jump to navigation

Pope Francis: It may be a heresy, but I agree with the devil that all Christians are one? – UPDATED May 27, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, pr stunts, scandals, secularism, shocking, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.

Pat Archbold has an explosive post related to Pope Francis that is quite possibly the most troubling statement made by this Pontiff yet.  After acknowledging that what he says may not only be controversial, but heretical, he then pronounces that he agrees  with the devil that all Christians, be they evangelical, Orthodox, Lutheran, Catholics, or “Apostolic,” are “one.”  He even pauses, announces out loud his doubts about what he is tempted to say, but then goes ahead and says it anyway.  This starts at 4:10 in the video below:

Now, there are some people at CMR that are attacking Mr. Archbold severely, pretending that Pope Francis did not say what he plainly said.  He is speaking in Spanish, which I read much better than I speak, but I’ve listened to the Pope and read the translation about 10 times now and it’s very close to how I would translate it.  They leave out a bit that I think is important which I’ll include in the transcript below, which is mostly from the subtitles of the video but I make a few changes:

“I feel like saying something that may sound controversial……….or even heretical, I don’t know.  But there is someone who “knows” (sabe – the verb used conveys knowing an intellectual fact) that, despite our differences, we are one.  It is he who is persecuting us*.  It is he who is persecuting Christians today, he who is anointing us with the blood of martyrdom**  He knows that Christians are disciples of Christ: that they are one, that they are brothers! He doesn’t care (or he is not interested) that they are Evangelicals , Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics, or Apostolic……he does not care!  They are Christians!  And that blood unites. Today, dear brothers and sisters, we are living an “ecumenism of blood.”

* – So the devil is using muslims as the vehicle of his persecution?  Is this statement intended to absolve muslims for their guilt in murdering Christians around the world in their thousands every month?  “The devil made them do it?”

**- So the devil now anoints us?  What is he anointing us with? The blood – grace – of martyrdom.  So the devil is playing a key role in the dispensing of grace?

Now, there has been tremendous confusion in the Church on just this subject of the ostensible unity of Christians in the post-conciliar period.  This confusion is a prime reason why so many Catholics of conscience have serious concerns over Dignitatis Humanae and other VII products, documents that played key roles in introducing novel concepts regarding just who constitutes the Church and what means unity. The souls arguing against Archbold on this narrow point (he also brings up the scandal of appointing Fr. Timothy Radcliffe to a position of influence at the Vatican, and the Pope’s silence on the Irish sodo-“marriage” vote – those concerns get crickets, everyone is focused on this devil-unity statement) seem very confused on this matter – some persistently argue that because protestant baptisms can be valid, that means unity with the Church. But “unity” properly understood extends far beyond that, and once a protestant, possessing the proper mental faculties, accepts protestant errors condemned by the Church, the Grace of baptism is lost as he has now chosen to place himself outside the Church.  This used to be clear.  Virtually all Catholics used to firmly believe that those outside the Church had only the dimmest chances of salvation – if they believed they had any at all.  But not anymore – which is why a lot of very bright souls wonder how it is possible to reconcile major aspects of the pre-and post-conciliar Magisterium.

Back to the Pope’s statement – my good Lord, have mercy on us. Has there ever been a Pope who would preface a highly controversial (and dubious) theological proposition with, essentially, “This may make me a heretic, but…….?”  Simply on the prudential level, for any Catholic to make a public pronouncement like that is simply incredible, but for a prelate, let alone THE POPE?!?!?!  There simply are no words.

Even if what he were saying were 100% orthodox, to be so imprudent as to promote uncertainty in the Pope’s theological standing, to assail the dignity of the office with a statement that, according to the Pope, might be heretical, to scandalize millions by declaring “I’m just not certain if this is heresy or not, which could land you and me in hell for all eternity, but here goes!”……just wow.

We are in totally uncharted waters.  Yes, yes, John XXII, but that was one narrow matter on which he was clear he spoke as a private theologian. We get no such reassurances here.  And it is almost certainly much more than one narrow topic.

We are deep into the Passion of the Church, indeed.  Our Lady warned us and warned us……

UPDATE: More analysis from Eliot Bougis.  Much of his commentary is directed at Jimmy Akin’s endless, credibility-snapping apologias for papal statements over the past 2 years, including this one.  A quote from that commentary, including a statement by Pope Francis I did not address above:

Third, the biggest problem arises from his claim that the wound of division exists “in the body of the Church”. This is utterly false, and in the “heretical” kind of way, to be sure. The Church is ONE and SPOTLESS; all such “division” is extrinsic to Her. Ironically enough, the divisions Pope Francis is addressing are themselves the result of schismatic Protestant history and an ongoing refusal to seek communion with Rome. So, by calling such divisions the work of the Devil, he’s right–all schism is diabolical, including that fostered by the organizers of the John 17 Movement! [Which meeting in Arizona the Pope’s video was addressing]

Fourth, by saying that “from 9 in the morning to 5 in the afternoon, [he] will be with [the John 17 participants] spiritually,” and that he desires to “join [them] as just another participant” in the event, he vaults over the otherwise safe area of merely praying with non-Catholics and dives into formal co-celebration with them. The event in Arizona included Bible teaching and worship, not mere prayers, so, by uniting his person and intentions with the participants, Pope Francis has formally and publicly united himself as a member of Protestant worship,* which is a no-no, even in the post-Conciliar age (cf.Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 8). But, hey, who am I to judge?

Not that any of the above matters, of course. It doesn’t matter what this pope says, whose pious ears he offends, what traditional doctrine and laws he undermines and obscures. He’s the pope, after all. It’s all his show. As “faithful Catholics” we’re just expected to smile and nod.

More shortly, God willing.

If present trends hold, Catholics slated to make up 6% of US population May 20, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Christendom, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, priests, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.

A commenter in my previous post already noted this, but I thought this a sufficiently huge topic to break it out into another post.  That article I linked to that examined more details of the Pew religious attitudes survey goes on to paint a really bleak picture of the future of the Church.  Based on present trends, and assuming they arrive at some equilibrium point in the future (and discounting certain factors like immigration), the author estimates the Catholic Church will wind up with only 6% of the total population of the US at some indeterminate future point (I did not see the article declare when this would happen, but I would guess, based on present trends, within 50-80 years – i.e., within the lifetime of my children).  This data shows the Church has already essentially reached a point of near-total collapse, and is only coasting on the 59% of her prior membership who hasn’t left the Church for a sect or complete religious apathy.  Once this generation dies out, the Church will be smaller, percentage-wise, than it has been since the early 1800s in this country (you have to go to the link for the tabular data, since its embedded in their html code for the article):

If conversions went on as they do today and all other factors were held steady, America would wind up with the religious demographics of the stable distribution.

