Tagle to Replace Muller at CDF, Francis Grooming His Ideal Successor? February 24, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
A lot of people hold the pious hope that this Francis phenomenon will simply be a short lived nightmare, a sort of slumbering return to the horrifying days of the late 60s and 70s before we wake up and get back to “normality,” meaning something more conservative-ish like JPII and Benedict (leaving aside how much these two pontiffs leave to be desired compared to, say, a Gregory XVI or Leo XIII, let alone a Pius V).
I have been trying to steel folks in my inner circle – and, to some degree, readers of the blog – to the fact that Francis and those who elected him are not at all satisfied with a trip down memory lane to their salad days as bead wearing long haired hippy revolutionaries in the Church. They mean to make the revolution they’ve always sought permanent. Even though Francis has behaved almost frenetically in trying to impose this agenda, he’s old and his pontificate could end at any moment. More importantly, he could be replaced by someone sane and possessed of a Catholic sensus fidei, and the dream would go into remission, again.
Unless, of course, they can so arrange things that Francis is simply the first of an endless line of progressive pontiffs who will “sing their new church into being.” Rorate holds similar concerns, as expressed below, considering the rumors that arch-liberal Cardinal Tagle of Manila is going to replace Cardinal Muller at the CDF and thus have a powerful resume for the next conclave:
To the recent reports from other sources that Cardinal Müller has already offered his resignation from CDF, Rorate can now add, from its own very well-placed sources, that there is a plan at the highest levels to replace Müller as Prefect of CDF with no less than the Asian “Pope Francis”, the man seen by many as Francis’ dauphin, Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle.Müller, appointed Prefect in July 2012, has been effectively marginalized in the past years over the Family Synods and most importantly over Amoris Laetitia. Questions about his future in the Roman Curia have been persistent through the years. It remains to be seen whether he will eventually be sent back to Germany to take the still-vacant see of Mainz (traditionally a red-hat see), or be tossed to a ceremonial position, or whether, like Stanisław Cardinal Ryłko last year, he will simply be retired long before turning 75.Tagle’s own theological oeuvre is very thin and his academic reputation rests mainly on the essays he wrote as part of the Bologna School’s History of Vatican II. It is his slick promotion by the mainstream Catholic media, his reliably progressivist views (couched in “moderate” language) coupled with his stint at the International Theological Commission and the patronage he received from Joseph Ratzinger, first as CDF Prefect then as Pope, that have combined to give him an aura of learning far beyond what is supported by his real output. His election as President of both the Catholic Biblical Federation (in 2014) and Caritas International (in 2015) and his designation as one of three Delegate Presidents of the Extraordinary Synod of 2014 further guaranteed his prominence in the universal Church.Should this latest plan come to pass, Cardinal Tagle, who will turn 60 in June, will have an enviable “CV” for a conclave frontrunner: a long stint (more than 15 years and counting) as diocesan bishop then archbishop, followed by a stint as head of a Curial dicastery.
Coup Complete? Knights of Malta Condom Chancellor Claims Cardinal Burke “De Facto” Suspended February 22, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, asshatery, Basics, contraception, cultural marxism, disaster, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, persecution, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, Society, the struggle for the Church.
A bit more data on the attempts to reduce Cardinal Burke’s formal role and thus influence in the Church, the notorious Albrecht von Boeselager, the man at the center of the controversy within the Knights of Malta for his involvement in the distribution of condoms, has claimed that Cardinal Burke is “de facto” suspended. Well, it’s certainly clear that at this point, with his dismissal by Francis from his former post as Cardinal Patron of the order, Cardinal Burke lacks any clear apostolate or formal role in the Church. He’s also, of course, been shuttled off to Guam. Francis intervened decisively in Boeselager’s favor, not only reinstating a man who had taken gravely immoral actions entirely contrary to the Doctrine of the Faith, but deposing the former leadership of the Knights and instituting direct Vatican control over what had been, throughout its 500 year history, always a lay-led and run organization.
That’s what you call a decisive intervention. There are many prurient reasons for this intervention, not the least of which being the Boeselager’s wealth and their involvement in the often corrupt Vatican bank, but don’t think the issue of contraception did not play a significant role. I’m quite certain it did. In fact, this entire issue may have been orchestrated in order to further isolate and ostracize Cardinal Burke, the most effective leader to date of opposition to Francis, at least publically among the episcopate. The report, via LifeSiteNews:
The Knights of Malta official at the center of controversy over the Order’s Catholic identity and sovereignty says its patron, Cardinal Raymond Burke, has been “de facto” suspended.
Albrecht von Boeselager, a German aristocrat, was removed from his post as Grand Chancellor on the grounds that he violated his promise of obedience. He hadn’t submitted to his superiors’ request that he resign after it was revealed he had overseen the distribution of contraception in the developing world. The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil.
