jump to navigation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

———-End Quote———–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some fascinating (and frightening) details on the above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

German bishops threaten schism February 27, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

God’s Mercy is most evident in His Justice February 26, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Bible, catachesis, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Papa, persecution, scandals, secularism, SOD, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

The Gospel for the First Monday of Lent in the Traditional Latin Mass is from Saint Matthew XXV:31-46, which is the parable of the sheep and the goats at the Last Judgment.  This parable in St. Matthew’s Gospel followed that of the servants given talents to dispose of while their master was on a journey.  Both parables make very clear that we shall be judged according to our use of the gifts God gives us and, fundamentally, on our love for each other.

Dom Prosper Gueranger has a brief exegesis on this Gospel and its relevance to Lent, wherein he touches on the subject that Our Lord, in the very act of exercising His Justice, is also exercising His Mercy, even if that true mercy is not the sentimentality and worldliness the worldlings would expect:

Our Lord there put forth every argument which love could devise, to persuade His lost sheep to return to Him; and here, on the very same day that the Church speaks to us of our God as being a gentle and compassionate Shepherd, she describes Him as an inflexible Judge. This loving Jesus, this charitable Physician of our souls, is seated on His dread tribunal, and cries out in His anger: Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire! (Matt XXV:41).  And where has the Church found this awful description? In the Gospel, that is, in the very Law of love. But if we read our passage attentively, we shall find that He who pronounces this terrible anathema is the same God, whom the prophet has been just portraying as a Shepherd full of mercy, patience, and zeal for His sheep.  Observe how He is still a Shepherd, even on His judgment seat: He separates the sheep from the goats; He sets the sheep on His right hand, and the goats on His left; the comparison of a flock is still kept up.  The Son of God will exercise His office of Shepherd even to the last day: only then, time will be at an end, and eternity will have begun; the reign of justice, too, will have succeeded the reign of mercy, for it is justice that will reward the good with the promised recompense, and that will punish impenitent sinners with eternal torments.  How can the Christian, who believes that we are all to stand before this tribunal, refuse the invitation of the Church, who now presses him to make satisfaction for his sins?  How can he hesitate to go through those easy penances, with which the Divine Mercy now deigns to be satisfied?  Truly, man is his own worst enemy, if he can disregard these words of Jesus, who now is his Savior, and then will be his Judge: “Unless ye do penance, ye shall all perish” (St. Luke XIII:3).

———-End Quote———

I found this to be the key bit: “The Son of God will exercise His office of Shepherd even to the last day……..the reign of justice, too, will have succeeded the reign of mercy, for it is justice that will reward the good with the promised recompense, and that will punish impenitent sinners with eternal torments.”

It is key, because it reveals that mercy can only be extended to the unrepentant by being unjust to the repentant.  That is to say, by extending blanket “mercy” (of a very worldly form) to those continuing unrepentant in grave sin, a grave injustice is being done to those have endured the great pain and difficulty of either eschewing, or repenting and, through Grace, overcoming, those sins.

Let alone the injury caused to God by just one sin, let alone heaping sacrilege upon sacrilege, sin upon sin, by admitting unrepentant souls guilty of grave, public sin to the Blessed Sacrament, this blind pursuit of pseudo-mercy (it won’t seem so merciful, I fear, at their judgment) is manifestly unjust to those who have always striven to observe the moral Doctrine of the Faith.

The parable of the prodigal son has been tossed around quite a bit lately, but almost every reference I have seen to it misses one incredibly key aspect, the aspect that defines the entire parable: the prodigal son was repentant!  Yes, he had sinned, but he repented, and was committed to sin no more.  So of course he received the Father’s mercy……but only AFTER he had repented, not before.  He did not say………”Father, I’ve blown my inheritance, after I declared you dead to me…….can’t I declare you double-dead and receive another chunk of inheritance, so I can fritter it away again?”  No, he said: “Father, I have sinned before you and before God. I am not worthy to be called your son.  Make me one of your servants…….”  But that repentance is inconvenient to the new sentiment masquerading as mercy, and so is forgotten.