Unaffiliateds would wind up modestly gaining ground (from 23 percent at present to 29 percent).1 And Christian denominations would drop a little (from 69 percent at present to 62 percent at equilibrium).2

But there would be substantial redistribution among Christian groups, with evangelical Protestants gaining (26 percent at present to 32 percent) and Catholics losing more than half their current share of the population (21 percent to 8 percent).

Why do evangelicals wind up ahead of other Christian sects in this model? They’re better at holding on to the people born into their tradition (65 percent retention compared to 59 percent for Catholics and 45 percent for Mainline Protestants), and they’re a stronger attractor for people leaving other faiths. According to Pew’s data on conversion rates, 10 percent of people raised Catholic wind up as evangelicals. Just 2 percent of people born as evangelicals wind up Catholic. The flow between mainline and evangelical Protestants is also tilted in evangelicals’ favor. Twelve percent of those raised evangelical wind up in mainline congregations, but 19 percent of mainline Protestants wind up becoming evangelical.

This data only confirms what most of us already know: a very large number of people leaving the Catholic Church in this country (as well as many others) do so because they are spiritually starved, tired of being fed baby food and pablum in the form of happy-clappy liturgies and never-offending, never-challenging “catechesis.”  And in my personal experience, it is these people who have already made up their minds that the Church has nothing to offer them that are the most resistant to any propagandizing in the name of the Faith.  They have tried Catholicism, found it grossly wanting, and will not be back.  Former Catholics, in point of fact, make up over HALF the growth seen in the evangelical sects  – and, again, data from other countries shows that the situation is even worse there.

This data also shows it not just cultural changes that have been responsible for the destruction of the Faith in the lives of millions of souls.  Some groups are growing quite rapidly, as are traditional Catholic communities.  It is the banal, heck, spiritually dead product of Novus Ordo land – with its worldly focus, left-wing political bent, and its grave fear that it never, ever, offend anyone (except true believers) – that is driving souls from the Church en masse.

Just a few caveats: like all projections, this one is based on a limited data set, ignores important factors like immigration (little wonder bishops stress it so much, they probably have access to a lot better data than this), and is predicated on things staying just as they have.  In fact, with regard to whatever positive growth areas it sees, I tend to imagine those are going to be under heavy stress as the prevailing culture becomes increasingly pagan and anti-Christian. Once being visibly, publicly Christian (of any type) starts to carry a heavy cultural cost, the numbers could become much worse than they show above.

Nevertheless, the data above shows the Church in a uniquely bad position.  The Church is being accursed by low rates of retention of those born into her, the highest rates of flight out, very low rate of conversion, and, finally and most momentously, a very low birth rate for those within.  That is why, cumulatively, the Catholic Church, based on the data above, may suffer an even greater collapse than the mainline protestant sects.  Given how much those have imploded, that is beyond depressing, but, then again, when you model your corporate institution on a bad copy of an already failing one (mainline protestantism), should one be surprised that it fares even worse than the original?  Especially when moderately well-formed Catholics can simply look to the recent past and say: “These things are not the same?”

So, the new evangelization has either massively failed, or succeeded beyond a modernist’s greatest hopes and dreams, depending on how you look at it.

I’ll be blunt – the Church is being bled white by doctrinal indifference (and chaos), left-leaning politics, and managerial incompetence. The Church in this country as it exists today is likely to be a shadow of its former self in a few decades.  Heck, it already is, but the process is only going to accelerate.  And the thing is, many leaders in the Church, up to and including the past several Popes, are apparently fine with this. They are so taken in by the (I’ll say it) demonic lie of ecumenism that they probably see the collapse of the Catholic Faith as an OK thing, so long as it doesn’t happen too much in their diocese, and their finances remain OK.  Which of the last several pontiffs has repeatedly presented a cogent explanation to the souls in their charge (that is, the entire world) why they must either remain, or become, Catholic?  I seriously question whether our present Pope Francis would agree with the statement: “I undeniably did the right thing, and immeasurably increased my chances for salvation, in becoming Catholic).”

These men have been so taken in by their blind adherence to the ecumenical indifferentist modernist socialist materialist philosophy that they are allowing – no, encouraging, forcing – the Church to rapidly die on their watch.  This is a tragedy of biblical proportions and almost forces me to conclude that we have to be well into the end times in order to comprehend their behavior and the death of faith in the hierarchy.  As a local priest says, we are now deep into the passion of the Church, a passion prophesied by St. Paul, St. John, and others.  Pope Saint Pius X, the last great Pontiff the Church has had (over 100 years ago), concerned over the perversion of so many priests and bishops he saw in HIS time (God was merciful to let him live and die when he did), wondered:

“whether such a perversion of minds is not the sign announcing, and the beginning of, the last times, and that the Son of Perdition spoken of by the Apostle (II Thess II:3) might already be living on this earth.”

And of course we know that Pope Leo XIII – who some consider to have been quite liberal compared to his predecessors – had a vision of satan being unleashed on the Church for 100 years in 1884.  That doesn’t mean satan was unleashed then, it just means the vision happened then.

So sad……if this is not the end times, future historians will have to look on the Church from 1958 – ??? as the greatest mass suicide of an incredibly large, influential, and resilient cultural institution ever.

Yeah, I knew this post would get long with my ranting – there is so darned much to rant about – that’s why I did two posts on this subject.  Do go to the link, there is more analysis and data there.

New Evangelization workin’ like a charm – number of Catholics plummets, America increasingly non-Christian May 12, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, demographics, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

A whole bevy of bad news from the latest Pew poll of religion in the United States which, if accurate, shows Christianity in general is plummeting in this country, but the decrease is centered almost entirely in the Church and the mainline sects – that is, those bodies which have most embraced the left-liberal religious paradigm and most secularized their practice of the Faith.

Data below.  As always, take the specific numbers with a grain of salt, but at this point I think the major trends are irrefutable:

The Christian share of the U.S. population is declining, while the number of U.S. adults who do not identify with any organized religion is growing, according to an extensive new survey by the Pew Research Center…….

…….To be sure, the United States remains home to more Christians than any other country in the world, and a large majority of Americans – roughly seven-in-ten – continue to identify with some branch of the Christian faith.1 But the major new survey of more than 35,000 Americans by the Pew Research Center finds that the percentage of adults (ages 18 and older) who describe themselves as Christians has dropped by nearly eight percentage points in just seven years, from 78.4% in an equally massive Pew Research survey in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014. Over the same period, the percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated – describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” – has jumped more than six points, from 16.1% to 22.8%

And if you read the data, you will find that the vast majority of the decline is occurring among the millenials – they are simply not taking up the faith of their parents.  Nearly 40% of millenials claim no religious affiliation.  That may change as they age, but since they count this cohort down to 1980 – meaning 35  year olds – maybe not.  Each succeeding generation tends to have a lower and lower religious affiliation.