After Boeslager’s removal caused a kerfuffle, Pope Francis personally stepped in, reinstating Boeselager to his former position. The pope also asked Grand Master Matthew Festing, the order’s highest-ranking official who had removed Boeselager, to resign. This was unusual because the order of Malta is a sovereign state. [It’s also the first time such a demand – and it was a demand, done under great pressure, not a request – has ever been made in the 500 year history of the order.]
The pontiff then appointed a “papal delegate” to run the order.
In comments translated by The Tablet, Von Boeselager told the Archdiocese of Cologne’s website, domradio.de, that delegate Archbishop Angelo Becciu is now fulfilling Cardinal Burke’s role.
Becciu “has the full confidence of the Pope and is his spokesman,” von Boeselager said. [Gee, you figure?] “That means that Cardinal Burke as Cardinal Patron of the Order is now de facto suspended.” [Is that, suspended as Cardinal Patron, or suspended in a more general sense?]
Von Boeselager said it’s a “completely unfounded accusation” that Pope Francis undermined the Order’s sovereignty by demanding Festing’s resignation. [This is BS. All other reports have indicated Francis went on one of his epic tirades when Festing was summoned to the Doma Sancta Marthae and insisted on a most groveling “resignation” on the spot, directing Festing to blame Burke for the entire affair. But spinners gonna spin]
“The Pope acted at the Order’s wish and he took great care that the Order’s sovereignty was in no way violated or impaired,” [as he unprecedentedly violated a sovereign order’s sovereignty] he said. “He asked the Grand Master to step down, his resignation was carried out according to the Order’s regulations and was accepted. The appointment of the Holy Father’s delegate is expressly limited to the spiritual side of the Order and has nothing to do with its activities as a sovereign power.”
We shall see what further action is taken against Cardinal Burke. With this most vindictive and ideological of Bishops of Rome, there is no chance he’s done trying to humiliate him and break his influence.
Something tells me these efforts will backfire, however.
Iraqi Bishop – Where Were Leftist Protesters When Christians Were Being Slaughtered? February 3, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, cultural marxism, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Holy suffering, horror, persecution, rank stupidity, secularism, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
They were at home, smokin’ bud and enjoying some internet porn, silly. Leftist concern for others stops where their political convictions end. If you don’t advance their political agenda, they couldn’t care less for you or your suffering. Christians are the hated enemy, not part of their coalition of the damaged. Thus, the Christians of Iraq and Syria (among many other places) could go suck an egg for all leftists care. No political advantage, no protests for you!
I guess I should do a quick reset before I jump into the block quote – President Trump executed a very narrow and temporary ban against muslims from certain terrorist-supporting/afflicted countries last weekend. The left has gone nuts over this supposed tyrannical and wholly racially motivated ban on all muslims, simply because Trump is Racist McHitler. As the Iraqi Archbishop notes, however, these same leftists seemed a lot less, ah…….energized…….when it was simply Christians being slaughtered in their thousands, rather than a few hundred muslims potentially inconvenienced by having their travel plans delayed. Ah…….priorities. The Left always has them:
The Catholic Archbishop of Erbil has denounced the hypocrisy of those protesting President Trump’s recent executive order on immigration, wondering aloud where all of the demonstrators were when Islamic State fighters were slaughtering Christians and other minorities in the Middle East.
In an interview with the online journal Crux, Archbishop Bashar Warda said that from his perspective in Iraq, he couldn’t help but ask “why all of these protesters were not protesting in the streets when ISIS came to kill Christians and Yazidis and other minority groups.”
Warda also criticized the policies of the Obama administration, which offered no financial assistance to displaced Christians in Islamic State territory and instead favored Syrian Muslims when it came to accepting refugees into the United States.
“They were not protesting when the tens of thousands of displaced Christians my archdiocese has cared for since 2014 received no financial assistance from the U.S. government or the U.N.,” he said. “There were no protests when Syrian Christians were only let in at a rate that was 20 times less than the percentage of their population in Syria.”
“I do not understand why some Americans are now upset that the many minority communities that faced a horrible genocide will finally get a degree of priority in some manner,” Warda added. [Great point. Under Obama, persecuted Christians found it virtually impossible to obtain a visa to come to the US. Only a tiny fraction of “refugees” from Iraq and Syria have been Christian, in spite of the fact that Christians made up 15-20% of the pre-war Syrian population and have been the most targeted people in this terrible conflict. Fortunately, Trump seems to be finally giving them the priority they deserve. That’s what happens when you have a nominally Christian president versus a muslim one.]
The archbishop also suggested that the inconvenience posed by a three-month moratorium on visas is nothing compared to the suffering of minorities in Iraq and Syria during the past several years, and yet no one seemed to think that was worthy of a protest.
“Most Americans have no concept of what it was like to live as a Yazidi or Christian or other minority as ISIS invaded,” he said. “Our people had the option to flee, to convert, or to be killed, and many were killed in the most brutal ways imaginable.”
“But there were none of these protests then of ISIS’s religious test,” he said. [Of course not! Muslims are perceived by leftists as part of their political coalition, whereas Christians are, as I stated above, the hated and despised enemy that must be crushed at all costs. They didn’t protest because not only did they not care, but probably thought the Christians had it coming (speculative, but quite probably true).]