Again, the point that must be stressed is that God is being merciful even in the execution of His Justice.  God is incapable of being unmerciful.  By sending the goats to the everlasting fire, he was giving them what they wanted, what they had spent their life pursuing – an existence without God.  He is being doubly merciful to the sheep, as they are brought to eternal bliss, yes, but also by preserving them from being scandalized at seeing the goats admitted to their presence without repentance.  In fact, you can parse this down to several other levels of mercy, but I’ll skip that for now.

God IS Mercy and God IS Love and God IS Justice……..and the 200o year development of the Doctrine of the Faith is the recognition and explication of that undeniable fact.  Anyone that cuts against that Doctrine, or undermines it, is striving to dismember God from Himself.

A fairly balanced assessment of the new Doctor of the Church February 26, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in disconcerting, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, huh?, Papa, pr stunts, religious, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I think  many were surprised when Pope Francis announced the 36th Doctor of the Church was not even a Catholic, but a member of the Armenian Orthodox Church.  I know Ann Barnhart has addressed this matter in her usual detached and understated way, but I thought Eliot Bougis’ coverage might be a bit more balanced.

What do we know of this Saint few in the Western Church had heard of before Sunday, Gregory of Narek (ca. 950-1005)?  Well, we know he was a stgregorymember of the Armenian Orthodox Church, which has oft been described as a Monophysite Church that failed to approve the Council of Chalcedon, rather like many Coptic churches.  However, the Armenians dispute this and claim to be Miaphysites, holding a nuanced position between that adopted at Chalcedon and the condemned heresy of Monophysitism. Both positions have to do with not the personage of Christ, but his nature.  Catholics believe Christ is both God and man with a divine and human nature, whereas monophysites hold that Christ may have been God and man but only had one (divine) nature.  Miaphysites occupy a position somewhat in between.  All of these discussions on the person, nature, and will of Christ can become very complex very fast and very small differences in language (including the effects of translation) can have a big impact.  If you want a strong opinion on Miaphysitism, read Barnhart’s piece.

With that background, some thoughts and questions from Mr. (Dr.?) Bougis, who doesn’t reject the elevation on the grounds of heresy, but does wonder how this can be reconciled with many troubling factors:

The AOC, the body to which Gregory belonged, has formally and persistently rejected the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, was not in communion with Rome during Gregory’s life, and highly venerates Gregory, who was (as Ann Barnhardt strongly emphasizes) a miaphysite. “The main difference,” notes the just cited AOC website, “between the Byzantine tradition, also known as Chalcedonian churches and the Armenian Church, (together with other non-Chalcedonian churches) has been on the issue of Christology, i.e., the dogma related to Christ’s Divine and Human natures.”……

……..So, a saint venerated in a fellowship that has for centuries rejected Chalcedon–a council universally binding on the Catholic Church–is considered a Doctor of the Catholic Church. Are there any other councils that one might reject while still enjoying exemplary ecclesial status–say, Trent or Vatican II[Great points. Traditionally, rejection of an ecumenical Council, especially one of the famous first four, was seen as admission of heresy and status as excommunicate.  But we all know all the old rules have been thrown out and we’re just sort of making things up as we go along]

Does this elevation not also canonize Gregory? How could it not? If he is but a provincially revered saint in an ancient but schismatic Christian communion, how can he be considered a universal Doctor? Are there any other Doctors of the Church who are not also celebrated in her liturgy as saints?* Are there any other Doctors who belonged to schismatic bodies? [Uh…….no]

………Am I the only one who thinks this cause, which had been underway for some time, was executed with such celerity in order to throw a grim but timely light on one of Pope Francis’s favorite themes, “the ecumenism of blood”? As he most recently put it: “Be they Catholic, Orthodox, Copts, Lutherans, it doesn’t matter: They’re Christian! The blood is the same: It is the blood which confesses Christ”. [I had not seen this quote before.  This is one of the most clearly problematic statements I’ve seen from Pope Francis, and seems very difficult to comprehend as other than representing a distressing indifference]

* [I’ve since learned that Gregory is in fact in the Church’s most recent martyrology, but not in the earlier edition, and is mentioned as a saint in the CCC, so this just confirms my instinct to see something beautiful here, regardless of how it might be spun for this or that ideological fetish. {Further research leaves me uncertain once more. Did Rome recognize Gregory of Narek’s sanctity as recently and suddenly as 2001/2005? What’s going on here?}]

Personally, I find this elevation at the least quite imprudent, and at worst, gravely scandalous.  This is sort of “ecumenism” by default – sure, we don’t safe_imagebelieve the same things, but we’ll just paper over the differences and pretend we do!  Then, we’ll elevate each other’s holy people to “saints!”