The depressing data:



So the religiously unaffiliated – mostly people who just answer “spiritual but not religious,” but also atheists and agnostics – is the most rapidly growing segment of the American population.  Mainline protestantism is collapsing only slightly faster than Catholicism, which makes sense, as so many changes introduced into the Church since Vatican II were deliberately oriented towards making the One, True Faith as indistinguishable from the mainline, left-oriented, secularized sects as possible.



The number of evangelicals actually increased, but did not increase at the same rate as the overall population.  If the numbers below are correct, there are now likely fewer Catholics in the US than there were in 1970:



The data, if accurate, makes apparent that the vast majority if Catholics who fall away from the Faith are not being lured to other sects, but are joining the ranks of the atheistic and religiously indifferent. Gee, I wonder where they could have absorbed all that religious indifference, all that belief that it makes no difference which church one belongs to, if any, since we’re all saved by our super-lovey, never judgy God anyways?

So here’s a question – how on earth does the Pew survey estimate 51 million Catholics, while the Georgetown University CARA studies – tightly associated with the USCCB – somehow show 80 million Catholics in this country?  Is the CARA study including people who state they were once Catholic and are now outside the Church?  Is this the same kind of accounting that leads the Diocese of Dallas to claim that there are over 1.2 million Catholics in this Diocese, whereas the actual number of practicing Catholics is a much smaller fraction of that number?  I will note that even the CARA data has two numbers for the Catholic population – 66 million ostensible “parish-connected” Catholics – meaning their name is on a parish roll somewhere (and how many duplicates, triplicates, and more does that represent?  It took my getting very tough with a couple of parishes to get our names de-listed from their roll, they really don’t like to do that, apparently) – and 80 million “self-identified, survey based estimate” Catholics.  And yet Pew says 51 million, possibly less than 50.

One might assume both the secular-leaning Pew and the USCCB-affiliated CARA studies have reasons to exaggerate numbers one way or another.  So perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between.  But from your personal experience, how many of you really believe there are 25 million more Catholics in this country than there were in 1980?  I find that to be highly doubtful.  According to CARA, the CAtholic population hasn’t dropped at all, but continued growing!  Who has a greater impetus to exaggerate – Pew, most likely biased towards a more secular America, but probably only somewhat so, or CARA, providing the numbers the bishops will use to tout at their ad limina visits in Rome?  How would it look if they had to explain why the number of Catholics is less than what it was in 1970, when the US population has increased by 60% since that time?

Not that such would be unprecedented – all Catholic countries outside east Asia and sub-saharan Africa have seen plummeting numbers over the past several decades.  And even in Africa and Asia, growth is increasingly soft and millions are converting away from the Church founded by Jesus Christ for the sects, especially American-type (and often American-funded) evangelical sects.

Many Catholics are convinced the Church is experiencing unprecedented declines across the board from Mass attendance, involvement in parish life, donations, school enrollment, religious vocations, priestly vocations, etc., specifically due to the massive changes made in practice and, in reality, belief, since Vatican II.  The post-conciliar practice of the Faith is not drawing souls into the Church as promised, and in fact seems to be a prime factor in many falling away.  And since that post-conciliar construct was heavily influenced by desires to appeal to mainline protestants, it is hardly surprising that the same secularizing, de-legitimizing trends afflicting those sects and causing an even worse decline there (but only marginally so) are working the same effect on the Church.  The only real question in the minds of many of the most faithful Catholics is when will there be a return to sanity, when will the Church be herself again, when will the strong, vibrant Faith that was growing, enjoying a huge number of vocations, and converting hundreds of thousands every year, return?

Enjoy your new springtime.  How hostile a place for Christians will this nation be in another 28 years, if present rates hold, and nearly half the population is outright atheist, agnostic, or completely indifferent?  That is really the reality now, and the number is more than half, since so many Americans, even “practicing Christians,” are in reality incredibly soft in their practice of the Faith, and so easily swayed to accept whatever amoral atrocity the sexular pagan overculture demands of them from one moment to the next.  The stage is ripe for a most bitter and prolonged persecution.

Thanks to MFG for the link.

A good, high level overview on Luther and the start of the protestant revolt May 8, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, history, paganism, reading, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
comments closed

So I’m reading a new book on Church history called The Church Under Attack by Diane Moczar.  Having read all of Dr. Warren Carroll’s very good Christendom series, and many other more scholarly books aside, this one looks on the lighter side. It tries to cover 400+ years of history in about 220 pages, which means you’re getting only the broadest strokes.  But Moczar pulls few punches, writes from an orthodox Catholic perspective, and writes in a humorous, jabbing, style, so even though the book is lighter on content than I usually prefer I’m enjoying it quite a bit.  It would probably make a very good book to introduce Catholics just coming to Tradition or just beginning to study Church history to the concept of the Church experiencing revolt, persecution, and abandonment at the hands of the protestant revolutionaries, rather than the usual presentation of the so-called reformation in secular/protestant dominated sources as being this great work of liberty and modernity.

From the first chapter, Moczar starts in on Luther and the sect he founded and doesn’t let up:

For the years before 1517 [Luther] had been a tormented monk and an unhappy priest, obsessed with guilt and developing startling new ideas on human nature and salvation. [Ideas founded to explain away his own inability to remain chaste and temperate]  He was not simply indignant at the sinful lives of some clergy, nor was it even the spectacle of papal Rome during the Renaissance that scandalize him.   He made use of these points later, but when he visited Rome as a younger man he seems to have said nothing about its [ostensible]  moral failings.  it was his new theology that absorbed him, and the indulgence issue gave him his opportunity to proclaim it.

…..Among the doctrines invented by Luther that were really new in Christian thought, five stand out as truly revolutionary. [and heretical]   First, Luther saw human nature as totally depraved, although the Church had never taught this.  Human nature is good because it is created by God, although because of Original Sin it has been weakened and beset by sinful tendencies.  Secondly, because we are so depraved, thought Luther, we cannot help sinning. Indeed, everything we do – even “good” works – are sins: “Sin boldly, but believe more boldly still!”  This amounts to a denial of free will. Thirdly, Luther distrusted reason: “Reason is the devil’s whore; it must be drowned at Baptism.” [Do righteous, saintly men speak like this?  And Luther very often said far coarser things than this]  This may echo the pessimism of William of Ockham, whose ideas were popular in sixteenth century German universities.  Again, it is opposed to the Catholic view of reason as the means by which we come to know truth, and therefore both good and necessary to faith. [Which Aquinas, building on Augustine, proved to a point of utmost philosophical certainty to be true]  Fourthly, we come to the famous sola fides principle enunciated by Luther. only faith, he declared, leads to salvation, and he defined faith subjectively, as a sort of “fiduciary trust” that Christ will save us.  For the Catholic, faith is the assent of the intellect moved by the will and prompted by Grace, to all the truths God has revealed. It is not of itself sufficient for salvation because we need hope, charity, and other virtues and “works” also. Lastly, sola scriptura was Luther’s radical answer to the question of where the authentic teaching of Christ was to be found: in Scripture alone.  Here he was rejecting the oral teaching of the Apostles transmitted by the Church (Tradition), as well as the dogmatic teachings of the popes and councils. [As I have argued in the past, Sacred Tradition can be seen to be greater than Sacred Scripture, since the Tradition predates Scripture, and especially the dogmatically-defined Canon of Scripture (the books dogmatically viewed as divinely-inspired)] Any Christian who prayerfully reads Scripture, Luther thought, would be guided by the Holy Ghost to its meaning.  No need for priests to explain what it meant.