In his lengthy interview, Warda underscored the hypocrisy of protesters who are willing to side with Muslims but won’t lift a finger to aid Christians facing genocide in the Middle East.
“Our people lost everything because of their faith—they were targeted for their faith, just like the Yazidis and others too,” he said. “Now these protesters are saying that religion should not matter at all, even though someone was persecuted for their faith, even though persecution based on religion is one of the grounds for refugee status in the UN treaty on refugees.”
“From here I have to say, it is really unbelievable,” he said. [That’s the Western Left, as unbelievable as it is despicable. How was last night in Manhattan near NYU, by the way?]
Warda also blasted the careless journalists who have called the order a “Muslim ban,” noting that this label is not only false but also dangerous to Christians and other minorities living in lands dominated by Islamic terrorists.
“All those who cry out that this is a ‘Muslim Ban,’” Warda said, should understand clearly that they are hurting Christians and “putting us at greater risk.”
“Here in Iraq we Christians cannot afford to throw out words carelessly as the media in the West can do,” he added. “I would ask those in the media who use every issue to stir up division to think about this.”
“For the media these things become an issue of ratings, but for us the danger is real,” he said. [Not just ratings – also advancing their dearly held religious-political agenda]
The Archbishop said “it is very hard for me to understand why comfortable people in the West think those who are struggling to survive against genocide, and whose communities are at extreme risk of disappearing completely, should not get some special consideration.”
Everyone possessed of any sense and decency agrees. I pray God many of those Christians suffering horrible atrocities as a direct result of deliberate (and disastrous)US policy decisions by the preceding administration can finally obtain some redress from our nation, which put them into this nightmare situation to a large degree in the first place. It may be too little and too late, but it’s better than the status quo.
Laudits to Archbishop Warda for having the wherewithal to tell it like it is, at least on this particular matter. May God give him strength to better proclaim the Truth of Jesus Christ and the plight of his people as time moves on.
PS – So, I work with an Iraqi Christian. His name is David. He has led a most remarkable life. He was a graduate student in mechanical engineering when the US invaded in 2003. He very much wanted Saddam gone and was glad for the initial US intervention. He served as an interpreter in combat operations with US forces (mostly Marines) in some of the most horrific fighting in Iraq. He was at Fallujah in 2004 and 2007. It was there that the jihadis identified him and he had to flee. So he – get this – walked out of Iraq, across hundreds of miles of barren desert, to Jordanian refugee camp. From there, he somehow wound up in eastern Ukraine. There he met his wife and obtained a visa to come to the US. He then joined the US Army and went back to Iraq for two tours. He got his citizenship and US degree in 2015 and has been working at our company ever since.
Did David vote for Trump? Yes. Does he hate Obama? Yes. Does he think Obama more or less permitted/encouraged the destruction of his country? Yes. Does he support the “travel ban?” Yes. Does he think muslims are fundamentally incompatible with Western civilization? Hell yes. He was fortunately able to get his family here last year. They are all Christian. He knows many Christians still in Iraq. He is very happy that they may now have a much better chance of escaping the hell that Iraq has become. He is an Orthodox from the Nineveh plain outside Mosul. Good guy.
Bishop Robert Barron and the Cult of Man February 2, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
Before I begin, I’ll say that I have a sneaking admiration for Dave Rubin, the interviewer in question below. Yes he’s an out n’ proud type who pretends to be married, and yes he’s an atheist and a liberal……..wait, why do I like him again? Well, I don’t like him per se, but I do have some admiration for the fact that he is willing to hear out all comers, even those with radically different viewpoints, he despises the SJW Left, and he might even be heading towards a classical liberal/conservative standpoint. But he has many miles to go, which is why my respect for him is nascent and limited.
He recently had Auxiliary Bishop Robert Barron on his interview program. Bishop Barron, as has been his wont over the years, mixed in some fairly solid defenses of the Faith with some abject surrenders that to me obliterated whatever good he may have conveyed. Michael Matt in the first video below largely shares my assessment, noting that Barron blew a golden opportunity to reach out in charity to a lost soul and seemed to put human respect far above the Truth of Jesus Christ:
There are all kinds of things to takeaway from Barron’s abject surrender on the subject of the intrinsically disordered nature of the sodomitical inclination and the evil of any acts associated with that inclination.
First, he says the Church has been “disordered” in focusing too much on the sin. This is what he thinks of Sacred Doctrine? Bishop, heal thyself – or better yet, get over thyself and your worldly opinions.
Secondly, there is much aping of the Franciscan notion of false mercy. Barron appears to hardly believe in sin anymore, excepting of course for those hateful pharisaical neo-promethean right wingers. They all go to hell.
But seriously, should we expect anything else from the man who reduced the story of Original Sin to “theological poetry?” No wonder he holds extremely messed up views of moral theology.
