jump to navigation

Gueranger – Travail of Jews since rejection of Christ prophesied in Daniel March 3, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Bible, catachesis, Christendom, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, Four Last Things, General Catholic, reading, secularism, Society, Tradition.
add a comment

Some very interesting Scriptural exegesis below from Dom Prosper Gueranger.  Yesterday, in the Traditional Mass, the Epistle for the Monday of the Second Week of Lent was from Daniel IX, as below.  The exegesis below applies to the Jews, certainly, but also to the Church, in Her perfection of Judaism.  The  quote from Daniel is a lamentation after sin, a begging of forgiveness for unfaithfulness:

In those days, Daniel prayed to the Lord, saying: O Lord our God, who hast brought forth thy people out of the land of Egypt with a strong hand, and hast made thee a name as at this day: we have sinned, we have committed iniquity, O Lord, against all thy justice. Let thy wrath and thy indignation be turned away, I beseech thee, from thy city Jerusalem, and from thy holy mountain.  For, by reason of our sins, and the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are a reproach to all that are round about us.  Now, therefore, O God, hear thy supplication of thy servant, and his prayers: and show thy face up on thy sanctuary which is desolate, for thy own sake. Incline, O my God, thy ear and hear; open thine eyes and see our desolation, and the city upon which thy name is called: for it is not for our justifications that we present our prayers before thy face, but for the multitude of thy tender mercies.  O Lord, hear; O Lord, be appeased; hearken, and do; delay not for thy own sake, O my God; because thy name is invocated upon thy city, and upon thy people, O Lord our God. 

Now Dom Prosper places the above in a Catholic context:

Such was the prayer and lamentation of Daniel, during the captivity in Babylon. His prayer was heard; and, after seventy years of exile, the Jews returned to their country, rebuilt the temple, and were once more received by the Lord as His chosen people. But what are the Israelites now?  What has been their history for the last 1800 2000 years?  The words of Daniel’s lamentation but faintly represent the sad reality of their present long chastisement. God’s anger lies heavily upon Jerusalem; the very ruins of the temple have perished; the children of Israel are dispersed over the whole earth, a reproach to all nations.  A curse hangs over this people; like Cain, it is a wanderer and a fugitive; and God watches over it, that it become not extinct.  

The rationalist is at a loss how to explain this problem; whereas the Christian sees in it the punishment of the greatest of crimes. But what is the explanation of this phenomenon?  The light shone in darkness; and the darkness did not comprehend it!  If the darkness had received the light, it would not be darkness now; but it was not so; Israel, therefore, deserved to be abandoned. Several of its children did, indeed, acknowledged the Messias, and they became children of the light; nay, it is through them that the light was made known to the whole world. When will the rest of Israel open its eyes?  When will this people address to God the prayer of Daniel?  They have it; they frequently read it; and yet, if finds no response in their proud hearts. Let us, the Gentiles, pray for the Jews – the younger for the elder.  Every year there are some who are converted, and seek admission into the new Israel of the Church of Christ. Right welcome are they!  May God in his mercy, add to their number; that thus all men may adore the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, together with Jesus Christ, His Son, whom He sent into this world.

———–End Quote———–

While the above stands as an interesting if quite contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy form of exegesis (it was not contrary at all when written, nor for quite some time after that), I think it is also very relevant to the Church today. “The light shone in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it!”  Does anything better describe our world today?  But what is far more troubling, is that the searing billion candle-watt beacon of the past that was the Church has been dimmed down to a wimpy 40W bulb.  It is so much harder for souls to find the light, as the light itself, in its human element, has been greatly dimmed.  We have, for some reason, put bushel baskets over our candlesticks, and they no longer cast light for all to see.

And, I think we can glean from the above how God may respond if the Church continues to hide the Light she has been divinely commissioned to hold aloft to the world.  No, there will never be a “replacement” for the Church, there will be no “new new covenant,” but we can read in The Apocalypse and some of the Old Testament prophets what happens when the Church shirks her duty towards the end of the world.  Are we in that time?  It is really difficult to tell, Our Lord did tell us to watch for signs and wonders, but He also said we would know not the day nor the hour.  Not that it really matters – we will all be called to our own judgment in God’s good time, regardless.

Irrespective, as I said, it is interesting to contrast the very traditional view of the Jews presented by Gueranger above, and modern approaches to Judaism these past several decades. They are almost night and day in their differences. And, of course, we have seen even more outreach to Jews and statements of fraternity, equality, and liberty of late.  Certainly, another quite substantive break with the past.

But we’ve had plenty of those. So what’s one more piled on all the others?

Not everyone who says to Me “Lord, Lord” will enter the Kingdom of Heaven March 3, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Bible, catachesis, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, Latin Mass, priests, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
1 comment so far

As a way of rebuttal to the claims of Bishop McElroy reported in the previous post, about “primacy of conscience” even trumping the Doctrine of the Faith, I present the very providential sermon below, which extrapolates from the closely defined Dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus to examine not only who may be saved, but also the common excuses of souls to reject Church belief.  I draw particular attention to ~9:00 – 11:00, wherein the priest quotes both Scripture and one of the greatest Scriptural exegetes ever (Cornelius a Lapide’), to show the error of asserting the primacy of a badly formed conscience over the Doctrine of the Faith:

That is why it is so dangerous for an authority figure in the Church to tell souls that they must obey their conscience no matter what.  To his credit, in the piece quoted in the previous post, he did say that souls should give the Doctrine of the Faith pre-eminence, but he still left a huge “out,” if you will, by saying that if you just somehow (I know not how) cannot reconcile your conscience to the Doctrine of the Faith, you must obey your conscience.  He even noted that people would be tempted to abuse such knowledge, that their personal preferences could easily masquerade as the pangs of conscience and lead them astray.  But he badly failed to note the culpability they would bear should that be the case.