As his new sect became organized, Luther decided it could do without priests, religious, most of the Sacraments, and a hierarchy.  When he realized there had to be some authority to settle disputes that might arise within the Lutheran community, he appealed to the local duke, saying that none of the community had received a calling to do the job, so would his highness do it? His highness was only too glad to do so; this was just what secular authorities in Germany had wanted all through the Middle Ages – the chance to control religion.  Everywhere, in fact, the new protestant religions would be imposed by lords and kings, and religion would become entangled with politics and an emerging nationalism…….

…..Peasants took some of Luther’s ideas so literally that they mounted a widespread revolt against their landlords, whereupon Luther urged merciless suppression of the “lying, thieving peasants,” and tens of thousands were slaughtered………..

……..Of course, none of the innovators of the new religions proved their novel propositions or backed them up with miracles, but somehow they gained a following. [Often, by having convinced both the secular authority and illiterate, half-formed peasants to their side.]

———–End Quote———–

I’m running out of time as always on Friday, but I’d just add that prior to devolving final doctrinal authority to the secular princes, Luther made himself the sole judge of Scripture, whose judgments all had to accept unquestioningly.  Luther had at least as much bile for those protestants who took his advice to read Scripture and come to their own conclusions, but different from his, as he did for the Church.  Basically Luther promoted himself Pope and even Jesus Christ over his new sect.

That this is true, is evidenced by the degree to which Melancthon and other more “moderate” Lutherans had to conduct a “reformation of the reformation” in order to curb the unsustainable excesses of Luther’s thought, and bring back to a more defensible position his more extreme claims.  Thus, Lutheranism after Luther moved much closer to a Catholic position, while always retaining at least lip service to many of his more extreme errors.  But Lutheranism maintains to this day many formal heresies regarding justification, salvation, the source of Divine Revelation, etc.

The other point is that Luther’s prime doctrinal point of the Bible being the sole rule of Faith, and individual interpretation of Scripture, remains the driving force behind the continuing fracturing of the protestant sects, who have multiplied so much in the past 50 years it is really impossible to keep count, though generally there are believed to be tens of thousands of different sects right now.  If there be no final authority to settle matters of belief (reliance on princes having broken down centuries ago), then it is inevitable that squabbling, fallen men will continue to revolt and divide, revolt and divide, until we literally have the “house church” phenomenon of today, where a family or small group of families form their own tiny “church” according to their own beliefs.  A quintessentially American approach to the Christian faith, no?

Progressives love anti-religious art – provided it’s anti-Christian May 8, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
comments closed

Some readers might say: “well, duh,” but I think the deeply ingrained………is hatred too strong a word?………for Christianity among the more militant on the left is starting to be understood by even more secular, or weakly Christian conservatives.

Of course, any student of the left knows that it is nothing if not hypocritical.  Blasphemous and sacrilegious depictions of the sacred are fine, so long as the religion being mocked and ridiculed is Christianity.  Other religions not only get a pass, but deserve special, even fawning, treatment.  I’ve argued here for some time that the core belief of the political-cultural left, and the entire reason for its coming into being, has always been their desire to see Christianity, and especially the Church, crushed.  They vary from agnostic to enthusiastic when it comes to other faiths – the more obscure, false, and permissive of sexual license (pagan, wicca, certain eastern religions, etc), the better.

Some interesting points to pick apart below:

Why aren’t liberals offering Pamela Geller a federal subsidy? Geller is the blogger-activist who organized the “Draw Muhammad” exhibition in Garland, Texas, which inspired some DIY jihadists to attack the event. The would-be terrorists chose poorly: They were cut down by Texas lawmen shortly after wounding a security guard.

Let’s hop in the WayBack Machine for a moment.

In 1986, the National Endowment of Arts paid about $20,000 for Andreas Serrano’s “Piss Christ.” Serrano peed in a glass, plunked a plastic icon of Jesus on the cross into it, and then snapped a picture………[follows a list of similar blasphemies displaying zero talent and endless bile. Also notes that many Christians and others objected not so much to the creation of such art, but through their having to pay for it through the National Endowment for the (leftist) Arts.]

………Federal subsidies for “art” — or even art without scare quotes — are legitimately controversial for all sorts of reasons: Surely the government has higher priorities; bureaucrats shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers, in the marketplace or the art gallery; it’s particularly annoying to be asked to fund expression you find inartistic and obscene.

Thomas Jefferson said it well: “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” [Probably said as a complaint against British taxation, but I imagine Jefferson would be aghast at the present system of compelling Church entities to fund activities directly counter to our beliefs, like abortion and contraception.  Funny how the federal government doesn’t seem all that interested in forcing muslim schools to do the same.]

……….But I am utterly baffled how people who think it’s censorship to withdraw funding for anti-Christian “hate speech” can argue that private individuals have no right to express anti-Muslim views. [And that is precisely what is being argued by a substantial majority of the media.]

“While we have freedom of speech,” a New York Daily News columnist insisted, “we also have freedom of religion, which shouldn’t be impinged upon.” [Full stop. Really.  REALLY?!?  So did this same  columnist write pieces vigorously protesting Obama’s persecution of the Church and other Christians in violation of that supposedly sacrosanct freedom of religion?  How much do you want to bet the author is fully in favor of churches being forced to “marry” sodomites, and would be very happy to see us persecuted if we refuse?  Given the reflexive progressivism of the author, and the many pieces she has written favorably covering matters like “transgenderism” and fake same-sex marriage, it’s almost certain she would favor seeing churches losing their tax exempt status or being otherwise persecuted for refusing to hop on the latest cultural shibboleth]

CNN’s Chris Cuomo, a law-school grad, tweeted that Geller’s “hate speech” isn’t protected by the Constitution. At first Cuomo suggested proof of this could be found in the Constitution itself. He then hastily clarified that it fails the “fighting words” doctrine of the Supreme Court. [His argument has been completely destroyed elsewhere]

I’m dubious about that. But if he’s right, the lesson is clear: Violence pays.