We see again and again this notion that the poor benighted Church before Francis was doctrinaire, hard-hearted and merciless. What a load of chaff. First of all, the moral/doctrinal collapse has been setting in for 50+ years. This is only the fulfilment of errors advanced for decades. Far from being doctrinaire, the Church has been caving relentlessly on Doctrine for decades.
But even the shriveled husk of Doctrine defended by JPII and a few others is apparently too much for the new Church of infinite humility and Francismercy.
This is where all the modernism in the Church has been headed for decades – towards complete moral surrender and oblivion for souls.
Church of accompaniment far more concerned about the opinions of men and not giving offense than with proclaiming the Truth of Jesus Christ
Even the poor soul in the interview is left wondering what the heck the Church believes, and seems surprised that it’s really this weak. Rubin is an admitted atheist, what on earth in this exchange would possibly dissuade him from any of his current beliefs and practices – on these matters most closely related to his primary moral failing and his erroneous beliefs the bishop totally fails because he is more concerned with being perceived as a “nice guy” and not giving offense than he is with conveying Truth vital for this man’s salvation.
And that is the entire problem – the crisis – in the Church in a nutshell. Even the “conservatives” fear the opinions of men far more than they do the judgment of God, who they have turned into a cosmic candy dispenser, handing out salvation to everyone who comes calling.
If they are not right, they face an awful, awful reckoning.
Here is the full interview. Barron does give a fairly good account of himself at times, but that really just makes his collapse on sodomy all the more pernicious for he mixes truth with error as Aquinas warned against:
A few weeks ago, I did a post announcing Cardinal Burke coming to the Diocese of Dallas to offer Mass on 01/22. I received some hot criticism of this post, offline. Those upset over the post were either involved in bringing Cardinal Burke in, or were particular admirers of the pastor of the parish that hosted him.
So, what is at issue in this little local imbroglio? Confession, and whether I was unfairly harsh towards a local priest my local correspondents feel is very good. Admittedly, I was pointedly critical in a post that perhaps should have been both happier and more bland, simply announcing the good Cardinal’s upcoming arrival and congratulating those who arranged for his visit (both were in the post, along with some other more critical thoughts).
Now, everyone’s definition of good is relative. My definition of a good priest in these days starts with offering the TLM, or at least the Novus Ordo in Latin, or having serious aspirations to do either but being frustrated by episcopal obstinance/malfeasance. Frankly, a handful of exceptions aside, all the extraordinary priests I know are members of explicitly traditional orders.
Taking Confession extremely seriously is requirement #2. This is what separates the men from the boys in my mind. Confession is the great ignored, even inconvenient Sacrament of our time. It is inconvenient because it is a standing rebuke to much of the new theology and ecclesiology that has been imposed on the Church in the past several decades, beliefs that say that whether one is Catholic or not doesn’t count for much, that basically all men are saved, that virtually no one ever commits a mortal sin, etc. These kinds of beliefs are the primary reason why Confession is so little available.
There used to be a sort of rule of thumb in the Church, back in those dark unreconstructed manualist days before the “sainted” Council, that for every hour of Mass, there should be at least an equal number of hours of Confession. In fact, most pre-conciliar parishes had priests (plural) in the Confessional before, during, and after virtually every Mass, along with other set times. This was when the Church, and the souls within, took things like sin and Grace and damnation and redemption very seriously.
But today, in this Diocese as in almost every other, Confession is limited to perhaps an hour a week, if one is lucky, or “by appointment only,” if one is not. This in spite of the fact that our former Bishop, now Cardinal, Kevin Farrell, repeatedly (and a bit uncharacteristically) exhorted his priests and especially pastors to have more REGULAR hours of Confession. Many pastors responded to these exhortations, by adding one more hour weekly to the one they already had (such generosity!), while some did not. A few relative heroes did even more, adding maybe 2 or 3 hours more Confession, and staffing those hours with more than one priest.
In the dearth of Confession, the tyranny is in the numbers. If there is only one priest hearing confessions for one hour a week, and each soul has only 3 minutes with the confessor and there are no gaps in people in the confessional, that one priest can hear 20 confessions a week or 1040 a year. That may sound like quite a lot, but when you have numerous parishes with 7,000, 8,000, 10,000 souls ostensibly belonging, one can instantly see the problem. Of course, the reality is different. What tends to happen is that the same handful of relatively serious souls go to Confession with at least some regularity, while the great mass never go at all.
Couple this with what is known of Catholic belief, even among self-described regular Mass attendees, and the crisis grows into stark relief. The vast majority of Catholics, regular Mass-goers or not, find nothing immoral in contraceptive use or fornication. A near majority even think abortion is morally permissible in at least some cases. The large majority are fine with pseudo-sodo-marriage and think divorce and remarriage are perfectly acceptable. The vast majority believe the Blessed Sacrament to be nothing more than a symbol. The former, if engaged in personally, constitute grave sins requiring sacramental Confession before the Blessed Sacrament is received (recent emanations from Rome notwithstanding). The latter places one outside the community of the faithful; reception of the Blessed Sacrament in this state constitutes the horrible sin of sacrilege and again immediate recourse to Confession is vitally necessary.