Given that we swim in an amoral sewer, it is so very easy for us to absorb dangerous, damning beliefs.  Even more, to the extent that there is still some sense of Christianity about in the culture, it is generally a gravely distorted sense, full of protestant errors and self-serving “theology” in the form of “prosperity gospel” and all the rest.  Thus to advise souls that they can, in conscience, deviate from those beliefs binding on conscience for all Catholics (such as abortion being in all places and at all times intrinsically, mortally sinful) without at the least clearly stating the grave peril of doing so is at the very least a serious dereliction of duty, and could even rise to the level of sinful malfeasance.

Another quite timely portion of the sermon assails the error that says the Doctrine of the Faith can be disregarded as a pretext towards reforming the Faith and morals always held by the Church. Is this not exactly what we see happening with these Synods on the family, which seek to obviate the Doctrine of the Faith through ostensible “pastoral” solutions?  I found this quote highly relevant: “And they approach, wolves in sheep’s clothing, by the simulation of meekness, simplicity, or piety.  They propose themselves as the model of humility.  And the whole time, they are seeking to destroy souls.”

By hook or crook. The far more dangerous man to souls is not that man given over to satan’s control who, like masons, perhaps, acknowledge they are trying to pry souls away from One True Faith, but that man who is convinced he is a loyal son of the Church, who is only trying to bring the Church forward into modern times and to help propagate the Gospel.  The former may have pangs of conscience that limit their activities, but the latter, so assured that they are on the side of goodness, truth, and right, will have no check for their actions.  This is a close analogue to the political arena, where, as C.S. Lewis noted, the progressive convinced he is doing good by his invasion of personal rights and assault on morals and decency, will never let up, whereas the one who knows he does such things for very bad reasons might have some limit to the ends to which he will stoop.  Of course, the political-religious analogy overlaps quite closely, where those who seek to remodel the Church in man’s own image are generally quite progressive politically, as well.

“If you love me, keep my commandments.”  “Not everyone who says Lord, Lord will be saved, but he who does the will of My Father Who is in Heaven, shall be saved.”

“My Church” is only mentioned by our Lord once in Sacred Scripture, in St. Matt XVI:18 “Upon this rock I will build My Church.”

This is really just a top-notch and very valuable sermon.  The priest explodes so many of the modern myths regarding “universal salvation,” salvation outside the Church, etc.  He notes, quite rightly, that while salvation outside the Church may be theoretically possible, it is not terribly likely.  We hear phrases like “invincible ignorance” and they sound so reasonable to so many, who probably have loved ones outside the Church and actively want to believe that they will be saved, while not having to do anything to proselytize them that might cause strain or make them uncomfortable. But as the priest notes, if there are souls actively searching for God and His Church who have never heard the Gospel, God will make Himself and His Church known to them.  But how many people in the world today are truly ignorant of the person of Jesus Christ, His message, and His Church?  This is not 1600.

Anyway, just a very good and timely sermon.  I pray it somehow finds its way to Bishop McElroy and he hear it with an open and humble heart.  We may look on a man such as that as someone who has abrogated his duty and does very bad things, but he is another soul made in the likeness of our Creator and he will face his particular judgment, a very severe one given the exalted office Our Blessed Lord has seen fit to give him.  Each soul falling into error and outside the Church, really, is an incalculable loss not just for them personally but for the entire Body of Christ.  As Saint Paul says, when one glories, we all glory, and when one suffers, we all suffer.  We must pray for the conversion of men such as this who have come to accept these very dangerous, even blatantly false ideas as good and true.

Liberal fave McElroy named to head San Diego diocese March 3, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, Basics, disaster, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.

Robert McElroy, auxiliary of San Fran, has been covered on this blog a couple of times in the past.  It was not favorable coverage.  In 2012, he made a statement pregnant with progressive sentiment, when he said:

It is therefore the task of every Christian, he said, to undertake the lifelong task of forming his or her conscience. The church esteems conscience so highly, that a person with an informed conscience is called upon to obey it – even if it conflicts with church teaching…….

……..Contrary to what some believe, said the bishop, the church does not teach that Catholics must cast their votes based solely on a candidate’s stand on abortion. While that issue should be considered pre-eminent, the other issues can also be taken into consideration.

“This is really the hard call for us as Christians,” Bishop McElroy told the group.

Not really.  Abortion is such an incredibly grave and prevalent evil that there is really nothing else that rises to its level.  Cutting federal spending by 5, 10, or even 25% would not come even close to rising to the level of the evil of abortion.  Thus, candidates who support abortion – who are generally the progressive favorites – can never be supported.  It is a completely false equivalence to pretend that progressives who might – might – support expanded funding of grossly inefficient programs to “aid the poor” while generally enriching themselves overcome the moral stain of their support for abortion. But that is the argument liberals have made for decades.  Seamless garments, and all that.