Which is one reason why the left has a massive double standard between Christianity and islam, certainly.  They do fear them, very much.

But it takes more than just fear of islam to argue that drawing pictures of a supposed prophet is so out of bounds that those promoting such work had a terrorist attack “coming to them” while arguing that denial of federal funding to those who blaspheme with urine and elephant dung the literal God Incarnate, believed (even still) by a large majority of Americans, is such an assault on “free speech” it constitutes the veritable collapse of the Republic.  These two beliefs are not even remotely reconcilable. And yet they are held by a huge majority of the self-anointed elite that constitutes our political/media class.

That discrepancy can only be explained by a deep seeded animus towards Christianity. So when we have that animus on the one hand, always seeking avenues to persecute and marginalize believing Christians, and the trembling obeisance offered to islam on the other, am I alone in seeing a disturbingly diabolical inclination?

L’Osservatore Romano, official Vatican newspaper: Garland Mohammad cartoons “blasphemous” May 7, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disconcerting, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, paganism, persecution, secularism, Society, the return.
comments closed

Via Vox Cantoris, how can one blaspheme against a man?  If someone draws an ugly caricature of St. Augustine, it’s tragic, stupid, and unfortunate, but it’s not blasphemy.  Only muslims consider their false prophet to be above reproach, for it to be a grave offense against their sensibilities to draw any representation of him.  But they take offense at any representation of any religious figure, not just their prophet of doom, because muslims are total iconoclasts and hold a twisted hatred of any representation of the sacred, something they inherited from the crazed Jewish Zealouts who, along with heretical Arian “Christians,” formed the knowledge-base from which Mohammad, if he existed, built his man-made religion.

Apparently, we’re all muslims now, and have to share their quite fickle sensibilities.  L’Osservatore Romano castigated the Mohammad cartoon contest in Garland that resulted in a terrorist attack in the strongest terms:

The Vatican’s semi-official newspaper blasted a series of cartoons of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad as “blasphemous” but also condemned the “mad and bloodthirsty” extremists who opened fire at a Texas exhibit of the cartoons. [We see a lot of terms thrown around inappropriately. Orwellian disfigurement of language and its meaning has long been one of the left’s favorite ploys.  But I find it quite offensive that drawing pictures of a purported prophet gets labeled “blasphemous,” while we have real sacrilege and blasphemy occurring almost every day in illicit reception of the Blessed Sacrament from grave public sinners, like VP Biden, and no one, certainly not in officialdom, says a word.  It’s left to lowly bloggers with no authority and limited audiences note this regular occurrence of sacrilege, which is an ineffective response, frankly. But it’s the best we’ve got right now]

The front-page article in L’Osservatore Romano likened the exhibit in Garland, Texas, to pouring “gasoline on the fire” of religious sensitivities and was critical of its sponsors, the American Freedom Defense Initiative and professional provocateur Pamela Geller. [I’ve never been a fan of Geller, I’m nuts but I find her over the top, but this is an unfair caricature. Sure, she’s strident as all get out but she doesn’t do what she does just to get a rise out of people. She is one of the few people really committed to defending Western Civilization from the steady advance of islam. She is yet another person trying to fill the role abandoned by those who should be leading the defense.]

Police on May 3 shot and killed two gunmen who opened fire outside the exhibit that was designed to provoke Muslim sensitivities; the so-called Islamic State has since claimed responsibility for the attack that injured a security guard, and promised more to come.

The newspaper said the Texas event “resembles only remotely the initiatives of Charlie Hebdo,” [Which are far more offensive to everybody, especially Catholics. They have published some really grotesque stuff]  referring to the French satirical weekly whose office was attacked by Islamist extremists in January. Twelve people were gunned down at the Paris premises by the Islamist militants, who targeted magazine staff for publishing similar cartoons. [The only difference in the two muslim assaults was the presence of armed responders. That’s the only effective response to militant islam]

After the Charlie Hebdo attacks, Pope Francis condemned the idea of killing “in God’s name” but warned that “you cannot provoke, you cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.” [Except, apparently, faithful Catholics, what with dismissal of “counters of Rosaries” and neo-Pelagian prometheans and all the rest?]

While L’Osservatore Romano said the Texas exhibition could be compared to Charlie Hebdo “for its provocative intention, almost a desire to throw gasoline on the fire,” the Vatican newspaper reserved a stronger condemnation for those behind the attacks.

Garland was “certainly not Paris,” while the anticipated “participation of some ultra-conservative European politicians” was also noted. The Vatican newspaper went on to urge respect, which it described as “the necessary attitude to approach the religious experience of another.”

And there’s the real rub. This is the one aspect all the kumbayah “can’t we all just get along” one world indifferentists fail to grasp, and to which their program has no answer: what do you do when the other side steadfastly refuses to play along, sees your overtures to them as weakness, and always replies to your open hand with a mailed fist?  That’s been the case for decades now, and still we hear “we must respect other religions.” Of course we should, but not when they are killing literally millions of our own, which they have done over the past 3 decades or so.  Right now Christians all over the Mideast, Africa, and Europe are experiencing the vilest, cruelest persecution seen in scores of years, I find the idea that we should “urge respect” ludicrously inadequate as a response to the ongoing atrocities.

This idea of having such respect for not just erroneous, but blatantly hostile religions like islam is also counter to many hundreds of years of Church belief and practice.  “Error has no rights” was something any educated Catholic used to know.  But not anymore, we’re much too enlightened (note the loaded term) to think such coarse, unrefined, un-modern thoughts. However, I think a pretty good argument could be made that it has been in fact the abandonment of that long-time certainty in our own Church beliefs and practices and the falsity of others that has gotten us to the point we are at today, where indifference reigns, confusion abounds, the human aspect of the Church is prostrate, and Christian bodies litter the ground around the world.  No, it’s not the only explanation, but it has certainly played a part, and continues to play a part in the weak-willed, tentative response of the Church today to the ongoing persecutions and the advance of islam.

I pray this trend turns around, now.

Terror comes to Texas……. May 4, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, rank stupidity, scandals, sickness, Society, the enemy, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

……..and fails miserably.  But one must wonder whether the attack carried out in Garland last night will not serve to dampen enthusiasm for such events aimed at slowing the steady adoption of shariah islam as the de fact religion of the West.  This is a most important point, because even in the media response to the attack, the conference, which awarded prize money for cartoons which were critical of islamist violence, has been widely reported as an “anti-islam” event.  But why is it “anti-islam,” when the same media sources certainly did NOT find such atrocities like the “piss Christ” to be anti-Christian, but simply expressions of free speech.  They can only view last night’s cartoons as “anti-islam” because, on one level or another, the media have accepted the muslim dogma that the “prophet” is never to be depicted visually in any way.  And that is how islam is becoming the de facto official religion of the West.

