There’s just no end with these people. Everything must be bent to serve the agenda or narrative, no matter how preposterous, no matter how blasphemous. There is no limit to the depths to which they will stoop in order to justify their depraved views and endless diabolical narcissism. Amazingly, these are the people who are utterly convinced they are the “good guys,” and we, who observe the moral creed that build Western civilization, the bad.
So, with total inevitability, we are now treated to screeds (safe link) arguing that the Christ is “transgender,” so look how wrong you are with your outdated morality and your hate-filled bigotry, Christofascist. Even more inevitably, the author of this demonic bile is a professor of “theological ethics” at the, ahem, Catholic university of Villanova:
Since Jesus had no human biological father, and since God, his heavenly Father, lacks a body, then Jesus was a man who likely had no Y chromosome. Would this not make Jesus more like a transgender person than a cis-gender one? We could grant Jesus a Y chromosome, but then we would have to assign his virgin mother Mary one as well. Either way, the miracle of sex-less conception suggests that Jesus can qualify as a “real man” only if Mary qualifies as something less than a “real woman.” (And I hope you can tell I that I am using quotation marks in order to signal extreme sarcasm).
I think the professor needs to go back to class. As if we needed another damning indictment of the Catholic colleges in this country. Wait till you see how Milo Yiannopolous was treated at “Catholic” DePaul yesterday.
As writer David French at NRO notes, this is probably less a serious effort to advocate some ludicrously insupportable new claim, than it is a part of that favorite left-wing pastime of virtue signalling and insulting the faithful:
None of this is intellectually or theologically serious, of course. It’s trolling for the sophisticated and deception for the simple. For elitist readers, it’s the kind of “ha ha look what we can do to Christian teachings” piece they love to share amongst themselves as “proof” that you can make any kind of argument from the Bible. For the vulnerable, it’s a quick Google search away from basic assurance that Christ is cool with their transition. [In other words, it’s all about serving the agenda, which is really about giving leftists their “sacred” good feelz, no matter how many have to get hurt in the process]
Oh, and it’s also blasphemous. But no big deal – it’s not like the authors were arguing that Mohammed was transgender. That would be disrespectful. Everyone knows that Mohammed was a revered religious figure, and it’s just wrong to hurt or anger his followers.
Great point. We can be assured this author would never DARE to insult the leader of a great religion like islam. But all progressives know, Christianity is not a great religion, it’s the deadly enemy of their substitute religion, leftism. And it must be destroyed at all costs. That has been the objective of leftism since its inception, and I continue to maintain that leftists will happily don the hijab and see their daughters (the few they allow to be born) in harems when the time comes.
Another blithering idiot is trying to claim that Eve was a trans woman, because she was born from Adam’s side, and thus must have had a Y chromosome. As if the Lord and Creator of the universe could not – and does not – raise up new life from dust. Can you imagine the insufferable pride that causes a person to limit God’s power to the present, inherently faulty state of human knowledge? Preposterous doesn’t begin to describe it. Only diabolical disorientation could result in such willful blindness and catastrophic illogic.
These are endlessly wicked, sick, and hate-filled people. The joy they experience in blaspheming Christ and constantly attacking His religion is palpable in their works. There’s a term for that – the reprobate sense. It is a terrible, terrible place to be (I’ve been there), a place where right and wrong are literally inverted, where lies become truth and Truth a lie. It is a sign of demonic oppression and it is mind-blowing that Catholic universities would employ individuals who give such obvious signs of hatred for God and His Church.
Mind-blowing, that is, if one operates from the assumption that those charged with overseeing Catholic universities – the bishops – possess the Faith themselves. An assumption that is all but inoperable in these dark days.
LMS Chairman: Sacrosanctum Concilium a self-contradictory document unsuited for guiding liturgical reform May 24, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, secularism, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
1 comment so far
Joseph Shaw, chair of the Latin Mass Society in England, has penned a piece for Rorate Caeli noting the massive contradictions that riddle the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. What can be said about Sacrosanctum Concilium can be said about every document of Vatican II, which is that they are less clear pronunciations on the Doctrine of the Faith for all ages, than they are the transcripts of a very heated debate that took place at particular place and time, and which was never resolved. Thus, aspects of other documents of Vatican II seem bizarrely out of date.
I have long argued that the documents of VII are documents at war with themselves, filled with rather banal declarations of orthodoxy weakened with caveats that permitted the entry of mass amounts of destructive novelty. Or, vague statements permitting endless novelty “corrected” by weak endorsements of the constant belief and practice of the Faith. It reads like a debate in which the orthodox, unable to articulate the Doctrine of the Faith cogently, fought a rearguard action of damage limitation. Their efforts were largely unsuccessful, almost entirely because the conciliar popes sided overwhelmingly with the progressives, and so we have what we have today, a Church riven by discord, but with the progressives firmly in command. One could even argue that the documents of Vatican II are so riven with self-contradiction that they create an environment in which endless debate will be the inevitable result. Feature or bug?