As to the news, you can tell a lot about a man over who is friends are. The progressives are besides themselves with joy over his being named Bishop of San Diego, and the more extreme the progressive, the more giddy they are.  I won’t copy and paste any of that reaction here, but I will remind that it is true that he did lend support to the idea of Communion for unrepentant adulterers/fornicators:

To no one’s surprise and a day after the news had been leaked to the “correct” blogs and websites, the Vatican todayannounced the appointment of Robert McElroy, 61 years old and currently an Auxiliary Bishop in San Francisco, as Bishop of San Diego, California — the 13th largest diocese in the USA (out of 197). The Diocese of San Diego, it so happens, has more than double the number of Catholics of the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

McElroy recently declared publicly in favor of the Kasperite thesis and has been a leading public critic of the enforcement of Canon 915 against pro-abortion politicians. We leave it to the usual “progressive” pundits to discuss his “credentials” and to openly explain, in great detail, why his appointment is great for their agenda.

On the positive side, however, perhaps removing this uber-liberal from San Fran will strengthen Archbishop Cordileone’s ability to reform the Church there. Then again, Cordileone came from San Diego, and it’s been one of the more orthodox dioceses.  So one step forward, one step back?

Bah, I’m exhausted trying to read anything broad into these appointments, whether the restoration is making any progress with this appointment or that.  It’s not going to happen that way.  It’s going to happen by individual souls and families making the conscious choice to embrace Tradition and to propagandize in its favor.

Which won’t be easy in our priest holes, but……..carry on.


A handy resource on the TLM that raises provocative questions regarding the Novus Ordo March 3, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, catachesis, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Papa, scandals, secularism, shocking, Tradition.

A reader sent me a link to a very handy site that lists many of the reasons to support the Traditional Latin Mass. I would say it goes even farther than that, arguing for a return exclusively to the TLM, but having been on the receiving end of liturgical bans and persecution, I think the Church should have done with top-down impositions and abrogations of Rites of the Mass at least for the foreseeable future.  That doesn’t mean I don’t have grave concerns over the Novus Ordo. I do. We don’t assist at anything but the TLM and arrange our vacation schedules to insure that will remain the case!  But I recognize most souls bearing the name Catholic are far from being ready to accept the TLM and some sudden command from on high to restore the Traditional Mass as the only acceptable form of the Roman Rite – as unlikely as that is today –  would cause mass resentment, confusion, and chaos, of which I would hope traditional Catholics have had quite enough, already.

Having said that, there are many arguments to be made in favor of the TLM.  Some of those are positive – look how reverent the TLM is – and others are negative.  Those are ones that say “look at all these problems with the Novus Ordo, look at how it undermines faith in the Blessed Sacrament, etc.”  And that’s what the link above focuses on.

I’ll pull out a few quotes from the link and add some comments of my own below.  Just a warning, some of the below is pretty strong stuff, but I don’t think that should exclude it from consideration.  YMMV:

Vatican I in 1870 defined the Pope to be, not an absolute monarch, but the guarantor of obedience to the revealed word. The legitimacy of his power was bound up above all with his transmitting the Faith. This fidelity to the deposit of the Faith and to its transmission concerns in a quite special way the liturgy. No authority can ‘fabricate’ a liturgy.  [This point has been argued quite extensively by Michael Davies, Dr. Peter Kwazneiski, Fr. Anthony Cekada, and others.  But there are nuances to the argument. Certainly, Popes have directed changes to the Mass in the past.  But never was a new Rite created out of whole cloth until the Novus Ordo]  The Pope himself is only the humble servant of its homogenous development, its integrity, and the permanence of its identity.” The Pope, as the guardian of the Deposit of Faith, has a duty to preserve the liturgy intact and pass it on essentially unmodified to the next generation. The very authors of Vatican II, on the other hand, openly acknowledged their desire not to pass on Tradition, but to make it[As expressed by the will of the majority at VII, that’s about correct.  Until VII, the idea of the Magisterium had been to protect, uphold, propagate, and extol the Faith as they had received it.  But in the latter half of the 20th century, a radical new view became dominant, which was that the Faith as it had always been understood and practiced was badly deficient, somehow unsuited to “new times,” and that it had to change for the good of souls. I would argue that the disastrous crisis afflicting the Church since the introduction of those new ideas has conclusively demonstrated that this assumption was severely erroneous, and, far from ushering in a new springtime of growth, has led to an unprecedented to decay, destruction, and death.]

St. Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century gave as a standard for the orthodoxy of doctrine that which has been believed everywhere (ubique), always (semper), and by all (omnia). But, as Cardinal Ratzinger points out, the Council Fathers of Vatican II rejected this hallowed definition: “Vatican II’s refusal of the proposal to adopt the text of Lerins, familiar to, and, as it were, sanctified by two Church Councils, shows once more how Trent and Vatican I were left behind, how their texts were continually reinterpreted… Vatican II had a new idea of how historical identity and continuity were to be brought about.” This new idea was nothing other than to create a pseudo-tradition from the “common consciousness” of the Council Fathers……[I had not seen that quote from Pope Benedict before.  I’m quite certain he made it well before he was pontiff.  However, I have seen similar quotes.  Which point only goes to underscore that when we speak of Church leaders today (and for the past half century or more), we have to speak in terms of relatively orthodoxy, relative adherence to Tradition, etc., because it is very difficult to find any that have not made statements somewhat akin to the above.  I do not know how these men came to reconcile in their minds their sometime orthodoxy with radical views such as the above.  To me, there was a crisis of faith, more than anything else, which has kind of been my theme for the day. Men in the Church, even in the highest echelons of authority, simply lost faith that what had been handed onto them was good enough, would “work” for the world today.  There have certainly been out and out radicals, bad men acting under bad influences, who have probably acted out this revolution in an effort to reduce the Church from what She must be into something more worldly and utterly disordered from Her true purpose.  But I cannot see Pope Benedict in that light, I think he, and many others, honestly thought they were doing what was right.  Benedict visibly recoiled from his more radical younger views as he saw the destruction they wrought. But even still, the attachment to the idea that some radical change was necessary and vital remained.  I have a friend, very much traditional, who feels strongly that VII was absolutely needed because the pre-conciliar Church was cold, legalistic, and bereft of love (almost Jansenist), but that the changes went way too far.  I am much less inclined to see that, because the pre-conciliar Church was too vibrant, had too many priestly and religious vocations, and made too many converts, to be as described.]

