scriptures? For our part we follow exactly the list of the Council of Laodicea, with the addition made at the Councils of Carthage and Florence. Never will a man of judgment leave these Councils to follow the persuasions of private individuals. Here, then, is the fountain and source of all the violations which have been made of this holy rule; namely, when people have taken up the fancy of not receiving it save by the measure and rule of the inspirations which each one believes and thinks he feels. [One of satan’s most effective traps, getting pious souls to assert their own judgment over that passed on by the Church Fathers. So much destructive has man’s pride in his own intellect – or, worse, his feelz – wrought!]
Now, how can an honest soul refrain from giving the rein to the ardor of a holy zeal and form entering into a Christian anger, without sin, considering with what presumption those who do nothing but cry Scripture, Scripture, have despised, degraded, and profaned this divine Testament of the eternal Father, as they have falsified this sacred contract of so glorious an alliance! O ministers of Calvinism, how do you dare to cut away so many noble parts of the Bible?! You take away Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Machabees, why do you thus dismember the Holy Scripture? Who has told you that they are not sacred? There was some doubt about them in the ancient Church but was there not doubt in the ancient Church about Esther, the Epistle to the Hebrews, those of St. James and St. Jude, the Second of St. Peter, the last two of St. John, and especially of the Apocalypse? Why do you not also erase these as you have done those [that is, the books of Scripture they excluded] ?
Acknowledge honestly that what you have done in this has only been in order to contradict the Church. You were angry at seeing in the Machabees the intercession of the Saints and prayers for the departed; Ecclesiasticus stung you in that it bore witness to free will and the honor of relics. Rather than do violence to your notions, adjusting them to the Scriptures, you have violated the Scriptures to accommodate them to your notions; you have cut off the holy Word to avoid cutting off your fancies……Open your heart to the Faith and you will receive that which your unbelief shuts out from you. Because you do not will to believe what they teach, you condemn them; rather, condemn your presumption and receive the Scripture………. [de Sales has it right. Protestants are loathe to admit it, though]
[We now switch subjects from excluding books from the Canon of Scripture, to deliberately flawed biblical translations]
…….Your fine church has not contented itself with cutting off from the Scripture entire books, chapters, sentences, and words, but what it has not dared to cut off altogether it has corrupted and violated by its translations…….In our age, behold arise a thick mist created by the spirit of giddiness, which has so led astray these refurbishers of old opinions formerly current, that everybody has wanted to drag, one to this side, one to that, and always according to the inclination of his own judgment, this holy and sacred Scripture of God…….[in this way] as soon as we are assured that the ordinary edition [The Latin Vulgate] of the Church is so out of shape that it must be built up again anew, and that a private man is to set his hand to it and begin the process, the door is open to presumption……[Upon which, all of protestant opinion is built]
[After demonstrating how protestants mistranslated key bits of Scripture, for instance, Lk xxii:20, trying to pretend that Christ’s Sacrifice was only spiritual or allegorical by changing the words of Scripture]……You see something, then, of the violence and profanation your ministers do and offer to the Scriptures; what think you of their ways? What will become of us if everybody takes leave, as soon as he knows two words of Greek, and letters in Hebrew, thus to turn everything topsy turvy? I have therefore shown you what I promised, that this first rule of our faith has been and still is most sadly violated in your pretended church, and that you may know it to be a property of heresy thus to dismember the Scriptures, I will close this part of my subject with what Tertullian says, speaking of the sects of his time: “This heresy” [of the gnostics],” says he, “does not receive some of the Scriptures; and if it receives some it does not receive them whole…..and what it receives in a certain sense whole, it still perverts, devising various interpretations…….” [earlier in the book, de Sales demonstrated how virtually every major heresy of protestantism was simply the recreation of some ancient heresy. There is nothing new under the sun, or Son]
Thank you Lord for sending us great Saints like St. Francis de Sales, to refute the errors of heretics and shine the light of Truth on their errors. His words are so apropos to our own time, too, when so many in the Church have fallen into protestant errors.
St. Francis later goes on to attack vernacular translations of the Bible as prone to causing division and confusion, in addition to the fundamental problem of translations serving as sources of error. You can imagine what he would think of the vernacular Mass, then!
The testimony of a Doctor like de Sales is all the testimony I need to find vernacular Mass severely wanting.
I also fully endorse his practice of ecumenism – converting protestants by the tens of thousands. One wonders what kind of place St. Francis de Sales would find in the Church today?
add a comment
…..thus, all the protestant sects, all the other religions, are proved false from the get-go in their total lack of miracles in support of their claims.
Did Luther work any miracles? Absolutely not. Beza? No. Malanchton? Heck no. Cranmer? You’ve got to be kidding. Wesley? Yeah, right. Calvin, so desperate to prove his false religion, actually sunk to the level of bribing a man to appear dead, so that he might pretend to raise him back to life. God will not be mocked, however, and the man Calvin brought in to try to fool souls instead actually died, and of course Calvin could not raise him.