You know I’m a former episcopalian.  The Anglican Church has its own calendar of “saints,” and quite a calendar it is!  It includes such notable non-Anglicans as Martin Luther King and Ghandi (among many, many others, including a number of post-Reformation Catholics!). Over time, it has become an increasingly worldly list, with an always leftist drift.  Is that what we can look forward to in the steady episcopalianizing of the Catholic Church?  Will we have Saint Cesar Chavez and Saint Barack Obama one day?  How about a “Saint Mohammad?”

I know the ecumenical dimension probably was dominant in this act, but I cannot help but think an almost equally important aspect was the sowing of enormous confusion.  Can we not even trust Doctors of the Church anymore?  And is the standard not getting watered down quite a bit?  For over 1500 years, there were always recognized 8 Doctors, four Latin and four Greek.  Two more, Aquinas and Bonaventure, were added in the 16th century. Since that time, and especially since 1925, the title has proliferated and now it seems every Pope must name at least one (if not several) Doctors.  Certainly I download (3)have no problem with the likes of Teresa of Avila or Robert Bellarmine being accorded such an honor, but I do think the rapid proliferation of the awarding of this distinction is tending to water down its import.  It took 1900 years to recognize 23 Doctors, whereas 13 have been recognized in less than 100 years.  I note the only modern popes (since Pius VII) NOT to name a Doctor of the Church have been Gregory XVI and Saint Pius X – both incredibly holy men not much given to hubris.

Maybe I’m getting too crotchety.  I don’t know, what’s not to like about another Doctor of the Church?  Why do I always have to complain?  It just seems a bit too cute, a bit too……worldly?

What’s funny, is that just four years ago I read a book The Thirty Three Doctors of the Church.  Just in a few years, that book has become quite out of date.

 

The manifest modernism of Cardinal Walter Kasper February 25, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Bible, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, scandals, secularism, self-serving, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Joe Sparks at the Catholic Household site has done a great service in reviewing a number of Cardinal Walter Kasper’s early works.  Never repudiated, excerpts from the works of the “Pope’s theologian” reveal a man steeped in leftist-modernist “higher criticism” and gravely detached from a Catholic understanding of Sacred Scripture and the Tradition that informs it.  In fact, he is at many points in direct contradiction to solemn points of Dogma, the import of which I don’t think I have to tell you.  And yet this is the man, more than any other, guiding the direction of the Church under Pope Francis, and especially the attack on the moral Doctrine of the Faith.

Some select quotes below, it is useful to read the whole article, which I encourage:

A number of miracle stories turn out in the light of form criticism to be projections of the experiences of Easter back into the earthly life of Jesus, or anticipatory representations of the exalted Christ. Among these epiphany stories we should probably include the stilling of the storm, the transfiguration, Jesus’ walking on the lake, the feeding of the four (or five) thousand and the miraculous draught of fishes. The clear purpose of the stories of the raising from the dead of Jairus’s daughter, the widow’s son at Naim and Lazarus is to present Jesus as Lord over life and death. It is the nature miracles which turn out to be secondary accretions to the original tradition.

“The result of all this is that we must describe many of the gospel miracle stories as legendary…….The probability is that we need not take the so-called ‘nature miracles’ as historical.

This is nothing more than straight-up modernism.  The very concept that Christ’s Life and miracles could be “theologically true,” or “true in a sense of faith,” but historically false, as if they never occurred, is a heresy condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

Furthermore, it is highly convincing circumstantial proof of Arianism, meaning Kasper views the real living Jesus Christ as just a man, separate from God and the “Jesus Christ of faith.”  And yet we more traditional Catholics are the Pelagians now.