The Church has always set forth the firm and clear principle that: “The way we worship is the way we believe.”  The doctrinal truths of the Faith are embodied in the worship we offer to God. In other words, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that teaches us our theology and not the reverse. [That’s right! And not the reverse!  Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. But since VII in particular, the argument has been made that we must shape and twist the Liturgy to bend to our beliefs, and not the other way around.  That is to say, a mechanistic and manipulative understanding of the Liturgy has become dominant, where the Liturgy is not a work primarily of God given to men to use and adore, but an entirely human construct, a work of human hands we can tinker with and manipulate according to the vagaries of the times]  The Mass comprises the Apostolic Tradition of faith and morals in its very essence. Every doctrine essential to the Faith is taught therein. Pope Leo XIII points out in Apostolicae Curae that the Church’s enemies have always understood this principle as “They knew only too well the intimate bond that unites faith with worship, the law of belief with the law of prayer, and so, under the pretext of restoring the order of the liturgy to its primitive form, they corrupted it in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators.” It is no wonder, then, that Luther coined the slogan: “Take away the Mass, destroy the Church.”

St. Alphonsus Liguori (Bishop, Doctor of the Church and Patron of Theologians) explains that “The devil has always attempted, by means of the heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the Anti-Christ, who, before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrament of the altar, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel: ‘And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice’ (Dan. 8:12).” [Scary.  I do so trust and love St. Alphonsus.]

The question then becomes: Does the New Mass teach the Catholic Faith? No, say both Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci: “It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent.”  [And another dozen or so cardinals would have signed onto the “Ottaviani Intervention” as well, had it not been prematurely leaked to the press.  So, then, at least a sizable number of the most orthodox prelates saw in the Novus Ordo a marked departure from a Liturgy that taught the Faith as it had been practiced for 16-1900 years.] Pope St. Leo the Great (Father and Doctor of the Church) instructs us: “Teach nothing new, but implant in the hearts of everyone those things which the fathers of venerable memory taught with a uniform preaching … Whence, we preach nothing except what we have received from our forefathers. In all things, therefore, both in the rule of faith in the observance of discipline, let the pattern of antiquity be observed.” How well founded, then, were the concerns expressed by Pope Pius XII shortly before the introduction of the New Mass: “I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy at Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the Faith in Her liturgy.

———-End Quote———–

Well.  Strong stuff, I know.  But simply because it says things some may find discomfiting, it should not be dismissed.  There are numerous other statements from Church Fathers and great Saints regarding the unchangeable nature of the Faith and the key repository of it, the Mass.  Yes, there have been periodic adjustments to the Mass in terms of organic growth and also some prunings from time to time by Popes in order to establish a more consistently universal Rite (for the Western Church), but, again, never has there been an entirely new rite, with new prayers, a new calendar of Saints, radically altered Scripture readings, and – this is key – changes to the sacred Canon of the Mass.  Never, until 1969, that is.

San Fran Archbishop Cordileone under heavy fire, merits support March 2, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, manhood, persecution, Society, the enemy, true leadership, Virtue.

I know this is relatively late coverage of this matter, this story has been ongoing for weeks, but Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco – one of the most TLM friendly bishops in the US – has come under incredibly intense criticism from all the usual suspects as a result of his effort to start restoring some sensus fidei to the Catholic schools in his archdiocese.  The effort was really minimal and basic: requiring all high school teachers to sign a form indicating they assented to the Doctrine of the Faith as part of their contracts.  Protestant schools require these kinds of forms all the time, as do some other religious and even some secular schools.  These forms basically say I won’t promote things contrary to the Faith as part of my job as teacher.

One would think, in a sane world, this would not be a controversial act.  But we do not live in a sane world.  And, as insanity goes, San Francisco and its environs are probably among the worst examples in the world.  San Fran is so bad, it’s not insane, it’s unsane, like, the complete, diametric opposite of sanity.

So, people and politicians have gone absolutely nuts.  Politicians of a left-wing bent (which is pretty much all of them) have demanded Archbishop Cordileone cave and threatened use of state power to break the archdiocese if he does not.  The media has been all over him.  And now parents are threatening lawsuits (how dare you expect teachers in Catholic schools to teach the Catholic Faith!  But then again, how many non-Catholics have been admitted to these schools?  What a dumb policy) and have even hired a powerful PR firm to attack +Cordileone and the Archdiocese of San Francisco.  Of course, Cordileone has also long earned the ire of uber-leftist Bay Area residents due to his opposition to sodomite fake marriage.  Several newspaper columns have accused him of “hatred” and “exclusion” (hey, guess what……non-Catholics excluded from the Catholic Church, and water is wet!).

Another side note is that this campaign also involves rage and invective directed against some of San Francisco’s orthodox priests.  So this seems to be a general backlash against the nascent resurgence of Catholicism in one of the most wickedly materialist sexular pagan regions of the country.