Long intro aside, most readers are probably aware at this point that two deranged islamists attempted to attack a free speech conference organized last night for the purpose of raising money to be used to promote “moderate” islam, if any can be found.  This conference was held in Garland, TX, just a few miles from my former home.  Two men, one from Arizona, had apparently planned this attack for at least some days.  They were fortunately set upon by the police presence called out for the controversial conference.  Both men were killed, but only after lightly injuring an unarmed security guard.  There was also strong suspicion that the attackers had brought explosive devices along with them, but even after detonating their car, I don’t believe any were found.

News coverage in the Dallas area has ranged from fair to heinous, with the Belo properties WFAA TV and Dallas Morning News leading the highly biased coverage.  There is tons of coverage here, from one of the participants.  For those few who are unaware of what transpired, here’s a decent rundown:

A free speech event organized by conservative writer Pamela Geller in Garland, Texas came under attack yesterday evening when two armed men opened fire on a security officer……Shortly after the attack began, the shooters ran into Texas law enforcement who provided a short, terminal lesson in what happens when you try something like this in the Lone Star State.

A search for explosives continued into the night Sunday after two men were shot and killed outside a provocative contest for cartoon depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.

The event took place at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland.

The two suspects drove up and opened fire near the center hitting a Garland ISD officer. Garland Police shot and killed the two men.

There is one bit of good news coming out of the incident. The security officer who was attacked, Bruce Joiner, was treated at a local hospital for a gunshot wound to the leg and released. He is expected to make a full recovery. The shooters… not so much.

While it’s an initial report and will need further confirmation, ABC News is reporting that one of the shooters has been identified……His name is Elton Simpson………

…….A number of Twitter messages were discovered (in addition to the ones from Simpson) from Islamic – and possibly ISIS related – sources which hinted at the coming attack. The subject of the event was a contest for artists creating displays which depict the Prophet Muhammad, a topic which has drawn terrorist attacks in the past. We’re going to have to wait, possibly for quite a while, before any definite conclusions can be drawn as to whether the shooters cooked up this plot on their own or if there are co-conspirators out there waiting to be discovered.

I don’t think this is a case of sudden jihad syndrome. This attack was announced well in advance and planned for at least a few days.  At least one attacker traveled nearly 1000 miles to conduct the attack. Now they are finding out whether islam’s promises to its militant martyrs have any value, or not.  I am certain those are two cosmically disappointed and disillusioned souls at this point.  Pity.

I am very far from a free speech absolutist.  I am gravely offended by blasphemies directed at Jesus Christ and the Church He founded.  But as always with regard to the Church and other religions, and there is a huge amount of theology to support this claim – error has no rights, and the Church/religion of Jesus Christ really are radically different and deserving of not just special, but highly preferential treatment. Conversely, all other religions, according to very well developed Catholic belief, can be tolerated at best but certainly can never be put on an equivalent footing with the Church in terms of law or cultural preference.  So there is no hypocrisy in being quite happy to see islam receive the ridicule is richly deserves, while maintaining that such efforts directed at Our Blessed Lord would be gravely offensive and hypocritical.  And for any outsiders, no, the Church’s arguments are not founded on preference, they are founded on very strong arguments dating back to Aquinas and well before.

Not that I want to get into those now.  As someone with a bit of a memory, I am absolutely floored at the degree to which people just accept periodic muslim attacks on US soil as just sort of a ho-hum thing.  Can you imagine how people would have freaked out and reacted in, say, 1980 over something like this?  Back then terrorism was something that happened in other countries thousands of miles away.  Not anymore. And much of the media in its coverage has quite strongly implied the people at this event had it coming to them for daring to transgress against the “prophet!”

You can file this as exhibit number 87594 why the left will not fight islam but will gladly don the burqa and erect minarets when the time comes. No, not all, but most, and especially those who believe they hold any power or influence.

Something more parishes should consider – votive Masses for persecuted Christians May 1, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Christendom, Ecumenism, Father Rodriguez, General Catholic, Latin Mass, manhood, persecution, scandals, secularism, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

Reader GM sent me a link announcing a Votive Mass (TLM) for persecuted Christians to be held May 6 in Winnipeg.  Given the ongoing atrocities against Christians (just in time for the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, diabolical islamists in Syria destroyed the Armenian Orthodox Cathedral of Aleppo), and the rising persecution so many of us see in our own land, this would be a quite charitable and salutary imprecation to God for more traditional parishes to make:

This announcement has come in recently from The Latin Mass Society of Winnipeg:

On Wednesday, May 6th, at 7:30 pm, a Votive Mass on behalf of persecuted Christians will be celebrated at St. Ann’s Parish, 271 Hampton Street, Winnipeg. 

For more information, see this link.

This is a good opportunity to suggest to NLM readers that it would be highly appropriate, in these times of violent persecution, to consider offering or organizing the celebration of the Missa votiva pro Ecclesiae defensione (In Defense of the Church) with the Commemoration Pro Ecclesiae libertate on behalf of persecuted Christians, which may be used on 4th class ferial days.

I must agree.  We hear from our very good priests all the time that we had “better get prayed up,” that is, internally, spiritually prepared for the sufferings many of will likely be forced to endure.  Being a Catholic has been relatively easy in many parts of the world for a long time – it may no longer be so.  Since the Mass is the highest form of prayer possible, it would only make sense that we should see many such Votive Masses offered both for the souls now enduring the most cruel persecutions, as well as to bring down Grace upon ourselves as we face our own.  This might be a good request to make to your local TLM pastor/priest in a kind, courteous manner.
BTW, I am very pleased to announce that the number of North American priests who have signed the “credo” signifying their commitment to uphold the doctrine of marriage, the Blessed Sacrament, divorce, etc., has increased tremendously in just the past few days.  Over 700 priests have now signed on, including three priests very dear to my heart (up from 450 3 days ago).  God bless them.  There are more names with FSSP after them, but I’d love to see many, many more.  Some OSBs from Clear Creek have signed on.  Awesome!
It’s not a competition, and those of us who know these men certainly know where they stand, buuut……..it is also reassuring and gratifying to see the names of priests we know and love formally attached to this vital stand in defense of the Faith.  As I watch the list grow, my fears over how the Church in this country will deal with any unprecedented “pastoral” approaches emanating from a conclave or Synod are diminished.  It is most comforting to see the names pile up.  Again, God bless all these men, and may there be many, many, many more.  There are, after all, around 45,000 priests in this country, so there is a long way to go.
If you have a local priest who you know to be relatively orthodox and you don’t see their name on the list, you might, in charity, also send them an invitation to sign on.  It is quite probable most priests have no knowledge of this initiative at this point.
Deo Gratias!