Shaw makes some very good points, and demonstrates how both SC, and the conciliar and post-conciliar popes, have at various times endorsed both liturgical orthodoxy and dangerous innovation, which are well worth reading and considering. I’ll skip over those, and note his general summaries, which correspond very closely with my own thinking (which means he must be right, of course):
Liturgical conservatives and progressives argue endlessly about this. Their argument will never be resolved, both because Sacrosanctum Concilium was and the subsequent magisterium has been self-contradictory, but also because neither side in the debate is willing to be honest about the historical facts. I am sorry to be harsh, but having read the output of both sides of the debate over a number of years, it is time it was said.
First, Sacrosantum Concilium: how is it self-contradictory? It makes few concrete suggestions, but it does make some. It calls for wider use of the vernacular (63); the removal of ‘useless repetition’ (34), and a more ‘lavish’ presentation of the Scriptures in the readings, arranged over a ‘prescribed number of years’ (51). It leaves further details to local initiative and an official commission. On the other hand, it says (23):
There must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.
It is perfectly obvious that the this double condition is not satisfied by the concrete suggestions the document itselfmakes. There is no precedent in the liturgical tradition of the Church, in any Rite, for a multi-year lectionary, and to suggest that such a thing could grow ‘organically’ out of a single-year lectionary is obviously absurd. There is no precedent for a mixing of Latin and the vernacular in the liturgy, or for the liturgy to be translated into dozens of vernaculars for different countries. The principle militating against ‘useless repetition’ is entirely foreign to the Church’s liturgical tradition. And none of these changes could possibly, in advance, be said to be required ‘genuinely and certainly’ by the good of the Church.
From this fundamental self-contradiction, you can draw any conclusion you like. Perhaps the ‘general principle’ of section 23 should control our interpretation of the specific examples of reforms; perhaps it is the other other way around. The fact is, there is no coherent programme of reform in Sacrosanctum Concilium. Let’s not engage in make-believe. It is a compromise document with provisions pointing in different directions.
It was, however, interpreted by those appointed to interpret it, and the Novus Ordo Missae was signed off by Pope Paul VI. So what liturgical style are we guided towards by the official documents, documents of the ‘living magisterium’ as the conservatives like to call them, which accompanied and followed the promulgation of the new missal?…….
……..We need to face the fact: the magisterium’s own interpretation of Sacrosanctum Concilium is a moving target. It was quite different in the 1970s than it was by the mid 1990s. Who knows where it will be in ten years?
…….Those seeking, in Conciliar and post-conciliar documents, guidance on liturgical principles, with a view to the way Mass should be celebrated, and perhaps with a view to future reform, should stop right here. There is no single, coherent, vision of the liturgy in these documents. There is, instead, a debate. In the end, one side of this debate must win, and the other side must lose. [It’s been heavily back and forth since the 60s, as Shaw indicates in text not excerpted. The modernists dominated from the 60s through the 80s, but then the conservatives gained a stronger position in the 90s and 00s, not that much changed, practically speaking.]
I would like to appeal to the ‘reform of the reform’ writers, and to the progressives on Pray Tell and elsewhere: stop accusing each other (and traditional Catholics) of contradicting authoritative documents and the ‘real’ principles of Vatican II. On this subject, arguments from authority will get us nowhere.
The only way to think with the Church on the liturgy is to take a longer view: to look at what the Church has done, not over a few decades, but over millennia. The very idea of doing this, of course, contradicts the claim that everything up to 1965 was bad. But it is that idea, rather than an honest appraisal of the modern liturgical documents considered here, that is really troubling for the doctrine of the indefectability of the Church. If the Church was wrong up to 1965, why pay any attention to what she has said since then?
If you read through the entire piece, do you also come away with the impression that Shaw is recommending this: since Vatican II and the post-conciliar leadership have been blatantly contradictory on the Liturgy since 1965, we should mostly ignore their pronouncements and go back to the Church’s ancient understanding of the Mass and other Sacraments?
If so, that’s certainly something I can agree with. Not so much “rejecting” Vatican II, which has always been a meaningless canard, since the documents contain thousands of statements which can be twisted to say just about anything one wants them to, but ignoring the heterodox, novel portions therein. I’ve always favored the Japanese term mokusatsu, “to kill with silence.”
In fact, Shaw’s take is pretty sympathetic. A stronger stand would be that revolutionaries planned and/or hijacked a council, and targeted the Liturgy as their prime means of remaking the Faith. In other words, different religion.
All I know is, I plan on never assisting at a Novus Ordo again. I’m going to be in San Antonio next weekend. If there is no diocesan TLM, I’m going to St. Joseph’s.
I’m reading a very good book containing St. Francis de Sales writings against the protestants of the Chablais from the 16th century. These pamphlets were combined into book form under the title The Catholic Controversy. St. Francis is a very thorough writer whose pamphlets tend to be quite complex. As such, they are not easy to condense to blog post length. I’ve been meaning for weeks to try to share some of this content with you, but I’ve had a hard time finding excerpts of appropriate length that would still be understandable.
Deo Gratias, I believe I’ve found some in the chapters on protestant butchery of Sacred Scripture in order to justify their false beliefs. This is quite key, and really shocking, in that protestants who claim to rely on Scripture as the sole rule of Faith, in fact excluded many books (for reasons that are false, as St. Francis clearly demonstrates) specifically because they contained matters of belief they refused to accept! That is to say, they did not start out honestly examining Scripture and somehow found that books present in the Canon of Scripture since the 4th century were somehow false or “apocryphal,” quite the contrary, they started with false beliefs and then modified Scripture to only support those beliefs. Furthermore, in addition to excluding various Old Testament books, they also edited the content of others that they retained, even including the New Testament.