Thus far, Archbishop Cordileone has stood firm, remaining far stronger than Bishop Vasa did when he tried to implement similar measures in Santa Rosa.  And while he certainly has the support of the small number of faithful Catholics who populate every diocese, he would likely appreciate more support.  It’s a small gesture, but there is a petition available to sign that communicates your support for Archbishop Cordileone here.  But petitions aside, this will come down to +Cordileone’s will – it is entirely his decision, he can either ignore the loud but ultimately powerless ragings of the world, or he can cave to ephemeral “public pressure.”

Above all, however, prayers are most needed. I have praying for him for some time.  It is interesting to me that Cordileone has grown in orthodoxy and love of Tradition since he has had the prayers of the traditional Carmelites that he brought to Oakland.  The prayers of some holy nuns have achieved truly amazing things in the past, such as putting the infamous Reign of Terror to an end.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  I truly pray Archbishop Cordileone remains strong – it would be so heartening to see at least some small assertion of standards for the conduct of the Faith in the very belly of the beast, as it were.  We never know how small things like this can snowball into something much more significant. As I said in an early post, God has been looking for signs of willingness to do things the world finds incomprehensible and highly annoying as a leap of faith for centuries from the Church, only to be disappointed. That may be a prime reason why the Church is in the straits she finds herself these past many years.

Now, if he would only excommunicate Pelosi and her husband……..that would really make the lefties lose their minds and give aid and comfort to pious souls.


Speaking of guns…….how about this saintly testimony to open carry!!! March 2, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, history, manhood, Our Lady, religious, Saints, sanctity, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.

Oh this is just too providential, and thank you Codgitator for posting this!  In light of the previous post regarding Bishop Farrell’s seeming dislike for a download (9)well armed citizenry, this is just greatness.

Ever heard of St. Gabriel Possenti?  No.  Well, he’s the patron saint of handgunners.  And a more effective witness to the efficacy of firearms in pursuit of safety, civility, virtue, and the interests of the Church I can scarcely imagine.  His tale:

In 1860, a band of soldiers from the army of Garibaldi entered the mountain village of Isola, Italy. They began to burn and pillage the town, terrorizing its inhabitants. [Most American Catholics are utterly unaware of how Italy was “unified” – by main force, rapine, brutality, and a vicious hatred for the Church.  It was very akin to the French Revolution, only acted out slowly as the revolutionary forces advanced over a period of two-plus decades.]

Possenti, with his seminary rector’s permission, walked into the center of town, unarmed, to face the terrorists. One of the soldiers was dragging off a young woman he intended to rape when he saw Possenti and made a snickering remark about such a young monk being all alone.

Possenti quickly grabbed the soldier’s revolver from his belt and ordered the marauder to release the woman. The startled soldier complied, as Possenti grabbed the revolver of another soldier who came by. Hearing the commotion, the rest of the soldiers came running in Possenti’s direction, determined to overcome the rebellious monk.

At that moment a small lizard ran across the road between Possenti and the soldiers. When the lizard briefly paused, Possenti took careful aim and struck the lizard with one shot. Turning his two handguns on the approaching soldiers, Possenti commanded them to drop their weapons. Having seen his handiwork with a pistol, the soldiers complied. Possenti ordered them to put out the fires they had set, and upon finishing, marched the whole lot out of town, ordering them never to return. The grateful townspeople escorted Possenti in triumphant procession back to the seminary, thereafter referring to him as “the Savior of Isola”.

I guess this is one case where the “intimidation” of open carry worked to the Church’s – and soul’s – advantage?

This actually makes a good point – would we not all feel a lot more comfortable with things like open carry if our culture was much more visibly, practically Catholic?


Looks like a real killer, don’t he?

Much more on Saint Gabriel Possenti, or Saint Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows as he is more well known.

Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell opposes open carry of firearms March 2, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, disconcerting, episcopate, error, General Catholic, secularism, silliness, Society, technology.

Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell has a recent blog post in which he stresses a pretty strong opposition towards proposals to permit open carry of firearms in Texas.  I don’t have a real strong preference, provided some form of carry (open or concealed) be allowed, but I have experienced and can imagine a few scenarios when being allowed to demonstrate (open carry) a firearm in public would be at least more convenient, if not vitally necessary for security.  This blog post attracted a rare comment on Bishop Farrell’s blog, and I’ll include some of it because I’m 90% certain I know the author quite well.  Unfortunately, I have to disagree with most of His Excellency’s suppositions below, which, I remind, are personal reflections on a matter of prudential judgment and not binding on conscience:

People who are outspoken in defending their own rights for the most part are not equally interested in protecting the rights of others…particularly if they conflict with the right they are defending. Such is the case with the advocates of the open carrying of handguns and the concealed carrying of handguns on college campuses bills now on the floor of the Texas Senate. This narrow-minded advocacy reached a new level with the claim that open carrying of arms was a “right granted by God.” [Well……is not the safety and liberty of our persons not a right granted by God?  And since crime rates have dropped faster in right to carry states than those without such laws, it would seem that being able to carry a firearm legally – openly or not – is a way to secure a right granted by God.  The rhetoric may be a bit over the top, but it is not fundamentally false.]