What of Mohammad, or Buddha, or Shiva or Ganesha? No, no, no, and no. Buddha actually eschewed miracles, Mohammad’s only pretended miracle was witnessed by no one, and the foundations of the Hindu religion also do not speak of miracles in any kind of real, verifiable sense.
Do I even need to mention laughably false “religions” like scientology or new age? Not only no miracles, but negative proof through their uniformly destructive influence on the lives of poor lost souls. Then there were all the false sects along the way in the past 2000 years, the Manicheans, the Gnostics, the Marcionites, etc…….all of these were proved false by the absence of divine proof in the form of miracles.
Judaism was of course rife with miracles, but it has been superseded by the New Covenant.
Which brings us to Jesus Christ and the Church He founded, the Catholic Church. Christianity spread like wildfire in its inception, in spite of a very hostile environment, largely on the basis of mass testimony of the miracles Christ worked while incarnate (miracles witnessed by, in total, tens if not hundreds of thousands) AND the continuous miracles of His Apostles. Some of these are recorded in Acts of the Apostles, many more followed in generations to come in the lives of numerous Saints.
The ancient Christian churches – those that date back to the original Apostles – are the only ones that were founded by a Divine Source and whose early history was filled with divine, miraculous proof. The unity of that early Church has been sadly sundered by error and schism, first by Nestorians and Monophysites and then by Eastern imperial pride and ambition, so that only the Catholic Church remains – wounded though she may be – still blessed with that original divine assent and continually in union with her founding spirit.
But that Church does continue on today, and while the schismatic churches may make claims to miracles, only the Catholic Church has continued with a line of publicly verifiable miracles almost up to this very day. Certainly, one of the greatest miracles ever, the Miracle of the Sun, occurred within living memory. This is simply a further attestation to the Divine founding and continued blessing of the Church, in spite of all the efforts of insider revolutionaries over the past 50 years or so.
This post probably got longer than it needed to be, but the takeaway is: Christ’s miracles prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Truth of the Christian Faith, and continued miracles prove the Catholic Church to be the One True Faith to this day. None of the protestant sects can even remotely claim this.
This post inspired by a good sermon I heard last night.
The semi-official publication of the French episcopal conference, the magazine La Croix, conducted an interview with Francis recently. There have been two portions of that interview that have caused a good deal of comment. The first contains some conciliatory, if non-committal, words from Francis regarding the SSPX. He claims they are working towards full communion. That’s not exactly explosive to me, but it is a far cry from the cries of “protestant” and “schismatic” directed towards the Society by some in the hierarchy over the past 40 years.
What has caused far more controversy is this statement below, following a question from La Croix regarding islam (I’m sure there will be some argument over translation):
La Croix: The fear of accepting migrants is partly based on a fear of Islam. In your view, is the fear that this religion sparks in Europe justified?
Pope Francis: Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam. It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam. However, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.
Who, of any substance, has ever interpreted the Great Commission in such a tawdry manner? Who has ever drawn comparisons between the almost entirely peaceful spread of Christianity through Europe and much of the world (I know there have been exceptions), with the almost entirely violent spread of islam? Islam is a religion that has only and ever been spread by conquest. It has made very few converts, historically, save with the threat of physical violence and other means of repression. Only very recently, in Europe and other parts of the West, has islam begun to attract more than a handful of disaffected, disillusioned souls, souls who have never known the Truth of Jesus Christ?
One of the most disturbing qualities of Francis is his tendency to believe things which are not. Yes, many in Europe (and elsewhere) are extremely concerned over the spread of islam, and not just ISIS. No, there is no reasonable equivocation between Catholic evangelizing and muslim conquest. No, it is not possible to reconcile those who persist in manifest grave sin with reception of the Blessed Sacrament. Yes, protestants absolutely should and indeed must convert to the Catholic Faith. And so on…….
What we are witnessing in so many aspects of this pontificate (including numerous statements in his official, magisterial works) is a fundamental failure of rational thought. Much of what is posited is not simply contrary to the Faith but an attack on reason itself. Such thinking is very prevalent among progressives, who at the same time tell us that sexuality is absolutely fixed at birth and utterly immutable (in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary), while sex (as in “gender”) is as fluid as can be, subject to change on a whim, including the whim to watch women undress. One can see a certain analogy in claiming that what has always been a sin now somehow isn’t, or at least isn’t an impediment to reception of the Blessed Sacrament. Or that the peaceful spread of Christianity somehow mirrors the spread of islam.
I read at One Peter Five a statement by Steve Skojec that Francis is the most authoritarian pope the Church has seen in decades, but that he is using all that papal authority to destroy it, long term, in a sort of kamikaze fashion. That is to say, Francis is using, or intends to use, a sort of papal absolutism to drive fundamental change in the Church, in the process, transferring (it hasn’t happened quite yet?) authority from the papacy to new dicasteries (headed by women?) and especially national conferences. His successor will then be hobbled with an office denuded of much of its authority and unable to change what he hath wrought. An interesting theory, which I pray does not come to pass.
I’m out of time. Let me know what you think.
Practicing muslims reputed to outnumber Catholics in Brussels February 24, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, horror, Immigration, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, suicide.