With that background, the great Doctor of the Church, St. Francis de Sales (my emphasis and comments):
What likelihood is there that the Holy Spirit has hidden Himself from all antiquity, and that after 1500 years he has disclosed to certain private persons the list of the true Scriptures? For our part we follow exactly the list of the Council of Laodicea, with the addition made at the Councils of Carthage and Florence. Never will a man of judgment leave these Councils to follow the persuasions of private individuals. Here, then, is the fountain and source of all the violations which have been made of this holy rule; namely, when people have taken up the fancy of not receiving it save by the measure and rule of the inspirations which each one believes and thinks he feels. [One of satan’s most effective traps, getting pious souls to assert their own judgment over that passed on by the Church Fathers. So much destructive has man’s pride in his own intellect – or, worse, his feelz – wrought!]
Now, how can an honest soul refrain from giving the rein to the ardor of a holy zeal and form entering into a Christian anger, without sin, considering with what presumption those who do nothing but cry Scripture, Scripture, have despised, degraded, and profaned this divine Testament of the eternal Father, as they have falsified this sacred contract of so glorious an alliance! O ministers of Calvinism, how do you dare to cut away so many noble parts of the Bible?! You take away Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Machabees, why do you thus dismember the Holy Scripture? Who has told you that they are not sacred? There was some doubt about them in the ancient Church but was there not doubt in the ancient Church about Esther, the Epistle to the Hebrews, those of St. James and St. Jude, the Second of St. Peter, the last two of St. John, and especially of the Apocalypse? Why do you not also erase these as you have done those [that is, the books of Scripture they excluded] ?
Acknowledge honestly that what you have done in this has only been in order to contradict the Church. You were angry at seeing in the Machabees the intercession of the Saints and prayers for the departed; Ecclesiasticus stung you in that it bore witness to free will and the honor of relics. Rather than do violence to your notions, adjusting them to the Scriptures, you have violated the Scriptures to accommodate them to your notions; you have cut off the holy Word to avoid cutting off your fancies……Open your heart to the Faith and you will receive that which your unbelief shuts out from you. Because you do not will to believe what they teach, you condemn them; rather, condemn your presumption and receive the Scripture………. [de Sales has it right. Protestants are loathe to admit it, though]
[We now switch subjects from excluding books from the Canon of Scripture, to deliberately flawed biblical translations]
…….Your fine church has not contented itself with cutting off from the Scripture entire books, chapters, sentences, and words, but what it has not dared to cut off altogether it has corrupted and violated by its translations…….In our age, behold arise a thick mist created by the spirit of giddiness, which has so led astray these refurbishers of old opinions formerly current, that everybody has wanted to drag, one to this side, one to that, and always according to the inclination of his own judgment, this holy and sacred Scripture of God…….[in this way] as soon as we are assured that the ordinary edition [The Latin Vulgate] of the Church is so out of shape that it must be built up again anew, and that a private man is to set his hand to it and begin the process, the door is open to presumption……[Upon which, all of protestant opinion is built]
[After demonstrating how protestants mistranslated key bits of Scripture, for instance, Lk xxii:20, trying to pretend that Christ’s Sacrifice was only spiritual or allegorical by changing the words of Scripture]……You see something, then, of the violence and profanation your ministers do and offer to the Scriptures; what think you of their ways? What will become of us if everybody takes leave, as soon as he knows two words of Greek, and letters in Hebrew, thus to turn everything topsy turvy? I have therefore shown you what I promised, that this first rule of our faith has been and still is most sadly violated in your pretended church, and that you may know it to be a property of heresy thus to dismember the Scriptures, I will close this part of my subject with what Tertullian says, speaking of the sects of his time: “This heresy” [of the gnostics],” says he, “does not receive some of the Scriptures; and if it receives some it does not receive them whole…..and what it receives in a certain sense whole, it still perverts, devising various interpretations…….” [earlier in the book, de Sales demonstrated how virtually every major heresy of protestantism was simply the recreation of some ancient heresy. There is nothing new under the sun, or Son]
Thank you Lord for sending us great Saints like St. Francis de Sales, to refute the errors of heretics and shine the light of Truth on their errors. His words are so apropos to our own time, too, when so many in the Church have fallen into protestant errors.
St. Francis later goes on to attack vernacular translations of the Bible as prone to causing division and confusion, in addition to the fundamental problem of translations serving as sources of error. You can imagine what he would think of the vernacular Mass, then!
The testimony of a Doctor like de Sales is all the testimony I need to find vernacular Mass severely wanting.
I also fully endorse his practice of ecumenism – converting protestants by the tens of thousands. One wonders what kind of place St. Francis de Sales would find in the Church today?
So the Filipinos have elected a new president, it seems, a man who has made numerous virulently anti-Catholic statements, and who promises to institute a “3 child policy” (I don’t believe he has specified what penalties will occur if families “violate” the policy), divorce on demand and government-funded contraception.