[Mark 16] begins with a definite improbability. The wish to anoint a dead body, which has already been put in its shroud in the tomb, three days later, is not given any explanation, such as being a custom of the time, and is unintelligible in the climatic conditions of Palestine. The fact that the women do not realize until they are already on the way that they would need help to roll back the stone and enter the tomb betrays a degree of thoughtlessness which is not easy to explain. We must assume therefore that we are faced not with historical details but with stylistic devices intended to attract the attention and raise excitement in the minds of those listening….

In addition to the repetition and amplification of the heresies noted above, Cardinal Kasper -mind, he has never publicly changed his stance on these writings – also reveals the sneering contempt of the modernist left for anyone but themselves.  Everyone else is dumb, everyone else is silly, everyone else needs wild eyed tales and imagined miracles to convince them of the reality of Jesus Christ as God Incarnate.  This especially applies to those of earlier historic periods, who are almost always presented by modernists as bumbling simpletons wowed by fantastic stories. But isn’t it odd how the modernist contradicts himself – while the early Church allegedly made up these fables to win converts, we are told by these same modernists that the earliest Mass was the purest, and thus we must emulate it in the Novus Ordo (even if many if not most all the claims regarding the conduct of the earliest Mass either do not apply to the Church today, or were complete fabrications).  Which is it….was the early Church closest to the Truth revealed by Jesus Christ or was it filled with lying fabulists who told tall tales in order to sway the slobbering, stupid ancient masses? We see here as evidenced in so many other areas the double dealing of the modernist-leftist academia. BTW, the historical evidence contradicts this view, Christianity appealed at least as much, if not more, to the well-educated and very sober, even cynical elites of the Roman Empire as much as it did to the “peasants” of the day.  I would argue that in many respects, the elites of that time were probably better educated that their contemporaries today.

The final quote does not concern Scripture.  It is quite long, so bear with me, but it is incredibly important.  By now it should be clear that Cardinal Kasper – how on earth such a man was even ordained, let alone made a prince of the Church, is only for God to know – is an intellectual heir and ally of the extreme end of the modernist-leftist cabal that dominated Vatican II, Hans Kung, Schillebeeckx, Cardinal Alfrings, and all the rest.  But in the below, he directly states that the Council did not achieve the full flowering of modernist dreams due to a reaction from “antimodernist” elements and thus remains an imperfect realization of the progressive left’s vision for the Church (which is becoming completely irrelevant episcopals).  Yes Cardinal Kasper is a modernist, yes he holds views that I cannot describe other than heresy, and yes he has a dog in the fight, but given that he is such a scion of the extreme progressive wing of the Church (if they can be called “of the Church), and given that he was so close to such major players, should not his description of the Council as being one oriented towards departure from the Church’s 2000 year belief and practice seriously?

An influential minority [of Council Fathers]…remained captive to the structure of neoscholasticism and defended the post-Tridentine tradition in a one-sided manner. [Gee……you mean they were Catholic?  And the progressives didn’t defend their novelties “in a one sided manner!?”] Pope John XXIII’s successor, Pope Paul VI—unjustly a too much forgotten pope—was in principle inclined toward the concerns of the majority but also sought (in accordance with the ancient conciliar tradition) to achieve, if at all possible, a united consensus on the passing of the council documents. He succeeded: all sixteen documents were passed almost unanimously. But that came at a cost. In many places, as in previous councils, there were found compromise formulations in which the position of the majority often stands directly side by side with the position of the minority with their concern for demarcation. [Well that latter half is just BS.  Certainly, there was division in early councils and theological formulations were not always as precise as they could be in the very early Church, but there were always as clear a definition of orthodoxy and error as humanly possible (in cooperation with Grace).  This is a self-serving and doubtful, at best, claim.  Later councils, in particular, were exceedingly clear in their formulations and condemnations, especially Trent]

So the council’s texts contain enormous conflict potential; they open the door for a selective reception in one or the other direction… So the question arises: In which direction does the compass of Vatican II point, and where is the church heading in this still young third millennium? Will it maintain the confident trust of John XXIII [hyper-montanism, exalting a pope over Dogma and Tradition.  the image presented of John XXIII as the scion of progressive dreams is highly doubtful, as well.]  and the renewal from the sources or take the path back to defensive antireform and antimodernist attitudes? That is the question facing post-conciliar reception. (Address at the University of Notre Dame, April 24, 2013)

So Cardinal Kasper plainly admits he is on the side of modernism, does he not?