Taken together, what we have in the Church today is a great mass of people regularly receiving the Blessed Sacrament in a state that St. Paul decried perfectly in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 (a bit of Scripture infamously and deliberately excluded from the readings of the Novus Ordo Mass), and with little to no means to correct this dire condition. Adding to that, the very lack of Confession time communicates to the faithful that this is something that isn’t to be taken very seriously. Writ large, this is very close to what Pope Saint John Paul II decried as the “fundamental option,” the idea that God is infinitely loving (and apparently no longer just) and that virtually no one, if anyone (short of evil right wingers like me) is damned. That this is utterly contrary to our Blessed Lord’s clear Word as revealed repeatedly in Sacred Scripture and the guidance of vast numbers of Saints and Fathers seems to count for very little these days. Confession remains generally unavailable.
Not only that, but we have numerous warnings from the Blessed Mother and many of these same Saints about the number of souls condemned to hell. While such warnings are widely viewed as quaint relics from a benighted age to most priests and prelates in the Church today, they have been so numerous, so consistent, and so emphatic that to doubt or deny them is a fool’s errand. I certainly do not. I take these warnings deadly seriously, as I take the biblical types that reveal to us the very small number of the elect, and the great number of the damned.
So, yes, I take Confession very seriously, and its lack of availability as one of the greatest scandals afflicting the Church today. In fact, lack of Confession and unwillingness to take its vital necessity seriously constitute very large elements of the present crisis in the Faith. Thus, the great number of souls falling to hell like so many snowflakes, to quote Our Lady of Fatima.
Several years ago, at the time when former Bishop Farrell was making his exhortations, I did a post that summarized the availability of Confession in the Diocese. I checked most every parish. Some had zero regular hours for Confession. Most had one. A few had two. A tiny handful had somewhat more. Two parishes stood out as placing a great (or, one might say, adequate) emphasis on Confession. I’m sure locals know which two those are (Mater Dei, and St. William in Greenville).
So, even as someone who has admitted mistakes and made public apologies in the past, I don’t feel particularly bad about the post announcing +Burke’s visit and Mass. I didn’t criticize Cardinal Burke in the slightest (in fact I praised him quite a bit), all my critical comments were directed towards confession and the probability, the virtual certitude, that, on a daily basis, souls with unconfessed mortal sins receive the Blessed Sacrament – and the role the diminution of the importance of Confession plays in that. Perhaps I erred in prudence in combining critical commentary in an announcement post for a happy event. Perhaps I could have chosen more artful phrases. But if I erred in charity, it was for the souls of those in gravest risk of eternal damnation, preferring their eternal destiny over more human concerns like the feelings of my correspondents or the pastor of the parish I criticized. Of course, even that may be argued as simply misplaced zeal, but that was my intent, nonetheless.
PS – There were claims I had erred in stating Mary Immaculate – the parish that hosted Cardinal Burke – had only one hour of Confession a week. That was all that was listed on their website (in addition to “by appointment”). I also perused a few bulletins. I saw no other times listed. But apparently, there is a monthly meeting/confab called “Arise” (not entirely unproblematic in its own right) where priests hear Confession. I have no details as to how many priests are present, or for how long Confession is available. Whether this constitutes “regular” Confession or not is arguable. But I thought I’d include this only substantive rebuttal of my arguments for completeness’ sake.
I certainly welcome your comments and appraisal of the matter, if you have any. Thank you.
SSPX Close to Reconciliation with Rome – Wonderful, Yes, But Is This the Right Time? January 30, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, different religion, disconcerting, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, Latin Mass, priests, Restoration, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
There have been growing pronouncements from both the Vatican and the SSPX leadership that the two camps – if that is the right term – appear close to a formal accord regularizing the SSPX’s canonical situation. Just today, the Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, Archbishop Guido Pozzo, said full communion is near:
We are working at this moment in the completion of some aspects of the canonical frame, which will be the Personal Prelature.” Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei commission, charged with dialogue with the Society of Saint Pius X, confirms [SSPX Superior-General Fellay’s words] to Vatican Insider that the stage of full communion with the Lefebvrians is near. The accomplishment of the agreement is now in plain sight, even if some time is still needed
I am of two minds over this: I have prayed for this for years, and there would be tremendous potential for great benefit to the Church by this successful regularization. However, I am exceedingly troubled that it is occurring during this most perilous of pontificates. Outbreaks of persecution against Tradition seem to be growing around the Church. More and more regions are implementing Amoris Laetitia, and thus radically changing both public belief and practice, along the lines of Francis’ own interpretation of that document. This means a crisis over doctrine appears to be inevitable. While it would be wonderful to have the SSPX back in full, regular canonical status and thus adding a great voice to the defense of the Faith (not that they are not already doing this), I have great trepidation for the future.