Regardless of what other reasons are offered, open carrying of weapons is meant to intimidate, which violates the rights of other citizens to not be subjected to such behavior when going about their normal affairs. Guns are intended to kill or wound and their presence other than in hands of authorities are always intimidating to most of us. [Why does their presence in the hands of lawful citizens cause such fear and consternation, as opposed to being in the hands of the “authorities?”  There are a lot of presumptions in that statement, including: authorities are almost always better trained (false), authorities rarely abuse their power by being the sole openly armed individuals in a locality (false), authorities (LEOs) are obligated to respond when made aware of violent criminal acts in progress (false).  I would also argue against the idea that the sole intent of open carry is to intimidate. For me, seeing someone obviously calm and well disposed carrying a firearm openly tends to put me more at ease, and not freak me out]

At best, the right to openly carry any weapon, especially side arms, is a distortion of the constitutional right to bear arms and, at worst, it is legalized bullying, designed to intimidate fellow citizens. [IOW, guns are really icky and scary and I don’t like them?  I think there is more than a small bit of that sentiment here.  Is a small .380 in a holster more intimidating than an AR strapped across the back?  There are many strong arguments, with far more supporting evidence (rather than the bald assertions made here), that all forms of carry (open, concealed) are the fulfillment of the right to bear arms, and not a “distortion” of same.  Again, with all due respect and bearing in mind he comes from a country without as much a tradition of firearms ownership, I think the “icky and scary” factor is definitely at play here.]

We have law enforcement bodies and a military establishment charged with the protection of all citizens.  [Again, this is something of a chimera.  Police are not obligated to respond.  More often than not, they are there to pick up the pieces and conduct an investigation after a violent crime occurs. It’s an old but true cliche': when seconds count, the police are only minutes away – if they bother to come at all.  Talk to my friends in South Dallas about how fast police respond to calls for assistance there]  We no longer live in the Wild West where such established law and order bodies did not always exist. [This has nothing to do with the “Wild West,” which was actually far more peaceful and law abiding overall than our nation is today.  This has to do with personal safety and the rights of the individual to secure his person by all reasonable means.  Arguing it is not reasonable is one thing, pretending the right no longer applies is something else entirely] Open carry laws do not increase public safety; they diminish it and trample on the rights of peace-loving citizens who want law and order, not vigilante justice. [Bald, unsupported assertions, with a fair bit of calumny thrown in for good measure, associating lawful citizens exercise their a right with “vigilante justice.”]

As for the comment that was left:

In some regards I have to disagree with His Excellency’s opinion on this matter. While the carrying of arms openly in public is a means of intimidation, it’s intent is not to intimidate everyone only those who have evil intentions. This is the same reason why the authorities carry openly on their side as well…..As far as the Constitution is concerned, the right is to “bear” arms, which in its simplest explanation would be to carry them on one’s person, so the amendment is pretty simple that one can bear arms on their person which would also grant that person the right of ownership as well. To say that the existence of police negates the need for this ability due to civilizations progress from the old west, is naïve. One only has to turn to the news to see the murders and evil perpetuated on our streets on a daily basis to know that we haven’t progressed so much. This evil is a consequence of our fall from grace and while spreading the Gospel and praying for the poor souls is a sure way to bring remedy one should have the ability to protect one’s life at any given time from those who would do harm.

Many of the same points are expressed as I made above. As to the point regarding intimidation, again, I don’t fully agree that’s the point, or I don’t think that is the reason why people want to carry a firearm openly, in public.  I surely don’t find a holstered sidearm intimidating.  A lot of guys (and some gals) walk around with knives all the time, and I don’t find that intimidating.  Nor is that the reason I always carry one.  I use my knife every day.  It’s a tool. As a gun is a tool.

Anyway, now we know a little bit more about our bishop’s social and political dispositions.

You might find some other posts on Bishop Farrell’s blog revealing, as well.

Third Secret of Fatima and the failure to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart March 2, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Christendom, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, martyrdom, Our Lady, paganism, Papa, persecution, Saints, scandals, secularism, shocking, Society, the struggle for the Church.

Many faithful Catholics feel – for many reasons, and it’s certainly a strong point of contention – that Our Lady’s command to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart has never been properly fulfilled.  Yes, there have been consecrations, but they did not follow the formula or include all the elements Our Lady expressed at Fatima.Louis_XIV_(Mignard)

I use that comment as an introduction to another, strikingly similar situation, which is Our Lord’s communication to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque that the sovereign of France – at that time, Louis XIV – must explicitly consecrate France to His Sacred Heart and take other certain steps as evidence of that consecration (such as building a national basilica explicitly dedicated to the Sacred Heart, seeking permission for a national Feast to the Sacred Heart, etc).  Saint Margaret Mary inveighed upon her superiors in the Order of the Visitation to contact Louis XIV to inform him of this command, and the evidence strongly suggests this contact was made, repeatedly.  But Louis XIV never acted.  For whatever reason, whether want of faith, concern over the prudence of the matter, belief that the time was not yet “ripe” since the apparitions had at that point not been formally endorsed by the Church…….the consecration never occurred.  It never occurred during Louis XV’s time, either.download (8)

So, over 100 years passed, and the fearful vengeance of Our Blessed Lord then fell upon France and the monarchy in the form of the French Revolution.  The Church was persecuted as never before in a Catholic country.  Satanic acts were everywhere, the faithful suffered horribly, and the plight endured by priests and religious was unspeakable.  Our Lord had informed Saint Margaret Mary that things would not go well for France if His command was not obeyed. There was a special inference to the destruction of the monarchy, should those given such awesome power and privilege by the Hand of God would not be obedient to His demand.  And even on a strictly human level, the fact that the Faith had grown so distorted under generations of Gallicanism and the baleful influence of Jansenism, where a cold, sterile, and crushing legalism sucked the lifeblood of the Church (charity) away, without a visible commitment to re-center the Church in the living seat of Our Lord’s loving Heart, the mass practice of the Faith in France was in a perilous state, anyway.  More and more souls developed a resentment towards the hard, unyielding demands of Jansenist priests and bishops, and in their ardor, turned away from the very Church Herself.  All that was needed was a spark to start a conflagration that would threaten to consume the execlouisentire Church in France, and very nearly did.