How many serious figures from Vatican II, on both sides of the theological divide that has riven the Church, do we have to read before serious consideration can be given to the possibility that they may be right, and that Vatican II is, or was intended by the dominant faction to be, a radical rupture with the preceding Magisterium?  I am not the one to answer that question.  No blogger is.  I have my personal beliefs, but they count for nothing. However,  I agree with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Msgr. Brunero Gherardini, and many others, that the time is very long since past for a critical examination of the documents of Vatican II in the light of Tradition, and their clear explication purely in that light.  Anyone with a brain can see a huge tension between a number of statements of Vatican II and the pre-conciliar Magisterium.  Just wrapping them in the warm blanket of denial and saying “continuity” over and over is not cutting it.  Those statements – and I have no idea how many there are – are a source of huge amounts of tension in the Church, and the obvious “restatement of doctine BUT some novelty” or vice versa formula of so many statements of Vatican II, which Kasper describes above (one thing he gets right) is an enormous temptation to abuse.

The way Vatican II is written, especially in its novel parts (which is the distinct minority), progressives and faithful Catholics can argue literally forever on their correct interpretation and implementation.  That was what it took to get the cherished “unanimity” in the conciliar votes (otherwise, a number of the documents would not have passed with the requisite majority). But the damage this see-saw formula of many conciliar statements is plain to see.  I do pray we may finally get a Pope firmly grounded in the traditional practice of the Faith to either pass over (which I don’t think is possible), or re-examine Vatican II on the basis of the Church’s perennial belief.

But I shan’t hold my breath.  “Serene theology,” and all that.

Sorry for such a long post!

Pope Francis says “Reform of the Reform” mistaken, Traditionalist seminarians often have “moral problems” February 20, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Papa, persecution, priests, scandals, secularism, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
comments closed

The following text comes via Zenit, as reported by Rorate Caeli, and contains comments from Pope Francis’ recent meeting with the clergy of Rome.  It is reported that some of the priests present either took notes or recorded portions of the talk, so the report is purported to be accurate.

In the report, Pope Francis describes the “Reform of the Reform” as “mistaken” (a point on which I might agree, but probably for very different reasons), and that traditionalist seminarians are often unbalanced souls with grave moral problems. Pope Francis warned bishops from accepting them into their dioceses (does this statement point at the Franciscans of the Immaculate, or at events in Paraguay, where a very orthodox bishop unfortunately did accept a priest who presented himself as traditional and devout, but had a long history of abuse allegations?).  Given the context, and bearing in mind these appear to be yet another in the constant stream of “off the cuff” remarks, I do find the comments below quite incredible, and surely at least something of a rebuke to the Pope Emeritus:

Through the Motu Propio Summorum Pontificum, published in 2007, the now Pope Emeritus allowed the possibility of celebrating the Mass according the liturgical books edited by John XXIII in 1962, notwithstanding that the “ordinary” form of celebration in the Catholic Church would always remain that established by Paul VI in 1970.

Pope Francis explained that this gesture by his predecessor, “a man of communion”, was meant to offer “a courageous hand to Lefebvrians and traditionalists”, as well as to those who wished to celebrate the Mass according to the ancient rites. The so-called “Tridentine” Mass – the Pope said – is an “extraordinary form of the Roman Rite”, one that was approved following the Second Vatican Council. Thus, it is not deemed a distinct rite, but rather a “different form of the same right”. (sic) [Yah, that should be “Rite.”  Are these comments significant?  Thus far, Pope Francis has rather pointedly refrained from criticizing either the TLM directly or Summorum Pontificum.  Thank God.]

However, the Pope noted that there are priests and bishops who speak of a “reform of the reform.” [Indeed, the former pontiff Benedict XVI spoke of this frequently]  Some of them are “saints” and speak “in good faith.” But this “is mistaken”, the Holy Father said. He then referred to the case of some bishops who accepted “traditionalist” seminarians who were kicked out of other dioceses, without finding out information on them, because “they presented themselves very well, very devout.” They were then ordained, but these were later revealed to have “psychological and moral problems.” [So it is mistaken because there have been a handful – and truly a handful, compared to the broader population of priests – of bad apples?  There is no other justification given.  So the Reform of the Reform, which means allowing the TLM to influence the Novus Ordo (and pray God not vice versa) to improve the solemnity and reverence with which the Ordinary Form of the Mass is offered. But this is “mistaken?”  As far as is reported, this is just a bald assertion.]