The numbers presented below square with what a commenter from Europe has said in the past. Practicing muslims make up a greater percentage of the population of the city/region of Brussels than do Catholics. More fruit from Vatican II. I’m sure Cardinal Daneels, he of the “St. Gallen Group” who helped elect Francis, and a man deeply involved in the cover-up of the pedophile activities of some very close to him, is very pleased:
Considering what European Union policies have done to Europe, it seems all too apt for its capital to be a hive of Islamic terror and on the road to becoming a majority Muslim city.
Then turn to Brussels, some parts of which host large communities of Moroccan and Turkish immigrants, mostly from religiously conservative regions of those countries. Among respondents in the city, practising Catholics amounted to 12% and non-practising ones to 28%. Some 19% were active Muslims and another 4% were of Muslim identity without practising the faith. The atheist/agnostic camp came to 30%. [Let’s just accept these numbers at face value. How many will continue in this practice when being Catholic begins to carry a marked social cost, be it from militant atheists or militant muslims?]
Among people who actually practice a religion, Muslims are a majority. And as usual, with Islamic indoctrination and birth rates, the news becomes more troubling in the lower age groups.
Thus among respondents aged 55 and over, practising Catholics amounted to 30% and practising Muslims to less than 1%; but among those aged between 18 and 34, active adherence to Islam (14%) exceeded the practice of Catholicism (12%). Admittedly the sample (600 people in all) is small. But if this trend continues, practitioners of Islam may soon comfortably exceed devout Catholics not just in cosmopolitan Brussels, as is the case already, but across the whole of Belgium’s southern half.
The southern half being the predominately Catholic region. Forgive me for doubting that even 12% of Brusselites (?) are “practicing” Catholics. I’d certainly appreciate any input from those familiar with the Church in Belgium. In France and other countries, it’s more like 3-4%, and almost all of them quite elderly. Of course, “practicing” the Faith has been reduced in the minds of millions to showing up occasionally on Easter and Christmas, so perhaps 12% do still do that. This is not a practice of the Faith our Church Fathers would recognize.
And all this is why Brussels has become a hub for terror in Europe:
……..The greater Brussels area has long been considered to be a hotbed for radical Islamists. Troubled neighborhoods like Molenbeek and Anderlecht are known as being homes to secluded communities of immigrants in which radicals can easily go underground. So has Belgium become the center of terror in Europe and a security risk for the entire Continent?
These people who are firing their weapons and blowing themselves up don’t appear out of nowhere,” respected Belgian sociologist Felice Dassetto wrote on his blog after the Paris attacks……
…….There isn’t going to be a Brussels in 50 years. There’s going to be an Islamic State. It’s much too late to start pleading with the Jihadi invaders to play nice. It’s time to decide if there is going to be an Islamic State in Belgium or not.
And all this, in the capital of post-modern, post-Christian Europe. As to the remaking of Europe into a balkanized construct of self-loathing atheistic sexular pagans and Western-loathing radical jihadists, for most of Europe’s governing elite, this appears all part of the plan. People are easy to control when they are terrified. Attachment to freedom goes out the window when one is in doubt of one’s life. The native populace is almost entirely disarmed.
It’s almost as if someone had a plan………and do note the Church “elites” (hierarchy) are almost universally in favor of this unprecedented project in social engineering.
Fathers of the Church on the Unity of the Church…… February 11, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, different religion, Ecumenism, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Papa, sanctity, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
…….and the grave evil of placing oneself outside the Church in a schismatic and/or heretical sect. All the quotes below come from Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Satis Cognitum (1896). The Fathers quotes are identified in line. I add a few explanatory comments:
Origen writes: “As often as the heretics allege the possession of the canonical scriptures to which all Christians give unanimous assent, they seem to say: ‘Behold the word of the truth is in the houses.'” [I take this to mean something akin to protestant viewing a church as just whatever group of people who come together to worship the Lord, rather than the formal institution founded by Christ]
“But we should believe them not and abandon not the primary and ecclesiastical tradition. We should believe not otherwise than has been handed down by the tradition of the Church of God.” Irenaeus too says: “The doctrine of the Apostles is the true faith……..which is known to us through the Episcopal succession…….which has reached even unto our age by the very fact that the Scriptures have been zealously guarded and fully interpreted.” And Tertullian: “It is therefore clear that all doctrine which agrees with that of the Apostolic Church – the matrices and original centers of faith, must be looked upon as the truth, holding without hesitation that the Church received it from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God……..We are in communion with the Apostolic Churches and by the very fact that they [the many local churches] agree amongst themselves we have a testimony of the truth.” And so Hilary: “Christ teaching from the ship signifies that those who are outside the Church can never grasp the divine teaching; for the ship typifies the Church where the word of life is deposited and preached. Those who are outside are like sterile and worthless sand; they cannot comprehend.” [I really like that quote by St. Hilary of Poitiers]
Rufinus praises Gregory of Nazianum and Basil because “they studied the text of Holy Scripture alone, and took the interpretation of its meaning not from their own inner consciousness, but from the writings and on the authority of the ancients, who in their turn, as it is clear, took their rule for understanding the meaning from the Apostolic succession.”…… [Which is contrary to what the protestants have done, rejecting the Faith that has been handed on and searching the Scriptures, interpreted solely by themselves, for ways to justify that rejection. That is the critical point to keep in mind, with all the headstrong protestants (not those so much born into error and ignorant of it), they start from the position “Catholic = wrong” and search for justifications for that belief. They can be murderously dangerous to the poorly formed.]