Apparently, his hostility to the Faith did not prevent a plurality of nominally Catholic Filipinos (where roughly 80% of the population today claims the name Catholic, down from over 95% about 20 years ago) from voting for him. As in so many countries, so-called Catholics vote in their own persecutors – assuming, of course, these self-described Catholics even view these anti-Catholic policies and tirades as being opposed to the Faith, which, of course, they don’t (my emphasis and comments):
Philippine President-elect Rodrigo Duterte said he will defy the Roman Catholic Church and seek to impose a three-child policy, putting him on a new collision course with the bishops a day after he called them “sons of whores”……..
……..Duterte’s often outrageous comments have won him huge support and his tirades about killing criminals and a joke about a murdered rape victim do not appear to have dented his popularity in the largely Catholic country.
“I only want three children for every family,” Duterte said on Sunday in Davao City. “I’m a Christian, but I’m a realist so we have to do something with our overpopulation. I will defy the opinion or the belief of the Church.”……[Not clear on if this “Christian” Duterte claims to be a Catholic or protestant. Indications are that it is the latter, which, surprise! A protestant advocating for draconian governmental interference into the most intimate of spheres, the size of family and relations between husband and wife]
…….On Saturday, he criticized the Church as the “most hypocritical institution”, meddling in government policies and said some bishops were enriching themselves at the expense of the poor. [So, opposition to your evil policies = “meddling in government policies?” How many other tyrants have said similarly over the years?]
“You sons of whores, aren’t you ashamed? You ask so many favors, even from me,” Duterte said in an interview broadcast by TV station GMA.
Monsignor Oliver Mendoza, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Lingayen, whose head is the president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, said the Church respected Duterte’s opinion [is that how you respond when someone calls your mother a whore? You “respect their opinion?” That’s not an opinion but an insult, and unworthy of respect. This is a major problem, an indication of leadership far too willing to bow to the secular authority, and its certainly not limited to the Philippines] but that it would continue to speak against government policies that are contrary to Church teaching. [But even after you have done your duty, say, we are unprofitable servants, for we have only done what was required of us]
…..Political analysts said they were not surprised at Duterte’s statements because some bishops spoke out against him during the election campaign. [Only some. Shocking, I know. And thus his successful election? So where does uber-progressive and Francis confidante Cardinal Tagle stand on this?]
“Like most liberal, secular politicians, Duterte is a deist,” said Joselito Zulueta of the University of Santo Tomas. “This in itself is a self-serving position conceived out of human conceit. He will do as he pleases except when he’s stopped by public criticism.” [Well, someone knows the truth! And a Catholic university professor, of all people! I need my fainting couch!]
He said Duterte’s government was expected to clash more with the Catholic Church not only on population issues, but on the restoration of death penalty, legalization of divorce and planned distribution of contraceptives. [Which, if it occurs, means legalizing abortion within a few years, to deal with the “problem” of contraceptive failure (which failures are guaranteed and frequent). Legalized abortion is also necessary to insure a “3 child policy.” You can see where this diabolical plot is headed]
And once again we see bishops expending their limited and dwindling political capital on matters like the death penalty, on which the Church has spoken clearly until the last 40 years or so. The state has always had the right of the sword, according to the Church, and while there may be prudential reasons to oppose the application of the death penalty in a given country either generally or on specific occasions, proclaiming it to be an intrinsic evil, as is generally done by Church leadership today, is simply not reconcilable with the Doctrine of the Faith.
That may sound like picking nits, but it’s not. For as many people as a particular bishop, or even Francis, may turn on by making prudential matters into dogmatic ones, or elevating the progressive political platform into a pretended doctrine, they turn at least that many more off. Even more, the confusion this causes undermines the Church’s moral authority in ALL spheres and can be a precipitating factor in souls falling away.
Which gets down to the root question: is this a feature or bug of the post-conciliar paradigm?
We have been blessed by a particular “problem” at our local FSSP parish. This church has grown like wildfire since it moved out of the convent and into its own facility, a converted Korean Methodist church that was rundown when bought but which has been restored to something quite nice. Since that time, roughly the beginning of 2010, the parish has at least doubled in attendance, with a fourth Sunday Mass added recently and more and more new faces showing up every week.
I don’t have updates on the latest Sunday attendance figures over Holy Week but I’m quite certain they are now surpassing 1000 souls per Sunday. That’s quite small by typical NO parish sizes, but makes our local parish perhaps the largest, in terms of weekly attendance, traditional parish in the world.
Mind, this is after two priests were permanently assigned to a parish in Fort Worth, 30 miles away, and two priests are also in Tyler, 90 miles away. The three priests at our parish are swamped, and there is talk of bringing in a fourth.
Which gets to my question – is there an optimal size for traditional parishes? Traditional Catholic parishes are much more than just the Mass, they are the community, they are the intimate involvement of the priests in every level of catechesis, they are Sacraments always offered by priests and not deacons, they are communities where the priests try to visit the homes of every parishioner at least once (and generally, more than that). This is to say, a priest at a traditional parish is a true father to the souls in his charge, attempting to know all the families at least a little bit and taking great concern over the state of their souls.
As such, at a certain size, no matter how many priests are assigned, can a traditional parish not outgrow itself? Would it not be better to build a new parish to split some of the congregation off? Is that not what the Church did for centuries? And weren’t most parishes, outside the largest urban areas, smaller in attendance than the (it must be said) ludicrous situations we have today, where two priests supposedly supply pastoral care to a notional 15,000 families?