I am curious what people affiliated with the Society think about this. I am an outsider looking in, but I do have a great deal of interest in this matter, as I am convinced that there will be strong impact on the Ecclesia Dei groups no matter how SSPX “reconciliation” turns out. Is there an element of regularization at any price in this? Is this the pontificate under which it would really be optimal, even sensical, for regularization to take place? What happened in Campos? Was the SSPX-SO critique basically accurate, then?
What will the impact be to the Ecclesia Dei communities? Once the SSPX is regularized, a major reason for their existence would seem to have been removed. If Summorum Pontificum is truly under threat, as many feel, is it beyond reason to envision a perfect storm settling not only on the availability of the TLM but on the entire traditional movement? After the rape of the Knights of Malta and the crushing of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, is the risk in moving at this time warranted?
The question is not whether this is desirable. Of course it is. The question is whether this is wise now, with this pontificate, with this most underhanded and authoritarian of men wielding ultimate power in the Church? Bishop Fellay and some of his close associates maintain that if there is any kind of double-cross, the SSPX can simply return to their current status. Perhaps. But that entire structure required a very unique personality (Archbishop Lefebvre) and a very particular series of events to evolve to the current status quo. I am not entirely certain the personalities and the potentialities would be prevalent for a repeat. In fact I tend to think they simply will not –after all, +Lefebvre did not set out to wind up in a canonically irregular status when he founded his seminary for training priests back around 1970. He wanted to remain within the structure of the Church, but was forced by conscience, circumstance, and frequent bungling, even ill-will, on the part of Church authorities to arrive at the destination arrived in 1988. That is, my read on this whole history was, none of it was premeditated, the arrival at a canonically irregular position was achieved by circumstance. But to leave after regularization would mean to premeditatedly return to irregularity (or whatever one wants to call it).
Plus, moral surrenders – if this be one, and I’m not certain that it would be, but it has potential to be one – are (humanly) impossible to recover from.
I am more or less convinced that should this regularization take place, there will be no going back, for good or for ill. I also badly fear the example of the sons of Bishop Castro-Mayer in the Diocese of Campos, Brazil. Many feel a near total capitulation to the post-conciliar ethos has transpired in that odd subset of a diocese.
Again, I’m especially interested to learn what people with a close association with the SSPX are thinking, but all comments are welcome on this most complex of topics.
Buchanan on What Trump’s Wall Says to the World…….. January 27, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, cultural marxism, different religion, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Immigration, Restoration, scandals, sickness, Society, Tradition.
……and what it says about the growing national divide between Americans.
Good piece below from fellow trad Patrick Buchanan. Thanks to reader TT who sent it along (my emphasis and comments):
The opposition’s arguments are usually rooted in economics or practicality. The wall is unnecessary. It will not stop people from coming illegally. It costs too much.
Yet something deeper is afoot here. The idea of a permanent barrier between our countries goes to the heart of the divide between our two Americas on the most fundamental of questions.
Who are we? What is a nation? What does America stand for?
Those desperate to see the wall built, illegal immigration halted, and those here illegally deported, see the country they grew up in as dying, disappearing, with something strange and foreign taking its place. [Not only strange and foreign, but a country that will be much poorer, much less Christian, more violent, and with third world style impenetrable social strata. Our elites seem to want that very much, especially the last bit. They don’t seem to like having to rub elbows with the hoi polloi, and want a nation in which economic and social mobility is strictly limited. I want a country where my kids have a chance at a happy life and a moral environment that is conducive to their final end, eternal happiness with God. Everything the Left advances gravely undermines both of those fundamental needs]
It is not only that illegal migrants take jobs from Americans, that they commit crimes, or that so many require subsidized food, welfare, housing, education and health care. It is that they are changing our country. They are changing who we are………
………What those with memories of that America see happening today is the disintegration of our nation of yesterday. The savagery of our politics, exemplified in the last election, testifies to how Americans are coming to detest one another as much as the Valley Forge generation came to detest the British from whom they broke free. [Indeed. Some prominent commentators wonder whether we are not already in a de facto state of civil war.]
In 1960, we were a Western Christian country. Ninety [plus] percent of our people traced their roots to Europe. Ninety [plus] percent bore some connection to the Christian faith. To the tens of millions for whom Trump appeals, what the wall represents is our last chance to preserve that nation and people.
To many on the cosmopolitan left, ethnic or national identity is not only not worth fighting for, it is not even worth preserving. It is a form of atavistic tribalism or racism. [This is really key. The Left is a tribal grouping based on ideology. Conform to the ideology cum religion and you are a member of the tribe. Members must constantly make demonstrations of their professing the required ideology, and imposing it on as many other people as possible. The more aggressive the profession of leftist faith, the higher one’s standing in the tribe. A key component of the tribal ideology is that all those outside the tribe are inferior, practically sub-human, and must be destroyed. Thus, the stage is set for endless conflict, which is indeed, exactly what the Left wants.]
The Trump wall then touches on the great struggle of our age.