……..In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? – without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches it, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His Grace, we believe that what He has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived……..
……..In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me, the many things in which they are will not profit them.
And this indeed most deservedly; for they who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ,” they more truly obey themselves than God. “You who believe what you like of the Gospels and believe not what you like, believe yourselves rather than the Gospel.”…….
………It is then undoubtedly the office of the Church to guard Christian Doctrine and to propagate it in its integrity and purity. But this is not all, the object for which the Church has been instituted is not wholly attained by the performance of this duty. For since Jesus Christ delivered Himself up for the salvation of the human race, and to this end directed all His teaching and commands, so He ordered the Church to strive, by the truth and its doctrine, to sanctify and to save mankind.
With regard to that last paragraph, is that what the large majority of the institutional Church has been doing since Vatican II – striving to convert, sanctify, and save the world? Is that what Francis is doing with his attacks – for that is what they are, whether he intends them to be so or not – on belief and practice that certainly impact doctrine?
The Church is alienated from herself. She is at war with herself. The outlook expressed in, say, Evangelii Guadium, and Satis Cognitum, are not just alien to one another, they are mutually exclusive. One might even say irretrievably opposed. How the faithful are supposed to reconcile all this is always left unsaid, except we’re just supposed to go along with whatever Rome says today, even if that contradicts what was said yesterday and will be contradicted twice again tomorrow. It is the way towards doubt, indifference, dissension, and collapse.
Once again, feature/bug, and all that.
But I thought some of those Church Fathers quotes on Church unity might be helpful, so……yay us.
How do we know a Gospel is a Gospel? – the Church February 9, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Bible, catachesis, disaster, Ecumenism, error, General Catholic, reading, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
Some good points from the Haydock Study Bible on how the authority of Scipture was determined, on the central role of a single authoritative Church, the rejection of protestant errors, and also those protestant-inspired errors which have flooded into the Church in the wake of the destructive “opening to the world” we’ve experienced in the past several decades.
Without the Church to say that a Gospel was divinely inspired, there was, and is, nothing to give it credence. Thus, some “gospels” – like the Gnostic writings attributed to “Mary” and “Thomas” – were excluded as being false and not divinely inspired, based on the Tradition of the Church, while the Four Gospels were of course codified as the basis of the New Testament and the core source of revelation for the New Covenant.
Rev. George Leo Haydock concisely and very effectively summarizes this critical truth, that without the Church’s assent, Scripture was nothing:
This and other titles, with the names of those that wrote the Gospels, are not the words of the Evangelists themselves. The Scripture itself nowhere teacheth us, which books or writings are to be received as true and canonical Scriptures. It is only by the channel of unwritten traditions, and by the testimony and authority of the Catholic Church, that we know and believe that this gospel, for example of St. Matthew, with all contained in it, and that the other books and parts of the Old or New Testament, are of divine authority, or written by divine inspiration; which made St. Augustine say, I should not believe the gospel, were I not moved thereunto by the authority of the Catholic Church: Ego Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Ecclesiœ Catholicœ commoveret auctoritas. [This fact informs my personal belief that Tradition trumps Scripture. This was probably the predominant belief of the pre-conciliar Church, and especially as you go back in time 1-200 years before the Council, but under the influence of protestantism in the new church of aggiornamento, most priests and apologists today rank Scripture far ahead of Tradition in terms of its import and authority.]
In a previous section of his Biblical commentary, Fr. Haydock summarizes the proofs for belief in the Church. These might be considered handy for anyone who interacts with those in the separated sects/schismatic bodies:
- There can be but one true religion, and one only Church, the spouse of Jesus Christ. Our Lord would have only one; men are not entitled to make more. Religion is not the work of human reasoning; but it is our duty to receive it, such as it has been given us from above. One man may reason with another man, but with God we have only to pray, to humble ourselves, listen, be silent, and blindly follow……… [P]rayer, as the true end of all controversies……humbles the soul, makes it docile and obedient, and enables it to listen with fruit to the Holy Spirit
- [T]he necessity of a visible authority. Religion….is all humility. The mysteries are given us to subdue the pride of reason, by making us believe what we cannot comprehend. Without this authority, the Scripture can only serve to nourish our curiosity, presumption, jealousy of opinions, and passion for scandalous disputes: there would be but one text, but as may interpretations as religions, and as many religions as heads……And can we suppose that Jesus Christ would leave his spiritual kingdom unprovided, and abandoned to this disorder?
- The infallible promises of God are our surety……..[I]f one wish for any reform, not to seek it, like Dissenters, out of the Church, but by frequently reverting back one’s thoughts upon oneself, and by reforming every thing amiss there; by subduing all that savours of self; by silencing the imagination, listening in silence to God, and imploring his grace for the perfect accomplishment of his will. O happy, O solid reform! the more we practise this reform, the less we shall wish to reform the doctrines of the Church.