To me, the situation in Dallas is getting to the point where serious consideration for a second traditional parish should be underway. It is not unforeseeable that the current parish could have 2000 people assisting on a given Sunday within a decade, after the new church gets built (as we’ve outgrown the one acquired in 2010). Even with 3 confessionals, can you imagine the lines?!
Add to that the factor that many souls drive 20, 30, 50, even 100 miles to assist at Mass. Much of the parish attendance comes from the northern suburbs, and I’m positive that should a second Fraternity or other traditional parish open in Plano or McKinney, there would be no problem with attendance or funding. But would Bishop Farrell allow it? I keep hearing the words of a local diocesan (non-FSSP) priest ringing in my ears – “the Traditional Mass will never be offered in this diocese outside Mater Dei.”
What do you think? Do you agree that traditional parishes are best if they don’t grow beyond a certain size? Believe me, this is not a “I want this to myself” complaint, I constantly invite folks to Mater Dei, but I’m concerned that much of what makes a traditional parish special can be lost if it becomes too much of a behemoth. I think there is also a practical benefit in having more than one location, as there are more than a few folks who would assist at a TLM were it 10 minutes away, instead of 45 minutes to an hour. Might not four priests spread among 2 parishes not result in more folks assisting at the TLM than four priests at one parish? Isn’t bringing more souls back to the traditional practice of the Faith, and giving them the best shot at Heaven, the point of it all?
But really, it’s mine all MINE and I want you OUT!
Federal Judge Sidney Fitzwater issued a judgment early this morning declaring the Dallas’ City Council’s refusal to permit a repeat of last year’s disastrous Exxxotica pornucopia to be legal and constitutional. Please be aware of the link, there are manifestly immoral images. Note also, Dallas Morning News opinionist Robert Wilonsky is a secular pagan leftist, or at the least leans heavily that way. His coverage is far from unbiased (he leans in favor of the “expo”).
I did not get to cover during my break from blogging the news that Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings, and the majority of the City Council, had moved to block the “sexpo” from recurring. This was in the face of very strong public opposition to this immoral activity, where, it is reported, instances of public nudity, immoral acts, and prostitution were observed. It has not been reported, yet, whether Exxxotica will attempt to appeal this decision. What the decision does mean, however, is that the event planned for next month has been definitively cancelled:
A federal judge has decided the Dallas City Council is within its rights to ban a sex expo from returning to the city-owned convention center.
In a 32-page opinion issued early Thursday, U.S. District Judge Sidney Fitzwater denied Exxxotica’s request for a preliminary injunction, which was filed in February after seven members of the Dallas City Council sided with Mayor Mike Rawlings’ resolution banning the porn expo from returning to the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center.
Exxxotica had hoped to return next month, following last August’s Dallas debut. Today’s ruling means that will not happen.
Exxxotica might appeal the ruling, or simply allow the case to go to trial. We are awaiting comment from its attorneys and organizers.
In a prepared statement, Rawlings said he was “pleased” with the judge’s decision, and said that w”hile this case is not over and this ruling does not guarantee what would happen at trial, I am extremely proud of the seven City Council members who had the courage to support this ban.”…..
…….“As lawyers who litigate constitutional issues, we were convinced that Exxxotica was advancing a unjustifiably expansive view of the First Amendment,” said Rob Walters, who represents the Dallas Citizens Council, which last week filed an amicus brief in support of the city’s position. “We applaud Judge Fitzwater for his careful and well-reasoned opinion and Mayor Rawlings and General Paxton and the State of Texas for their leadership on this important issue.”
Paxton added in a prepared statement that he was “happy to join the Dallas Citizens Council in this effort that allows the city of Dallas to be a place where businesses can continue to flourish.”
I’d like to thank, without naming them, the local parishioners who made up part of the legal team defending the City Council decision. Dallas’ city attorneys, in another display of the pernicious infiltration of leftists into every imaginable nook and cranny of governance at all levels, had refused to defend the case in court, finding the ban supposedly unconstitutional. Thus, the city has had to retain private attorneys to argue the case.
I’d like to also note that, contra the rhetoric we’ve heard from city officials in Oklahoma City, it does seem a city can fight a First Amendment case and even win, from time to time. Prior to all the atrocities committed by satanists against the Lord, His Mother, and His Church in OKC, we were told repeatedly by the mayor and other elected officials that it was simply impossible to stop a black mass or a desecration of a statue of Our Lady because, ummm……First Amendment! That was always bullocks, as I argued at the time, cities certainly do argue First Amendment cases all the time. We can see from the above that the black mass especially could have been blocked, as it occurred on city property. The fact of the matter is, the WILL to stop the blasphemy from occurring did not exist.
I remain convinced that the heavily evangelical OKC leadership simply did not care to stop this blasphemy due to their latent anti-Catholic bias. Had it been a more protestant ox being gored, the reaction may well have been different.
I feel I now have even more evidence to support that supposition. I, therefore, continue to believe that Oklahoma City is a hotbed of seething anti-Catholic bigotry, and should be boycotted by all faithful souls to the maximum extent possible.