Oh sheesh – Official English Vatican News site promotes heinous error……. April 29, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, Four Last Things, General Catholic, paganism, Papa, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

…….including, of course, universal salvation.  I mean, it had to be, right, I am convinced that is the core error that underlies all the other heresies, errors, and disorders we see in the Church today.

Vox Cantoris engaged in a bit of interreligious dialogue with ten News.va English Facebook admin, and received some detailed responses. This was not mere boilerplate.  This was an actual attempt to engage.  Which makes what was shared all the more troubling, because it reveals that at least the Vatican’s English language news operation has gone seriously off the rails, and raises grave questions about what other departments in the Vatican are believing these days.  Below are screenshots from Vox’s conversation, I’m sorry I am taking all of them but I pretty much have to for the conversation to make sense:

  • Vox Cantoris Are all religions equal?
    Like · Reply · 1 · 22 hrs
    • News.va English Dear David, please find an excerpt from the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions “Nostra Aetate” proclaimed by Pope Paul VI on October 28, 1965: “Other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)

      The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men. […] As the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church’s preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God’s all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.”

      Also, we would like to share an excerpt from the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”:

      “those who without any fault do not know anything about Christ or his Church, yet who search for God with a sincere heart and under the influence of grace, try to put into effect the will of God as known to them through the dictate of conscience… can obtain eternal salvation”. […] “Nor does divine Providence deny the helps that are necessary for salvation to those who, through no fault of their own, have not yet attained to the express recognition of God, yet who strive, not without divine grace, to lead an upright life. For whatever goodness and truth is found in them is considered by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel and bestowed by him who enlightens everyone that they may in the end have life”.

      Like · 1 · 5 hrs
  • Vox Cantoris Dearest News.va English please find this Encyclical QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE of Pope IX on false doctrines http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm
    How much cause we have to grieve over the…
  • Vox Cantoris The Church did not begin at Vatican II. How soon you have forgotten Pope Benedict XVI and the “hermeneutic of continuity.”
  • Vox Cantoris You see News.va English, you are misleading and confusing by putting that statement Nostra Aetate which is the lowest of the Vatican II documents. It is not doctrinal and it is not a Constitution. We are not talking of those “with sincere hearts.” Further, God is not bound by His sacraments. If the “dialogue” does not PROPOSE JESUS CHRIST and salvation through the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, then what are we doing?
  • Vox Cantoris Frankly News.va English, you are imbued with modernism and syncretism. All religions are not equal. There is only One, True Faith and it is the Catholic faith outside of which there is no salvation. Get it?
  • Vox Cantoris Should they not promote conversion to Christ?
    • News.va English The very concept of “promoting conversion” is not in line with Christ’s message of love of God and of our neighbour. One cannot oblige one person to believe, nor is it the result of rational thinking, rather of humble openness of one’s heart to God’s grace which gives the gift of faith. What we can do is to share with people our joy for the revelation of the message of salvation and the fact that God is our Father and is a God who loves us and that we have no reason to fear death because death and anything evil have been already condemned and defeated on the Cross by Jesus’ sacrifice. We know there will be a new life because Jesus has come back from the dead. We are all saved already and we need to live by Jesus’ teaching of sacrificing our evil instinct and acting for unconditional love.
    • Vox Cantoris What of “no salvation outside of the Church?”

    • Vox Cantoris, News.va English, This is outright scandalous: “The very concept of “promoting conversion” is not in line with Christ’s message of love of God and of our neighbour. One cannot oblige one person to believe, nor is it the result of rational thinking,” All have free will. You are preaching heresy when you say that “promoting conversion” is not Christ’s message or will. “That all be one…” Who is writing this stuff?
      News.va English Dear David the Church brings the message of salvation with love, not with judgement.

Some might say………different religion.  Thus, “interreligious dialogue” up above.

Vox’s comments on the relative importance of Nostra Aetate touch on a critical point.  Even Cardinals of the Church disagree mightily over the degree of assent Nostra Aetate merits.  How are the faithful to sort this out when even cardinals disagree?

So perhaps News.va English should be given some benefit of the doubt.  They have probably been horribly formed. But it is still more than unnerving to find an official Vatican news organization promoting universal salvation as an accomplished fact, even though this error has been repeatedly condemned by popes up until at least Saint John Paul II, and likely Pope Benedict, though I can’t call to mind this moment a concrete instance when he did so.

Digging a little deeper, it is terrifying the amount of biblical ignorance on display in the responses above.  “The very concept of promoting conversion is not in line with Christ’s message of love of God and neighbor?”  So God was not in line with Himself when he commanded “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned” (St. Mark XVI:16) and “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (St. Matt XXVIII:19).  Or how about the parable at the end of Matthew XXV of the goats and sheep, or Our Lord’s constant references to hell and damnation, and the fact that the way is narrow, and that few take it to Heaven?

We can see how erroneous concepts of religious liberty must inform the second long response above, hinged as it is on “one cannot oblige one person to believe……”  This  is true in the sense that forced conversions may not be real and are generally not desirable, but we see how the libertine understandings of this truth have been twisted to oppose all propagandizing for the Faith.  Sharing of joy and the glory that comes from Grace may have been Saint Francis’ preferred method, and it does have much to recommend it, but it is not the only method, and it seems this sharing of joy has been very ineffective these past several decades at winning converts or even keeping people in the Faith.  That is because our Faith is based on reason, and faith is primarily an act of the will, which includes a profound mental aspect.  Making the faith entirely an affair of the heart, perhaps even as an overreaction to an over-reliance on more cerebral approaches to the Faith in the past, has not worked.  And it tends to lead to the kind of indifferentism and unwillingness to put oneself out there as a proper evangelist, let alone proselyte, that we see above.  It plays to our desire to kind of have it the easy way.

That’s not to say our glorious Faith should not be made attractive to others. Absolutely it should, but in my experience, the Faith tends to sell itself. And it takes good teachers to communicate the glories of Catholic belief to others. It is much more than just an “attract them by our giddy happiness” phenomenon.  In my experience.

Go visit Vox  Cantoris and read some of his other posts!  He’s got some great stuff!  For instance, did you know that Canadian commentator Michael Coren has fallen away and joined the Anglicans, primarily over his endorsement of fake marriage between those lost in the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Explosive claim: liberation theology not only created by KGB, but by Patriarch Kirill himself April 24, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
comments closed

WOW!  So……on a certain level, this makes a great deal of sense.  First, the fact that Kirill was an agent of the KGB – this is almost certain.  The KGB and internal security service (GRU) penetrated and dominated the Russian Orthodox Church from the early 20s until the collapse of the Soviet Union.  One could not be a rising star priest or prelate in the Russian Church without being very tight with the KGB. Further, reflect how Putin has both a KGB background and has aligned himself, in a sort of obviously superficial way, with not just the Russian Orthodox Church, but Patriarch Kirill in particular.  Those two have a very close working relationship which many Westerners (including trads) find very attractive and hopeful, but which could have an entirely different side – and makeup.