- [H]ow to act under her trials. The kingdom of God suffers violence. We cannot die to ourselves without feeling it; but the hand that afflicts us, will be our support. Truth will free you from anxieties. You will then become truly free, and enjoy the consolation of sacrificing to God your former prejudices
- Jesus Christ does not say, if you will not hear the church of this country or that; he does not suppose a plurality of churches, but one universal Church, subsisting through all ages and nations, and which is to speak and to be obeyed from one extremity of the globe to the other. Not an invisible church composed of the elect only, but a Church that can be pointed out with a finger. [A clear condemnation of the belief of many of our Church leaders today] A city elevated on the summit of a mountain, which all can see from a distance. Every one knows where to see, to find, and to consult her. She answers, she decides; we listen, and believe: and woe to those who refuse to believe and obey her: if he will not hear the Church, &c. — A father could not bear to see his son, under the pretext of reform, making parties [factions] in his family; and can our heavenly Father, who loves union, and who gives this distinctive mark to his children, suffer without indignation any unnatural children to split his family, which he has endeavoured to cement with his own blood in the bond of unity. Schism, then, which constitutes many churches, whilst God will acknowledge only one, is the greatest of crimes……..
A rejection of the claim, heard frequently in the Church today (especially among clergy, in my experience), that the Church, for a time, denied them the ability to read the Bible:
With respect to the laity, she never interdicted the Bible to them, as Protestants [and Catholics under protestant influence, as today] suppose; but, at a time when cobblers and tailors were insulting heaven with their blasphemies, and convulsing the earth with their seditions, all grounded on the misinterpretations of the Bible, she enjoined that such as took this mysterious book in hand, should have received a tincture of learning, so as to be able to read it in one or other of the learned languages; unless their respective pastors should judge from their good sense and good dispositions, that they would derive no mischief from reading it in the vulgar tongue. (Reg. 4. Ind. Trid.) At present the Catholic prelates do not think it necessary to enforce even this restriction, and accordingly Catholic versions are to be found in folio, quarto, and octavo, with the entire approbation of those prelates.
I’ll close with a quote Fr. Haydock includes from the great 17th century French Archbishop Francois Fenelon:
“The Christian Church, without such a fixed and visible authority, would be like a republic to which wise laws had been given, but without magistrates to look to their execution. What a source of confusion this! “Each individual, with the book of laws in his hand, would dispute about their meaning. The sacred oracles, in that case, would serve only to feed our vain curiosity, to increase our pride and presumption, and to make us more tenacious of our own opinions. There would indeed be but one original text, but as many different manners of explaining it as there are men. Divisions and subdivisions would multiply without end, and without remedy. Can we think that our Sovereign Lawgiver has not provided better for the peace of his republic, and for the preservation of his law?”
Interesting commentary, with significant insight for how our own Constitution is fought and debated over, to the point that it has been made to say a great many things well beyond any reasonable interpretation. But that’s a subject for another post……
……However, the fact that the US Constitution, a product of man (though frequently exalted as the greatest political document ever), in less than a century degenerated into many factions totally at odds as to what it said, serves as a kind of demonstration for the divine nature of the Church, in that she persevered 2000 years while maintaining the same beliefs, even as some souls in error sadly cut themselves off from here. We are at a terrible point in her illustrious history where that constancy in truth is under attack as perhaps never before, but it still remains, in spite of all the efforts of the modernists and their leftist allies, though we are getting dangerously close to the precipice. May God protect His Church.
Russians show how to respond to islamic harassment of women February 8, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, different religion, Ecumenism, General Catholic, Immigration, manhood, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, Tradition, true leadership.
At least in Murmansk, which is, probably not coincidentally, a major naval base and headquarters of the Russian Northern Fleet.
So a group of islamists were booted out of Norway and tried their hand in Russia. They did their usual Saturday night harassment of women. From there, they got a much different response than they have in the West:
A group of 51 refugees were brutally assaulted outside a night club in Murmansk, Russia, after they groped and molested women at a night club Saturday.
The refugees had previously been ordered to leave Norway for “bad behavior” and tried their luck in Russia. What they didn’t realize when they went out clubbing in Murmansk is that Russians have less tolerance when it comes to sexual assault on local women than other European countries. [Is tolerance the right word? Or is it indifference, cowardice, etc?]
The refugees allegedly groped and harassed women in a similar manner as the assaults in Cologne on New Year’s Eve. A group of male Russian took them aside to “educate” them that “Cologne is 2,500 kilometers south of here.”
The refugees tried to flee but were quickly captured by the Russians. They then took them out to the street and gave them a beating they will remember. Police arrived to break up the fight but locals report that they threw a few punches at the refugees before arresting 33 of them. Eighteen refugees were in such bad condition they had to be take to the hospital. [And they arrested the muslims. Somehow, that’s beautiful.]