I should add that it was up to Catholic laity (and other Christians and even secular groups) to oppose this moral monstrosity. Bishop Farrell was silent, as usual, presumably because the matter did not touch on prudential matters such as guns or immigration, only acts which can send souls to hell for all eternity. One must have one’s priorities, after all.
More like this: great videos of Bishop Gracida, including a challenge to the faithful to call out heresy during Mass April 19, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, manhood, sanctity, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
I’ve admired Bishop Rene Gracida Emeritus of Corpus Christi since learning about him shortly after founding this blog. I was really pleased to learn that because of severe deficiencies he has observed in the Novus Ordo, he only offers the TLM anymore.
Michael Voris has done a good service in posting several Vortex episodes featuring Bishop Gracida. If the Church had far more shepherds like him over the past several decades (he actually excommunicated pro-aborts), the Church and world would be a far better place.
Some of the info below is biographical, some is timely, and some is inspirational. Take a few minutes and watch all the videos if you have not already seen them:
OK, I think he undersells matters a bit here regarding Vatican II, but this condemnation is much further than the vast majority of bishops would go:
Now, I really like the idea Bishop Gracida proposes in the video below. It would take rather weighty stones, but we’re in desperate need of calling a spade a spade in the Church today:
So what do you think of that? Should laity start calling out – even in the midst of the Holy Sacrifice- when priests or even bishops promote error, heresy, or abuse? Some might be aghast at the idea of interrupting the sanctity of the Mass, but I can say such interruptions did occur in the early Church, especially in the East. There were a large number of liturgies at Hagia Sophia interrupted by scandalized laity calling out the proclamations of heretical leadership, especially during the iconoclast heresy.
I can say, I’ve been tempted to do so in the past. I never assist at locales where heresy and abuse is taught from the pulpit anymore, but I think, at the point of extremis in which the Church finds herself, such drastic action should not be dismissed out of hand. You don’t need to go charging up to the altar mid-Mass if the priest’s maniple is not tied right, but if Father Dudebro starts waxing about sodomite “love wins” or that the pope has declared divorce to be A-OK for the universal Church………well, we have to push back at some point, don’t we? Of course, prudence must guide all and perhaps first attempts should be made at counseling the offender, but for those who recalcitrantly refuse to stop preaching the errors of newchurch, I think such an intervention could certainly be called for.
Always remember: shame works. There is very little that motivates like shame, and avoidance of it. I believe the collapse of shame as a motivator has played a significant role in the accelerating downfall of the West. Now, a strong adherence to ideology can insulate someone from shame, as can having a lot of support from a captive audience, but I have to believe a few public shamings of heresy would have a chilling effect on its being proclaimed abroad. An interesting experiment to conduct, at any rate.
Bishop Gracida continues to amaze and impress at over 90 years of age. He looks like he could go another 20. Ad multos annos.
Francis, asked about “new concrete possibilities” for Church Doctrine, answers “Yes. Period.” April 18, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, disaster, episcopate, Francis, horror, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
Hilary White has gone apoplectic over this, and I can see why. Francis was directly asked a very specific question by American Church-insider blogger Francis Rocca regarding change to what Rocca calls the “discipline” (it’s not mere discipline, it’s solemn Doctrine, but we can see how the constant apologists will be framing this matter, redefining Doctrine down to discipline) in the matters of morality touched on by Amoris Laetitia, and especially as it relates to those persisting in adulterous “unions.” The answer was very clear and to the point, but I’ll let you decide for yourself:
Today on the plane press conference on the way back to Rome from Greece, Pope Francis was asked a very direct question about the exhortation*:
Some maintain that nothing has changed with respect to the discipline that governs the access to the Sacraments for the divorced and remarried, and that the law and the pastoral practice and obviously the doctrine remains the same; others maintain instead that much has changed and that there are many new openings and possibilities. The question is for one person, a Catholic, that wants to know: Are there new concrete possibilities, that did not exist before the publication of the Exhortation or not.
His answer, though it went on longer, contained a straightforward affirmation:
“I can say yes.” (“Posso dire di sì“)
And that “yes” was immediately followed with a “punto,” meaning “period.” As in yes, period, or yes, damnit, I’m the Bishop of Rome, and I can do whatever I want.
Intent is the key to everything in the moral sphere. Asked directly if he intended to change Church “discipline” – and again, this is not a matter of discipline, but touches on a command straight from Our Blessed Lord’s own mouth – Francis did not equivocate. “New concrete possibilities” has been, for 50 years now, post-conciliar Church-speak for radical change. You can draw your own conclusions.
Now I kind of doubt Francis or the Vatican will issue clear commands to admit manifest adulterers to the Blessed Sacrament. He and his allies may be that bold, but I imagine they’ll just let events play out as they know they will – it will be the national conferences that will issue “guidelines” demanding/recommending/permitting the divorced and remarried (without annulments) to the Blessed Sacrament. Very soon this “permission” will become de rigeuer, and essentially mandatory, like Communion in the hand, god-awful protestant hymns, and barring Latin from the Mass. And I strongly doubt it will stop there. It is an open question whether the Ecclesia Dei communities will long be permitted to refuse such “service” to demanding customers.
It’s late and I’ve got to go, but I wonder if this rare moment of candor will finally convince some folks that the occasional orthodox bones they are thrown do not represent the “real” Francis of their surely well-meaning longings? I tend to doubt it, very little seems able to penetrate the bastions of the papologists, but it might move a few. Not that I rejoice in that. This whole business is as sorry as it is sad.