Given that 80 percent of all people of color vote Democratic, neither the Trump movement nor the Republican Party can survive the Third Worldization of the United States now written in the cards.
Moreover, with the disintegration of the nation we are seeing, and with talk of the breakup of states like Texas and secession of states like California, how do we survive as one nation and people?…… [Breakup of Texas? Zuh? I don’t think so.]
………..President Trump’s wall is a statement to the world: This is our country. We decide who comes here. And we will defend our borders.
The crisis of our time is not that some Americans are saying this, but that so many are too paralyzed to say it, or do not care, or embrace what is happening to their country.
Especially the latter. Nice summation of the current state of affairs. The Left is in wholesale meltdown mode, because I think they see in Trump – I pray rightly so – someone who, contrary to his predecessors, actually MIGHT roll back many of the gains they’ve made over the past 50 years. That it would be a man of such troubled personal morality that would do it would be incredibly ironic. But that’s history for you.
I do wish Buchanan would also more regularly inveigh against the USCCB and most individual bishops, who are fervent promoters of the cult of holy immigration. Aside from a few high profile issues like abortion – to which they primarily pay lip service, not real action – if there is a socially divisive question of the day, you can almost rely on the USCCB to be on the wrong side of it. Of course, it’s not as bad as it was during the 70s and 80s, when the conference was deeply and radically left wing, but it’s also far from great and with Cupich and his ilk assuming more and more important sees, we’re headed back in that direction. But there I go, being hard-hearted and impossible to please again………
That’s Amoris! January 26, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, different religion, episcopate, error, Francis, fun, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, silliness, the struggle for the Church, Victory.
I guess today is Video Thursday. Sorry for the flood. This is the last one. Greatness from Laurence England:
Lots of good laughs. I really enjoyed that.
A Beautiful, Edifying Episode from the Life of St. Simeon Stylite January 26, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, history, Interior Life, mortification, reading, Saints, sanctity, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
The man who stood upon ever-taller stone columns for decades, St. Simeon Stylite is probably better known among Eastern Christians than those in the West. Fortunately, St. Francis de Sales included the following episode from the life of St. Simeon Stylite in some of his letters, letters which were compiled into a book called Finding God’s Will For You. There are serious lessons regarding obedience in this tale, too, but obedience is an issue so fraught with peril in today’s Church, where so much of the leadership has gone amok. How to deal with authority that is demanding acceptance of grave sin and destructive error under threat of severe persecution? There are writings from the Tradition that help guide us, but they are not terribly voluminous or comprehensive.
This situation we are going through is not entirely unique. In the protestant revolt, whole bishops and princes tried to take dioceses and countries into error. Did souls go along, under obedience or more prurient motives? Most did. But in almost every locale, some remained faithful. Many of those are called Saints or Blesseds today.
I think the lesson, as it develops below, also serves as a guide to us. Worthy shepherds will give broad latitude to subordinates who show a willingness to be obedient. But those seeking to impose their will, and heterodox beliefs, on the Church, will always seek to impose their will in virtually every regard, and won’t grant such latitude. Whenever it comes down to promotion of error, subordinates are freed from their duty of obedience. Unfortunately, those seeking to impose a different religion often know how to mask their efforts to at least some degree, making the process of discernment a most difficult one. Pray that God may enlighten you as to which matters require your obedience.
Anyway, from Finding God’s Will For You, pp. 61-2:
While the incomparable Simeon Stylites was still a novice at Telada (a monastery in Syria), he refused to respond to the advice of his superiors who wished to keep him from practicing the many strange forms of austerity he observed with inordinate severity. For this reason he was expelled from the monastery as a man not very susceptible to mortification of heart and much given to that of the body. Afterward he came to his senses, became more devout and wiser in the spiritual life, and behaved quite differently, as is proved by the following event.
When the hermits who were scattered about the desert regions near Antioch learned of the extraordinary life he led on his pillar, where he seemed to be either an angel on earth or a man from Heaven, they sent him a representative whom they instructed to speak for them in the following fashion: “Simeon, why have you left the great path of the devout life, trodden by so many great and holy predecessors, and followed another path unknown to men and far distant from everything seen or heard of up to the present? Simeon, get down from that pillar, and join the others in the way of life and method of serving God used by those good fathers who were our predecessors.”
In the event that Simeon agreed with their advice and showed himself ready and willing to descend from his pillar so as to condescend to their will, the hermits had instructed their messenger to leave him free to persevere in the kind of life he had begun. Bu such obedience, those good fathers said, they could easily recognize that he had entered this kind of life under divine inspiration. On the contrary, if he resisted, despised their exhortation, and wished to follow his own will, then they resolved that it would be necessary to take him down by force and make him give up his pillar. [These were most wise shepherds with the love of Christ in their hearts. They are happy to give wide space for novel forms of devotion, even when they do not fully understand them, provided sufficient submission to Christ and His Church is evident]
When the deputy had arrived at the pillar, he had no sooner announced his mission than the great Simeon without delay, without reservation, and without any reply, started to descend with obedience and humility worthy of his rare sanctity. When the delegate saw this, he said, “Simeon, stop and stay there, persevere with constancy, and have good courage. Follow valiantly your enterprise. Your sojourn on that pillar is from God.”