So I’m curious, what do you think of this? I totally reject the idea that Christians are supposed to be pacifists, but at the same time, I don’t think mob violence correlates very well with what Our Savior imparted to us. No war has been declared, certainly, but perhaps that is due to the effeminate weakness of our leaders. Perhaps there is a practical state of war between islam and the historic heart of Christendom, Europe (if not the entire Christian world). If that is the case, can responses like this be justified? And who gets to make that call, given the near total abrogation of duty by our properly constituted state authorities?
Of course, many of those being molested are probably not even Christian, as are many of those laying the beat downs. But I think there is a growing sense that our culture is slipping away, if it’s not gone too far already, and some are starting to take extreme measures to stop the further descent into cultural chaos. A couple of weeks ago a group of masked men in Sweden attacked a bunch of muslims in Stockholm. A growing number of Europeans see this kind of militant response as justified, given that most of their political/economic/social elites refuse to recognize the growing sense of unease over the mass muslim invasion. But given Europe’s history, this could get really ugly, really quickly.
But while I expect some interreligious conflict, particularly in Russia and Eastern Europe, I actually tend to think most of Western Europe will continue with virtually no practical, organized response to the muslim invasion. There will be attacks and reprisals here or there, but, for the most part, the muslims will come in growing numbers, and basically no one will do much about it, even as muslims continue to impose more and more of their “culture” on their hosts.
There are some Europe-based readers who think I am too negative in this assessment, however. Whatever happens, I guess I’m probably naively optimistic to hope that our leaders on this continent learn from it.
“Saved by Race Alone:” Great riposte to Vatican’s Judaizing stand February 4, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, different religion, Ecumenism, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, silliness.
This is really funny. Picked it up from Pertinacious Papist. An open letter from a Jewish Catholic convert to Francis, glad to know that, in true progressive biological determinative fashion, he is saved not by Grace, but by race, alone. He is rather non-plussed over the donations he was encouraged to make over the years, though (my emphasis and comments):
His Holiness, Pope FrancisVatican CityJanuary, 2016Dear Holy FatherI am a Jew. I have the assurance, as did Menachem Mendel Schneerson of Crown Heights, Brooklyn, of direct descent from King David on my father’s side (my mother, I was assured was descended of Hillel).I am 74-years-old. I converted to the Roman Catholic Church at the age of 17 in the last year of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. I did so because I was under the conviction that I had to accept and have faith that Jesus Christ was my savior, and I believed it. And I believed that I had to be a baptized member of his Church to have a chance of salvation. So I converted and was baptized in the Catholic Church, and then I was confirmed. [I know baptism by desire and blood, but I also know, a heckuva lot of older Catholics, raised in the pre-conciliar Church, were taught to the point of total conviction that one had to be a visible member of the Church to be saved. My pious mother-in-law, God rest her soul, prayed constantly for my conversion based on that belief.]Over the years I have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to both Peters’ Pence (the pope’s own treasury about which you of course must be very familiar), and my local parish and diocese.During that time I attended thousands of Masses, hundreds of holy hours and novenas, said thousands of rosaries, and made hundreds of trips to the Confessional.Now in 2015 and 2016 I have read your words and those of your “Pontifical Commission.” You now teach that because I am a racial Jew, God’s covenant with me was never broken, and cannot be broken. You don’t qualify that teaching by specifying anything I might do that would threaten the Covenant, which you say God has with me because I am a Jew. You teach that it’s an unbreakable Covenant. You don’t even say that it depends on me being a good person. Logically speaking, if God’s Covenant with me is unbreakable, then a racial Jew such as I am can do anything he wants and God will still maintain a Covenant with me and I will go to heaven. [The public declarations are so general this “automatic salvation” can be inferred. Is it really extreme Zionist propaganda masquerading as new wisdom in the Church?]Your Pontifical Commission wrote last December, “The Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews…it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God.” [This statement still hurts. Goodness what a repudiation of Jesus Christ. Lord, I pray they know not what they do.]You are the Pontiff. I believe what your Commission teaches under your banner and in your name, and what you declared during your visit to the synagogue in January. As a result, I no longer see any point in getting up every Sunday morning to go to Mass, say rosaries, or attend the Rite of Reconciliation on Saturday afternoon. All of those acts are superfluous for me. Predicated on your teaching, I now know that due to my special racial superiority in God’s eyes, I don’t need any of it. [It’s not just Jews, is it? Many people are concluding they no longer need Mass, or don’t need to take Church Doctrine seriously, because “who am I to judge” and all the rest. I personally two folks who have fallen away entirely in the last year, quoting Francis as they exited]I don’t see any reason now as to why I was baptized in 1958. There was no need for me to be baptized. I no longer see why there was a need for Jesus to come to earth either, or preach to the Jewish children of Abraham of his day. As you state, they were already saved as a result of their racial descent from the Biblical patriarchs. What would they need him for? [Let’s just chuck the entire Gospel of John while we’re at it, right?]In light of what you and your Pontifical Commission have taught me, it appears that the New Testament is a fraud, at least as it applies to Jews. All of those preachings and disputations to the Jews were for no purpose. Jesus had to know this, yet he persisted in causing a lot of trouble for the Jews by insisting they had to be born again, they had to believe he was their Messiah, they had to stop following their traditions of men, and that they couldn’t get to heaven unless they believed that he was the Son of God. [Can any of this be disputed? Can you imagine how this new line makes Jewish converts feel, how much torment and scandal it must cause?]Your holiness, you and your Commission have instructed me in the true path to my salvation: my race. It’s all I need and all I have ever needed.God has a covenant with my genes. It’s my genes that save me. My eyes are open now. [Isn’t that more or less what the Jewish “dialoguers” with the Church have demanded, though? A pretension that some are saved by race alone? And how much is liberal katholyc acceptance of this driven by latent guilt for the Holocaust and whatever else? Really, the pro-Jewish stance demanded of the Church devolves, like so many other progressive shibboleths, to “shut up,” Catholics]Consequently, you will be hearing from my lawyer. I am filing suit against the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church. I want my money back, with interest, and I am seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the psychological harm your Church caused me, by making me think I needed something besides my own exalted racial identity, in order to go to heaven after I die.I am litigating as well over the time that I wasted that I could have spent working in my business, instead of squandering it worshipping a Jesus that your Church now says I don’t need to believe in for my salvation. Your prelates and clerics told me something very different in 1958. I’ve been robbed!