PS – This has been reported and translated by many and this is not a translation issue.
A few more thoughts on Amoris Laetitia April 15, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, shocking, Society, the struggle for the Church.
A rare late Friday afternoon blog post for you. I haven’t thought this post through very well, I only have a few minutes……we’ll see what emerges.
I saw some commentary on the post to the effect that we shouldn’t panic, the Church still stands, a pope cannot destroy the Church, etc. I do not panic for the Church. I panic for the millions of souls who will, with absolute certainty, fall into error and lose their faith. I panic over the irreparable (in human terms) harm being done to the Church and souls. I have great fear over the future, and further chaos. I fear the gathering darkness, and just how brutal the Church’s passion must be. Since the Church is our Lord’s Body on earth, we can discern her passion will be every bit as terrible as His.
I have considered whether my initial post on this matter was scandalous or over the top. I did get some guidance that I might pull back my strong hints regarding Francis’ lack of faithfulness to the belief and practice of the Church.
But considering the matter more coolly, now that the initial shock and anger have subsided, I would have a hard time issuing a retraction. Subsequent analysis, contra the claims of Cardinal Burke, has indicated that Amoris Laetitia (the “Joy of Sex?”) constitutes a clear addition to the Church’s Magisterium*. Yet it contains scores of statements which are scandalous, dangerous, possessed of a grave tendency to spread error and undermine the Faith, or out and out erroneous. Millions have already concluded that the Church has somehow changed her Doctrine on solemn matters such as the reception of the Blessed Sacrament by those persisting in openly adulterous unions.
This document represents not only a radical departure from the Church’s perennial belief and practice on numerous moral matters, it contains not only grave misrepresentations (to the point of prevarication) of previous magisterial statements, but it, to me, represents a direct assault on some of the most critical moral doctrines of the Faith. Declaring pseudo-sodo-marriage to be out of bounds while gravely wounding marriage by helping to normalize divorce, remarriage, and de-sacralizing the Blessed Sacrament is not just unwise, it self-contradictory. How did we get to the point where the culture is so insane that most Catholics now believe that marriage between two people of the same sex is not only possible, it is full equivalent to true marriage and should be recognized as such by law? Precisely through the mass normalization of divorce, remarriage, abuse of the Blessed Sacrament (and the self-denial of the torrents of Grace that should flow from it), etc. It is contradictory to gravely weaken the Church’s condemnation of fornication, while at the same time declare abortion to be impermissible.
That is to say, what we are confronted with in Amoris Laetitia is very different from, say, Honorius signing a document endorsing Arianism at the point of a sword. This is a concerted, deliberate, pre-meditated act. What is more, it touches not on just one point of Doctrine but many of them.
The solemn Doctrine of the Faith is a tightly woven cohesive whole. One thread cannot be pulled without unraveling the entirety. The protestant revolutionaries proved this irrefutably with the founding of their false sects. Many started with just one particular point of deviation (such as the rejection of indulgences), but in virtually no time that “one thing” expanded into a radically different, and implacably hostile, set of beliefs. If this course of synodal- and, it must be said, papal-induced chaos continues for even a few years, there will be nothing left.
Taken as a whole, I am forced to conclude that, from an earthly perspective, Francis lacks the Faith. However, I also believe that he remains the Bishop of Rome seated in the Chair of Peter and head of the universal Church. I do not know how to reconcile these beliefs. I can only conclude that this is a mystery far beyond me, a mystery which may well continue to torment the Church for decades should he be followed by like-minded individuals as the Church continues her inevitable passion. I am not saying, even remotely, that the Church has fallen, that Christ’s promise is false. I am not saying that the heretical sects are somehow right. I am not saying that the Church is reduced to an invisible element.
I am only saying that based on all the mass of evidence we have before us (and it is copious), Francis holds views which cannot be reconciled with the perennial belief and practice of the Church. Since holding those beliefs in their entirety has always been taken to be the sine qua non of being Catholic, the conclusion is inescapable.
I know Jesus Christ will prevail in the end. I strongly suspect all these events are being directed by His positive will. I have not the faintest doubt that Christ will come in glory, the dead will rise, and there will be a final judgment of the good and evil. I pray I have the faith to stand fast in these difficult times, but nothing any pope says or does is going to cause me to fall away. Nor should you. But I’m not going to bury my head in the sand, pretend this is not huge significant, or go along as if nothing has happened. Something has happened, and we all have to come to terms with it while striving with all our might to remain faithful.
I strongly feel what we are seeing now from many quarters, seeking to explain away this exhortation or diminish its significance, is an exact replay of how the modernists were able to remake the Church in the wake of Vatican II. If you wondered how people raised in the Faith with the Mass of Ages to sustain them could meekly accept, with precious little opposition, the radical changes foisted on the Church, look around you. In fact, the process never stopped, but today the similarities are too striking to ignore.
I hope and pray I may be some tiny bit of assistance to you all in that effort. But if you’re looking for apologias for this pontificate, you’re probably going to be better off visiting other sites.