….I implore you to observe carefully how those holy anchorites of old in general meeting found no surer mark of heavenly inspiration in a matter so extraordinary as the life of St. Stylites than to see that he was simple, gentle, and tractable under the laws of most holy obedience. God blessed the submission of that great man and gave him the grace to persevere for thirty whole years upon a column more than fifty feet high….Thus this bird of paradise, living in air and not touching earth, was a spectacle of love for angels and of admiration for men. In obedience, everything is safe, apart from obedience, all is subject to suspicion……..
……..A man who ways that he is inspired and then refuses to obey his superiors and follow their advice is an impostor. All prophets and preachers inspired by God have always loved the Church, always adhered to Her Doctrine, and always had Her approval……… [When the superiors give evidence of being impostors by not adhering to Doctrine, the entire machine breaks down. Especially when even the highest authority gives such evidence. The great trouble is, after 50 years of successively advancing inculcation of error in souls, there are very few who don’t hold erroneous beliefs, who don’t support some form of abuse. If it were not for her supernatural element, I daresay, the machine stops.]
I get in “trouble,” sometimes, as I am viewed as not being sufficiently supportive, or critical, of groups like the SSPX. But in this time of mass confusion and untold calamity, I have a difficult time telling someone “you err” in their differing responses to the crisis. I do have some limits – I think sede vacantists go too far, and those who reject the Church altogether and leave for some other sect/church – but overall I have a hard time blaming someone, in this unending mass of confusion and conflict, from arriving at a little bit different conclusion than my own. I think the key remains: “Love God, and do what you will.” I pray He will be merciful and understanding with us all who are groping about in the dark in this time of so little light.
If You Want to Get Involved in the Fight over Atonement Parish in San Antonio – UPDATED January 24, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, different religion, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Latin Mass, Liturgy, persecution, priests, Revolution, scandals, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
……..a site has been constructed to help keep people informed. There is a meeting for concerned parishioners and others interested in maintaining orthodox catechesis and reverent liturgy in the San Antonio area this Thursday, January 26, at the Embassy Suites hotel ballroom at 7750 Briaridge, San Antonio at 7:00 pm.
The website only has basics on Fr. Phillips and the Atonement situation at present, but hopefully it will be updated to indicate how people can help. You might consider contacting the chancery of the Archdiocese of San Antonio directly at 210-734-2620 or perhaps the Vicar General or others listed on this site, like the communications director Jordan McMorrough at the same number, x1128.
Raise a ruckus. Get their attention. Don’t cuss, don’t proclaim them to be bound for hell, but do express your exasperation and scandal at this development.
Naturally, no contact info for either of San Antonio’s bishops was provided. We wouldn’t want the bishops to be bothered by puny little things like the spiritual lives of hundreds of distraught souls. They’re much too busy, and frankly too good, to deal with any little thing like that.
In the interim, the Diocese of Dallas will breathe a hefty sigh of relief that the mighty triple 16″ 50 cal guns of veneremurcernui.wordpress.com are directed on another target………….heh.
UPDATE: IMPORTANT! Commenter Richard Malcolm had this to add:
I think it’s important to note that Mr. Wilson’s letter at the SaveAtonement site is urging those interested NOT to contact the chancery, as he thinks this will be counterproductive. “Any individual action such as writing to the archbishop or demonstrating at the chancery could be counter-productive. Please use common sense.” However, he seems to favor bombarding the Congregation for Clergy.
I don’t know enough to say. I suspect he’s right – he seems to know his stuff – though the faithful of a parish have a right to express their concerns about their parish and pastor to their ordinary, even when they know it may be futile. I think non-OLA people may want to confine themselves to the Congregation, though.
Tantumblogo comments: I can understand Mr. Wilson’s point of view. You can certainly do what you feel best. I have seen both approaches. Whether being meek and silent or loud and boisterous works better depends much upon the situation. I’m on the outside here, so I’ll tend to defer to what the locals think, but I will add this little bit of opinion: letters to the Vatican will have even less impact than those sent to the chancery. Especially with this pontiff.
I know of only one priest who faced a railroad job like this that survived it. And he “survived” by being banished to the furthest reaches of the diocese, but he did not cave on authentic catechesis and reverent liturgy. He did that by being prepared well in advance with very strong canon law representation. He also had all the facts on his side and not a single complaint against him. That why I tend to default to the make a ruckus approach. It’s high risk, yes, but also high reward if the ruckus is loud enough and garners enough media attention. It could the only thing that “saves Atonement.”
Mr. Malcolm may offer a middle way: outsiders like most readers of this blog may want to demure from contacting the Archdiocese (in my experience, not many would, anyway). Let the folks in San Antonio deal with this matter for now. But do as the Spirit moves you.