How can ecumenism be reconciled with St. Paul and the entire pre-conciliar Magisterium? February 3, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, different religion, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, Papa, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, suicide, the struggle for the Church.
Older Catholics will tell you, they remember a day when it was clearly taught that to even step foot in a protestant church was a mortal sin. Participating in the kind of “joint ecumenical service” that Francis – and he is not the first post-conciliar pope to do so – would have been utterly unthinkable. The mind of the Church was guided by St. Paul’s 2nd Letter to the Corinthians:
Bear not the yoke together with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? *For you are the temple of the living God: as God saith: **I will dwell in them, and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Wherefore, go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing:
Pope Pius XI taught that Catholics were forbidden to engage in liturgical celebrations with protestants, and in doing so he was only reiterating what the Church had clearly taught for some 350 years. The post-conciliar Church has most frequently tried to pretend that protestants and Catholics both belong to some “invisible church” consisting of “believers” (usually reduced to a shared baptism), but this kind of thinking was rejected by numerous pre-conciliar popes. Thus very clear statements such as those by St. Paul, which served as justification for “fundamentalists” like Saint Athanasius to have no contact with, and to give no recognition to, even the heretical Arian “Catholics” of his day. St. Basil stated that the faithful should even go into the desert to offer Mass, rather than participate in the liturgies of the heretics of those days.
And yet here we are, 2000 years later, after a completely novel council, the first ever in the history of the Church to proclaim no dogma and declare no anathemas, with a radically changed mindset, a mindset that much more plays to worldly thinking and approval than to the constant belief and practice of the faith.
50 years ago, in the immediate wake of Vatican II, there was a great outburst of ecumenical efforts. Thank God, those efforts largely subsided under the previous two pontificates (obviously, there were some scandalous exceptions, like Assisi), but they have come roaring back under Francis and especially in this run up to the 500th anniversary of the outbreak of the protestant heresy cum revolution. It must be remembered that many leading lights at Vatican II were scandalous in their acceptance of protestant belief, from Congar to Bugnini, who felt that in many cases the protestants had got in more right than the early Church Fathers directly informed by the Apostles. Congar reverenced Luther greatly, and Bugnini desired to create a Mass so bowdlerized of Catholic content that it would never be offensive to protestants.
Michael Matt and Christopher Ferrara have a valuable video on this subject below. I found it providential that I read a biblical verse with a note that pointed me to II Cor vi:14-17 just hours before I saw this video show up in my Youtube feed. I especially like the early reference Matt makes to St. Thomas More and his excoriation of protestants for loathing order and seeking to create a society based on disorder and the triumph of the will (which, perhaps, makes subsequent German history rather less than surprising).
Some more important points regarding the below. I have already reported on the disturbingly pro-protestant nature of elements of this joint “liturgy” composed by uber-liberal Catholics in the Congregation for Christian Unity and the Lutheran World Federation. As Matt notes below, this Federation is exceedingly modernist/liberal in and of itself, and is rejected by more conservative Lutheran bodies like the Missouri Synod. So what this amounts to is a self-congratulatory confab of progressives in the two bodies patting themselves on the back for their progressive beliefs. But such has been the practical nature of the ecumenical movement since its inception, it’s far more about confirming progressives in their beliefs than it is concern for souls, arriving at the truth, or, most especially, conversion:
Is it too much saying that Francis is trying to destroy the Church, or complete its destruction? As I said, these kinds of things have gone on for years, though not always with such fanfare, with such high-level participants, or with as much significance as the quincentenary portends.
Having said all that, I plan, for a time, to start ignoring the many problematic statements emanating from the Vatican, and limit myself to discussion/analysis of actions. At this point, I think we, who pray we adhere to what the Church has always believed, know who and what this man is. We know his penchant for highly destructive rhetoric. To some degree, reporting on that is feeling like repetitive non-news (water is wet), and I also need to do so to preserve my own faith and sanity. This planned confab with Lutheran heretics, and modernist ones at that, is a concrete act of such monumental significance that it does merit a good deal of coverage. I pray somehow, by some miracle, there may be an end to all this, but I won’t hold my breath.