It is not a practice, but it “happens often” in these environments, the Pope stressed, and to ordain these types of seminarians is like placing a “mortgage on the Church.”  [I would argue against the idea that having bad traditional priests “happens often.”  There have been a few, it is true, but I would bet my house they are far fewer percentage wise than “regular” priests who have had the same problems. Most of the traditional priests I have met are very fine, upstanding men and this is really a very unfortunate calumny directed against traditional priests in general]  The underlying problem is that some bishops are sometimes overwhelmed by “the need for new priests in the diocese.” Therefore, an adequate discernment among candidates is not made, among whom some can hide certain “imbalances” that are then manifested in liturgies. In fact, the Congregation of Bishops – the Pontiff went on to say – had to intervene with three bishops on three of these cases, although they didn’t occur in Italy.

Is that the problem we’ve seen?  That bishops are so desperate for priests they are ordaining whatever crazed, perverse traddy priest they can get their hands on?  Or is the situation actually quite the opposite, at least in the Anglo-sphere, that many, many good, devout young men who probably had valid calls to the priesthood were deliberately blocked from being able to even come close to ordination by an organized plot of hostile intent to block such men from the priesthood, in order to force a “crisis” that would do away with the all-male, celibate, ordained priesthood and give way to female “priests” and lay people running “Mass?”  And what of the influence of the perverse themselves, who most often held dominant positions of authority in most seminaries and actively directed events so that only their own “kind” could be ordained, or at least only those, and those who gave absolutely no indication of orthodoxy during seminary?

And did the Congregation of Bishops “have to intervene,” or were they directed to intervene?  I do bear in mind that Pope Francis is from South America, and the few reports I know of such problematic “imbalanced” traditional priests come almost entirely from that region.  So perhaps he has been unduly influenced by his provincial experience.  But I would take the final comment as at least a bit of a reminder, if not a threat, to bishops to be careful not to ordain “too many” (or any?) priests with traditional leanings.  If such were truly acted upon, we would very quickly be back to the disastrous days of the 50s-80s when so many unworthy men were indeed ordained, and whose subsequent actions wrecked such havoc on the Church.

What say you?  What do you make of these comments?

Vatican spokesman Fr. Tom Rosica calls Cardinal Burke a “dissenter” February 19, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, martyrdom, Papa, persecution, priests, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I mentioned in my previous post that it was possible some recent activities by the progressive faction in the Church might be coordinated.  The bit below, also via Vox Cantoris (yes, I am trying to support them as much as possible), I think dramatically increases the likelihood of a coordinated response.

Fr. Rosica re-tweeted Cardinal Wuerl’s blog post denouncing Cardinal Burke, and straight up called Burke a “dissenter,” which is rich, coming from him:

rosica again

Some commentary from Vox Cantoris:

Father Tom Rosica is a spokesman for the Vatican. One would presume that someone in such an important and sensitive and influential position would be prudent with his personal opinions and the use of social media. It leaves one to ask an honest question; Is this his own opinion? Is it that of Father Lombardi’s and the Office of Social Communication? Is it the Holy Father’s? Or is it an attempt to smear and obfuscate the truth. I’ve written elsewhere that the tactics of Saul Alinsky are not unknown to this cleric.

……..How disingenuous is it of Cardinal Wuerl to suggest that Cardinal Burke is a dissenter, which would include your writer and probably you as well. There was a time when the word meant someone that dissented from the truth of the faith. Now it seems to mean that it is someone who upholds it.

Well isn’t that the very point of it all?  Is that not the traditionalist critique, boiled down to a nutshell?  The critique is this: at and after Vatican II, a modernist cabal aided (or permitted) by the popes in charge conducted a literal coup against the Church, turning doctrine and practice inside out, elevating error and novelty to Doctrine, and rendering the 2000 year old Doctrine down to maligned heresy, or at least “out of date” practice.  No, this was not really codified by “changes” to Doctrine (although there are plenty of problems with the documents of VII themselves), but in practice, emphasis, promotions, demotions, ordinations made and ordinations blocked a new order was installed in a frighteningly short period of time.  The media played an immeasurably important role in this process, which is why former Pope Benedict XVI alluded to “a council of the media.”