The third heir of this command from Our Lord, King Louis XVI, was of course swept along by events.  Far from a great king, he was also far from a bad man.  Languishing in prison awaiting his inevitable execution, Louis XVI poured out his heart to Our Lord in the form of a promissory note, wherein Louis took the solemn vow to finally consecrate France to Our Lord’s Sacred Heart should he be restored as sovereign of France.  This note promised satisfaction of all Our Lord’s demands, including the formal consecration in union with bishops and Pope, the establishment of a national feast to the Sacred Heart on the First Friday after the Octave of the Blessed Sacrament, public processions imploring forgiveness of the Sacred Heart, the repudiation and removal of all the terribly repressive acts taken against the Church by the revolutionary government, annual renewal of the consecration, the construction of a basilica to the Sacred Heart, etc.  In short, every detail of Our Lord’s revelation to St. Margaret Mary was to be satisfied.

Sadly, it was too late.  100 years to the day had been given to satisfy this “request,” and it had not occurred. On June 17, 1789, the all-powerful monarchy ruling France was terminated, forever.  Louis XVI promised to make a consecration in 1791 while imprisoned, but he had no power to put that promise into effect.  So he died, as did so many others, and the Revolution continued on its course until it consumed its own and was replaced with a tyranny – a tyranny that then not only afflicted France, but almost all of Europe, and spread France’s errors around the world.

Since that time, Saint Margaret Mary has been canonized, a national basilica to the Sacred Heart constructed, but still, there has been – to my Sacred Heart-1knowledge – no consecration.  Of course, there is no longer to perform such an act, but even the various democratic (and not) governments which have ruled France since the Revolution have not taken such an act in the name of the people.  The closest this came to occurring was when a small subset of the National Assembly informally embraced the Sacred Heart at a major pilgrimage to Paray, the location of the convent where St. Margaret Mary Alacoque lived and where her relics remain today.  That act seems to have been incomplete.

It struck me when reading about this in The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque that this failure to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart represents, in microcosm (as a quite literal type), the situation surrounding Our Lady’s command that Russian be consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart.  In both cases, in spite of continuing arguments, it seems that this direct command has not been obeyed, or not observed in all its critical details, and that the disasters promised to come in the wake of a failure to obey have indeed happened.  The Church in France, after enjoying a brief resurgence in the 1800s, is as secularized and moribund as any in the world today, especially in its institutions.  A pretty strong argument could ThirdSecretbe constructed that what happened to France is now occurring to the Church throughout the world, as the “errors of Russia” (shorthand for leftism generally) spread and even inculcate themselves in the Church, as we see the Church suffering more and more egregious persecutions and as more and more souls grow cold, disinterested, and even fall away from the Faith.  Our Lady has repeatedly warned of a diabolical disorientation in the Church’s hierarchy and grave disasters that will afflict the world if the Church does not take some great leap of Faith, if Her leadership does not turn away from worldly considerations and plainly, simply obey Her command.

The price of failure in both consecrations was prophesied to be mass suffering on a natural and supernatural level, suffering unprecedented in the life of the Church.

Such has already occurred in France. Must it occur in the world at large, as well?

Some fascinating (and frightening) details on the above:

At Rianjo, Spain in August 1931, Our Lord communicated to Sister Lucy His dissatisfaction with the Pope’s and the Catholic bishops’ failure to obey His command to consecrate Russia. He said:

Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My requests, they will follow him into misfortune. It is never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.

The reference by Jesus to the King of France’s disobedience and punishment is as follows:

On June 17, 1689 the Sacred Heart of Jesus manifested to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque His command to the King of France that the King was to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart. For 100 years to the day the Kings of France delayed, and did not obey.

So on June 17, 1789 the King of France was stripped of his legislative authority by the upstart Third Estate, and four years later the soldiers of the French Revolution executed the King of France as if he were a criminal.

In 1793 France sent its King, Louis XVI, to the guillotine. He and his predecessors had failed to obey Our Lord’s request that France be consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and thus misfortune had befallen both the King and his country.

German bishops threaten schism February 27, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Christendom, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, Papa, pr stunts, Sacraments, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, shocking, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.

I imagine most readers have already seen the report on Rorate, coming out of the German bishop’s annual conference, that they are basically threatening schism over the matter of Communion for divorced and remarried but unanulled Catholics (those who persist in a state of adultery/fornication).

It may be my hopeful side, but I see this as perhaps a tactic to try to manipulate the Synod into accepting the German position.  Post-conciliar history shows that threats of schism are extremely effective.  The Dutch bishops threatened to go into schism over Communion in the hand, and an ostensibly reluctant Pope Paul VI yielded.  There are other examples, as well.  In fact, it is reported that threats of schism rendered neuter a goodly number of attempts during the JPII/Benedict era to re-instill doctrinal discipline.