I think it important to stress that the ecumenical/interreligious dialogue movements are radically counter to the Church’s pre-conciliar approach, and serve as one of the prime indicators that the Council, no matter what was intended (those arguments are endless, and quite possibly were intended to be), ushered in an era where practice, and belief, was irreconcilable with the Catholic ethos before 1962. That’s the take-home point.
Migrant harassment of women as sign of Western emasculation January 29, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Immigration, paganism, rank stupidity, secularism, self-serving, Society, suicide.
A couple of interesting tidbits from Mark Steyn. The Anglican (ahem) Bishop of London has recommended his ministers grow muslim beards and wear muslim garb, the better to conduct “outreach” and fruitful “dialogue.” Another way of looking at this is the islamification of the Church of England:
One of the priests praised by the Bishop of London, the Rev. Atkinson told The Telegraph he found having a beard had helped provide a connection with many people in his parish, around 85 per cent of whom are Muslim…
He said he had forged new links with people after growing his facial hair.
He explained: ‘It is an icebreaker – St Paul said “I become all things to all men that by all possible means I might save some”…[Well St. Paul did not partake in pagan orgies in order to build bridges and maybe one day, 80 years hence, win a single convert]
So Western men now feel they need to ape muslim behaviors in order to demonstrate leadership and masculinity. Gotcha.
Not unrelated, a German woman has taken to Youtube imploring the men of her country to stand up for libertine ideals and protect their women. The men yawned, turned up the TV, and took another chug of beer:
One time in summer, the Muslims said we were sluts for walking outside in a t-shirt. Yes, we were wearing t-shirts. It’s summer!
Another day, I was wearing this. My friend and I purchased it while shopping hehe. If we feel like wearing it, we will wear it! And you Muslims have no right to physically assault or rape us for it! God willing, never in my life. You have no right to attack us because we are wearing t-shirts. You also have no right to rape.
The life of Germany has changed because these people cannot integrate. We give them so much help. We support them financially and they do not have to work. But they only want more babies and more welfare and more money. Men of Germany, please, patrol the streets and protect us. Do this for your women and your children.
This begging of men to defend native women from muslim rapine does raise an interesting question: why haven’t many, or any, done so? There actually was a protest against the islamification of Europe a few weeks ago, one that featured 3000 marchers and 1500 police and which descended into violence under what some participants believed was the influence of agents provacatuer planted by the police, who seem far more concerned about protecting the left-wing political “consensus” than protecting women from being raped and harassed.
But a protest is different from taking to the streets to prevent attacks on women, and it is not the same thing as responding to muslim depredations when they are seen occurring. Now it’s possible such responses have been buried by the media – though I have no idea why, they would love to trumpet some ugly “reactionary,” “anti-muslim” behavior – but I tend to imagine it’s more because they simply are not happening. Why? Do many Western men secretly long to see women subjugated, islam-style? I doubt it. Is it because they simply weren’t present? Perhaps, but that raises another question……why are women going out in areas with few native but bunches of muslim men?
I imagine the real answer, however, has something to do with the decades long feminist-leftist campaign to emasculate men and render them essentially neuter. Feminism has degenerated from a campaign to ostensibly elevate women into one that now nakedly seeks to lower men, especially outwardly masculine men. That campaign has taken a huge toll. Not that many men have fought it. Far too many have simply rolled over and submitted.
That’s not to say there is no positive defense being mounted by European men. See the rallies in Poland. It’s just that there hasn’t been nearly enough of this (we must keep in mind, however, that immigrants are protected by numerous laws, and can even deliberately provoke police and expect almost no reaction, so many “rights” have been accorded them by the governing elites who seem hell bent on destroying the nations they govern).
Ultimately, that’s what islam demands of all…..submission. Indeed, that is what the term “islam” means – submission. It seems the immigrants flooding Europe are making quite a bit of headway getting Europe to submit. Church of England ministers are visibly submitting to islamic dictates (and if they make even a single convert, I will be totally shocked). While left-liberalism is a pseudo-religion, when confronted with a very strong true religion, it will always fold. The reaction of European liberals to the ongoing muslim invasion have only confirmed my belief that there will be no great “war” between the libertine left and the muslim invaders……..the left will happily submit (it will take some time, but it’s already happening).
That’s because leftism is a specifically anti-Christian religion/ethos. So long as the “strong horse” religion they submit to, or even convert to, is not Christianity, the vast majority will be content to do so. Thus the diabolical origin of leftism is confirmed. Certainly, there are other factors at play and other explanations can be offered, but man is inseparable from the religious nature God gave him, and religious behavior – even when such is specifically denied – tends to predominate in the lives of many. Europe lost its soul when it rejected Christianity, en masse, and opened itself up to a diabolical replacement.
God allows our sins to be our undoing. Europe’s rejection of Christianity is proving the maxim.