*- I have seen Cardinal Burke’s claim that Amoris Laetitia is not a magisterial document. I believe the case Cardinal Burke puts forth is flawed. As other sites have noted, declaring Amoris Laetitia to be non-magisterial would be to throw out numerous other similar apostolic exhortations of the post-conciliar period, such as Familiaris Consortio, generally seen as being a much more orthodox document. But perhaps throwing out all these apostolic exhortations from the post-conciliar period, novel as they are in consisting of “conclusions” ostensibly drawn from a meeting of a limited sub-set of bishops (I say ostensibly, as it is very apparent this pope had a conclusion in mind from well before the idea of a series of synods was even floated), might not be such a bad thing? Perhaps Cardinal Burke is on to something, after all? Or perhaps the argument could be framed that any document, from whatever source, that contradicts the Faith is immediately inadmissible? But how to reconcile this with the magisterial definition of the Office of the Papacy that has emerged, particularly over the past 150 years?
I am not the one to answer these questions. I have a feeling, however, that should the Church and this earth survive for another few hundred years, future saintly theologians will be struggling with these questions, and might arrive at surprising conclusions.
Enough! Have a blessed weekend.
A perfect lamentation for our time from Dom Gueranger April 15, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Liturgical Year, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, The End, Tradition, Virtue.
A perfect lamentation for our time in the long history of the Church from The Liturgical Year of Dom Prosper Gueranger. This comes from the reading from the Friday of the Third Week of Easter, which just happens to be today! Go figure. Pretty strong stuff below, but so very apropos for the mounting nightmare surrounding episcopal authority:
How much they are to be pitied, O Church, who do not know thee!…..how much they are to be pitied who once knew thee, and afterwards in their pride and ingratitude, denied thee! And yet no one ever fell into such misery, unless he first voluntarily shut his eyes against the light that was within him. [This is truly key, and must never be forgotten. There is always a positive act of the will in the descent into error] How much they are to be pitied who know thee, and still live enjoying what thou givest thy children, and who yet take side with thine enemies in insulting and betraying thee! They are men whose character is shallowness of mind; they speak their opinions as though they were oracles; they have contracted the flippant effrontery of our age; and to hear them speak of thee, one would suppose that they look on thee as a human institution, which they may approve or blame according to their own humor. [AHEM! I can’t possible imagine just who such a condemnation might apply to in the Church today!]
Instead of revering whatsoever thou hast taught regarding thyself and thy rights, instead of revering what thou hast ordained, regulated, and practiced; these “Catholics,” whose sympathies are all with thine enemies, would have thee conform thy teachings to the so-called progress of the times. The whole world is given to thee as thine inheritance; and yet those insolent children would have thee be content with what they think proper to assign to thee. Thou, the Mother of mankind, must be under their wise care! It is from them that thou must henceforth learn how best to fulfill thy mission! Godless men, adorers of what they called the rights of man, dared, a century back, to expel thee from political life, which up till then thou hadst kept in harmony with its Divine Master. These men have left disciples who would have thee withdraw from everything that regards the outward world, and look on as a mere stranger. Thou must no longer exercise the rights given thee by the Son of God over both soul and body; this royalty of thine is out of date, and thou must be satisfied to enjoy the liberty which, in virtue of the law of Progress, is granted alike to error and to truth. The wise and powerful ones of this world have dethroned thy Spouse after two thousand year’s reign; and instead of resenting such a project with holy indignation, as tending to the destruction of the last bulwark of Christendom, there are many among us who approve of it, and this on principles which are, it is true, in favor with rationalistic politicians and leaders, but which are formally condemned by thy teachings, thy acts, nay, by thy very existence. How short-sighted are such Catholics as these, who hope to make thee acceptable to the world by giving thee the semblance of a human institution! The world is too shrewd; it knows thee to be essentially supernatural, and this is what it can never tolerate.
And so the effort to make the Church acceptable to the world by raping her of her sacred beliefs and cherished practices (a rape all the more horrific as it constitutes incest, a rape committed by son against mother) is doomed to failure, as the world, informed as it is to such a very great extent by satan, knows that the Church is the supernatural entity of God and so can only be destroyed, not transformed into some acceptable human institution. Not that there is ever a want of people to make the attempt.
We can see in the above, however, that the modernist-progressive effort to bring the Church low has been around for 150 years and more, and has always been working against a concerted plan. The bastions served incredibly well for a over a century against this particular threat, till they were pulled down by the defenders themselves, who had absorbed far too much of the lying propaganda they had heard blasted over the Church’s walls. 50 years ago, all those intricate defenses pious minds and the work of Grace could produce were destro50 years ago, all those intricate defenses pious minds and the work of Grace could produce were destroyed, and the Church was left nearly defenseless against her constant enemies of the world, the flesh, and the devil. Even worse, whole generations of men were ordained priests thoroughly infected with diabolical error, and they have now risen to the highest levels of authority. I don’t despair for the Church – She is the Body of Christ, completely indestructible and beyond taint in her mystical element – but I do have enormous fears for the souls of millions who will fall into error and even damnation as the shadow of the diabolical spreads ever deeper into the Church.
That’s why I’ve been praying with such fervor these past 20 months or more, but I fear the Church has entered Her passion and what must come will come. That makes prayer and penance all the more necessary, that we may have the Grace to remain faithful in the terrible days already well underway.
God bless you. I pray for you all.