Having said that, the rhetoric below is pretty heated.  It may be just that, but, reading carefully, it is obvious the German bishops are already in schism, at least in terms of professed belief.  My Lord how they have deluded themselves in believing that permitting this mass sin and sacrilege will keep them in their billions of euros of Church tax money.  As a commenter said recently, money is the root of all evil.  Amazing:

.. Reinhard Cardinal Marx underlined in view of the family synod in autumn the bishops’ attempt to “go down new paths” and to “help that doors be opened”. In the universal church there were “certain expectations” of Germany. [for repeated manifest heresy, the systematic murder of millions, and just about every disastrous, anti-Christian philosophy to emerge in the last 500 years?] He hoped that some questions could already be tackled before the synod, Marx told journalists in Hildesheim on Tuesday [Feb 24].
The synod would have to find a text that would “further encourage” discussion and find a common position in fundamental questions. Doctrinally, one would remain within the community of the [Universal]Church, but in detailed questions of pastoral care “the synod cannot prescribe in detail what we must do in Germany”. Therefore, the bishops wanted to publish their own pastoral letter on marriage and family after the synod. It was not the duty of the bishops to wait for permissions[And Luther did not wait for approval from Rome to begin his “reforms,” either]
“We are no subsidiaries of Rome. [Wow. FU universal Church] Each conference of bishops is responsible for pastoral care in its culture, and must, as its most proper task, preach the Gospel on our own. We cannot wait for a synod to tell us how we have to shape pastoral care for marriage and family here”.  [And thus we see the grave disorder – one might even say evil – of the post-conciliar system of national episcopal conferences made manifest]
According to the German bishops’ position, the reality of life constitutes an important factor for the doctrine of the Church.[Luther said just about exactly the same, did he not?] “We also learn from life in doctrine,” underlined Cardinal Marx. Franz-Josef Bode, Bishop of Osnabrück, called in this context the synod “historically important.” According to his view the participants do not only debate questions of marriage and family, but the possibility of a paradigm shift.
The basic question was, are only Scripture or Tradition sources for theological understanding, or are [such sources] also “the reality of men and of the world.”[That question has been answered definitively over 2000 years. I would say even asking the question implies heresy, if it is not manifest evidence of such]  [Bode,] The chairman of the pastoral commission of the bishops’ conference reminded his audience of the “dialogical structure” of reality, which had already been mentioned in the pastoral constitution “Gaudium et Spes” of Vatican II, and quotes this conciliar document: “there is nothing truly human, that has no resonance in their hearts.” Thus Bode concludes: “Not only does the Christian message have to find resonance with men, but also men must find resonance with us.” Bode stated that it was important for him that the Sacrament [of the Eucharist] was not only a sign of unity, but also a means to unity, and could contribute to healing.
Cardinal Marx announced a bishops’ statement on the synod that should be published within the upcoming weeks.
I have feared for this Synod for a very long time, but now that fear is doubled.  If anything could have moved the Synod in the direction of the Germans, it would be threat of schism. So, they’ve played their ultimate trump card, and very publicly. I think that does mean they were highly concerned, even doubtful, the Ordinary Synod this fall would go in their preferred direction.  So now they openly profess to break the unity of the Church, and assert German dominance over Christ’s One Mystical Body.  Incredible.
I am out of time. I am interested (and hopeful) to see Cardinal Burke’s response to this.  We need strong leaders now more than ever.  Pray for him, that he may be that.

She is the very model of the modern Catholic school product February 27, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, scandals, secularism, self-serving, shocking, sickness, Society.

……..has no information animal but spouts gender the-o-ry.

I won’t spoil the surprise.  You have to watch and see for yourself – especially from 1:10 on – what are probably pretty close to the median views of the median graduate of the Catholic school system in North America today:

As Stacy McCain said, “You had me at pansexual.”

I swear I have seen this girl 100 times before, up close and in person.  It’s like they come out of a factory: the same shrill, smug superiority, the same aping of all the most trendy leftist shibboleths of the moment, the same superciliousness, even the same voice and the same appearance.  And always, always the stupid chants (a long time far-left tactic to prevent too much thought, and to prevent uncomfortable questions from being asked) and the omnipresent bullhorn.

As if you needed another reason to homeschool.

Catholic schools in Ontario for much of the 00’s taught a deeply disordered and highly perverse perversion indoctrination curriculum at the behest of the Ontario government.  It was briefly overturned (covered here), but is coming roaring back under the very liberal, very lesbian new premiere of Ontario.  The curriculum includes such disgusting topics as the below:

Did you know that Grade 8s will have to “demonstrate a full understanding” of terms like “two-spirited,” and the difference between “transsexual” and “transgendered”?

From “anal fluid” to the “nine genders,” it’s obvious that this curriculum is pushing a political agenda, not a scientific one.

And that’s really just the beginning.  There is a lot more below:

I’m sorry, I cannot see this as being anything but grooming and indoctrination, with a minimal goal of insuring all children grow up with a thorough acceptance of perversion as normal and fully equal in the eyes of God and everyone else to normal marital relations, and to turn as many young people as possible onto these “alternative lifestyles.”  And the best part is, YOU (in Canada) are paying for this.

Man have leftists managed to cobble together one heckuva of a social revolution machine, formed by them, administered by them, advertised in the media by them, and paid for………by you.

PS – I should have added, it seemed to me a lot of the group protesting this new sexual indoctrination curriculum were probably not Catholic. There were quite a few muslims and a good number of eastern Europeans (Russians?) in the mix.  Hard to tell, but I didn’t get the impression of a heavy Catholic presence with Rosaries, crucifixes, etc.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 500 other followers