I am quite certain the KGB was behind the creation of liberation theology.  They probably paid and/or coerced various Christians, especially Catholics, to support communism.  They also directed the activities of home grown commies within the Church like Gustavo Gutierrez.  How deep and how complete that direction was is the only question.  And isn’t it interesting that when the FSU collapsed, support for liberation theology collapsed with it, until, about 7-8 years ago, communists began re-emerging in positions of great power and influence all over the world, and all of a sudden liberation theology came roaring back a few years later.  Isn’t that interesting?

Make of the below what you will, I would not be surprised if someone is not directing this resurgence of both leftism and liberation theology in the West, and it is certainly possible there is some Russian connection.  See what you think:

Liberation theology, of which not much has been heard for two decades, is back in the news. But what is not being mentioned is its origins. It was not invented by Latin American Catholics. It was developed by the KGB. The man who is now the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, secretly worked for the KGB under the code name “Mikhailov” and spent four decades promoting liberation theology, which we at the top of the Eastern European intelligence community nicknamed Christianized Marxism.

Liberation theology has been generally understood to be a marriage of Marxism and Christianity. What has not been understood is that it was not the product of Christians who pursued Communism, but of Communists who pursued Christians. I described the birth of liberation theology in my book Disinformation, co-authored with Professor Ronald Rychlak. Its genesis was part of a highly classified Party/State Disinformation Program, formally approved in 1960 by KGB chairman Aleksandr Shelepin and Politburo member Aleksei Kirichenko, then the second in the party hierarchy after Nikita Khrushchev.

In 1971, the KGB sent Kirill — who had just been elevated to the rank of archimandrite — to Geneva as emissary of the Russian Orthodox Church to the World Council of Churches. [Did Kirill have a background role at VII?]  The WCC was, and still is, the largest international religious organization after the Vatican, representing some 550 million Christians of various denominations in 120 countries. Kirill/Mikhailov’s main task was to involve the WCC in spreading the new liberation theology throughout Latin America. In 1975, the KGB was able to infiltrate Kirill into the Central Committee of the WCC — a position he held until he was “elected” patriarch of Russia, in 2009. Not long after he joined the Central Committee, Kirill reported to the KGB: “Now the agenda of the WCC is also our agenda.” [If these claims are true, it would mean the Russian Orthodox Church is still dominated by the security services of Russia. But there is more!]

…...Pope John Paul II, who knew the Communist playbook well, was not taken in by the Soviets’ liberation theology. In 1983, his friend and trusted colleague Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), who at that time was head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, discarded as Marxist the liberation-theology idea that class struggle is fundamental to history. The cardinal called liberation theology a “singular heresy” and blasted it as a “fundamental threat” to the Church.  Of course, it was and remains a threat — one deliberately designed to undermine the Church and destabilize the West by subordinating religion to an atheist political ideology for its geopolitical gain.

Now names — like Oscar Romero and Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann – not heard since the 1980s, when the Soviet Union was still en vogue, are again making international news. And here we are. The promoters of a KGB-inspired religious ideology, which once embraced violent Marxist revolution, are now denying its link to Marxism and to the KGB.

Each society reflects its own past. Down through the ages, everyone who has sat on the Kremlin throne — autocratic tsar, Communist leader, or democratically elected president — has been preoccupied with controlling all expressions of religion that might impinge on his political ambitions. When Ivan IV — the Terrible — had himself crowned in 1547 as Russia’s first tsar, he also made himself head of the Russian Orthodox Church. Tsarism and Communism may have been swallowed up by the sands of time, but the Kremlin continues this tradition.

This brings us back to Kirill/Mikhailov. In 2006 Archbishop Kirill’s personal wealth was estimated at $4 billion by the Moscow News. No wonder. In the mid-1990s, the Russian Orthodox Church’s Department for External Church Relations, managed by Kirill, was granted the privilege of duty-free importation of cigarettes as reward for his loyalty to the KGB. It did not take long for him to become the largest supplier of foreign cigarettes in Russia. [This is no small prize.  Russians have some of the highest smoking rates in the world, and native Russian cigarettes have been known for decades for their atrocious quality.  Thus, foreign cigarettes are wildly popular with those who can afford them.  This likely translates into billions of dollars in profits.]

A few years ago, while Kirill was visiting Ukraine as the new Patriarch of Russia, a newspaper published a photo in which the prelate could be seen wearing a Breguet wristwatch, the price of which was estimated at 30,000 euros. The Russian newspaper Kommersant accused Kirill of abusing the privilege of duty-free importation of cigarettes, and dubbed him the “tobacco metropolitan.” Kirill denied having such a watch. He said the photograph must have been altered by his enemies, and he posted the “real” photograph on his official website. A careful study of this “real” photograph, however, shows that the Breguet watch had been airbrushed off his wrist, but its reflection is still clearly visible on a table surface beneath his arm.

Mikhailov and his KGB, rechristened FSB, are now doing their best to airbrush out the apron strings connecting them to liberation theology. Let’s not allow them to succeed.

Well, at the very least, this certainly casts a new light on a hoped for reconciliation with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and especially the Russian Orthodox Churches. It also shows how much these bodies have been corrupted by nationalism and the domination of secular political leadership – just exactly the problem that generated so many early Church heresies out of Constantinople and led to the eventual Great Schism.  The more things change, the more they stay the same, no?

IF – and it’s a big if, even though the author was the highest level Soviet defector ever to the West – these claims are true, then it both explains a lot and is yet another condemnation of the ecumenical effort and the leftist spawn that is the World Council of Churches, a veritable font of modernism.  This would make ecumenism with the Russians, at least, a total sham and simply a political exercise.  But with the Church in Constantinople constantly shrinking to the point they may no longer have sufficient souls to produce a priest and thus a Primate, Russia’s suzerainty over the Eastern Churches is only likely to grow.  If this report is anything like accurate, however, ecumenism with the Russian Orthodox Church is like signing a pact with the KGB.

I’ve always been quite immune to conspiracy theories, but my goodness, is not the extreme corruption and leftism of prelates in Churches throughout the world, including our own, quite terrifying?  I don’t tend to believe in things like New World Orders and one world religions and all that, but this is pretty damning evidence that many of the ecumenical efforts and bodies of the world are hopelessly corrupted. That only increases my disdain for these efforts.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 530 other followers