These guys are just telling us the way things are, to them.  After a long interregnum of 35 years when they had to be somewhat cagey about their ambitions to remake the Church into a church of man, for man, worshiping man (I’m not saying the pontiffs of 1978-2013 were totally hostile to that vision, but they toned some excesses down while encasing others in the stone of long, approved practice), they have apparently felt liberated like no time since the mid-70s.  They are telling us who they are, who they think we are, and what they think they have accomplished, or very nearly have. And Vox is right, in this new paradigm, faithful Catholics are the dissenters.  They seek to put us outside the Church, while installing their errors, heresies, novelties, abuses, etc., as the normative, required belief and practice of the Church.

Anyone who lived through that trial of 1965-1980 or so knows that is exactly how things were portrayed back then.  Back then, to be a faithful Catholic who desired the Traditional Latin Mass and doctrinal cohesiveness (with the past) was to open oneself up to harsh rebukes and claims of even being a “heretic” or unfaithful.

Are we not hearing some things like that today?  No, the trend is not nearly so advanced as it became in, say, the 70s, but it is still around, and it seems that the likes of Fr. Rosica and Cardinal Wuerl want to resurrect it in full force.  I’m sure readers have been told they are “disobedient” for refusing to put their kids in parish CCD for Confirmation or for using the Baltimore Catechism for First Communion.  Or that they are just trying to call attention to themselves by wearing a chapel veil.

The fact that we’re building towards the second session of the Synod on the Family adds meaning and emphasis to rhetoric like “Cardinal Burke is a dissenter.”  I have a hard time seeing this denunciation as incidental, I think it almost certainly part of a broader plan.

If I am right, rhetoric of this kind will be repeated and amplified in the months to come.

One more point – as Vox notes, Fr. Rosica is a man with a high profile office at the Vatican.  He is the English-language spokesman for the Vatican.  When he says something, it is generally taken as speaking for the Vatican and even the Pope.  Is that what he meant to do here, imply the Vatican and Pope Francis view Cardinal Burke as a “dissenter” from the new progressive orthodoxy?  Or was he implying nothing, is that the “Vatican’s” (and even Pope Francis’) view of Cardinal Burke?  Said another way, is this an underhanded way to attack a faithful prelate’s credibility?

ISIS threat to sack Rome may be no idle threat February 19, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Immigration, Papa, persecution, rank stupidity, secularism, Society.
comments closed

Via reader MFG, the Italian government is in full blown panic mode over ISIS’ rapid strides in Libya, on a short distance away from Sicily, Pantellaria, and other Italian domains.  Italy at present receives a lot of illegal immigration across the Mediterranean, via Lampedusa and Pantellaria, of Libyan muslims.  With that papal-endorsed influx, it would be exceedingly easy for ISIS killing machines to enter Italy and much of Europe.  I’d say they have good reason to be concerned, especially given the fact that all of Europe would be hard pressed to put a full mechanized division in the field, even given a year’s warning:

Last weekend in Italy, as the threat of ISIS in Libya hit home with a new video addressed to “the nation signed with the blood of the cross” and the warning, “we are south of Rome,” Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi shuttered the Italian embassy in Tripoli and raised his fist with the threat of impending military action. Never mind that Italy has only 5,000 troops available that are even close to deployable, according to the defense ministry. [If you assess them at the level of the US, they probably haven’t got even 500 that are up to speed. “Deployable” usually means “at 90 days notice,” if not 180.  All of Europe, with some exception for Britain, have allowed their military capabilities to wither down to essentially nothing.] Or that the military budget was cut by 40 percent two years ago, which has kept the acquisition of 90 F-35 fighter jets hanging in the balance and left the country combat-challenged to lead any mission—especially one against an enemy like the Islamic State.

In fact, Renzi didn’t specify exactly who would wield that military might, and, two days later, when no one volunteered to lead the charge, he backtracked. “It’s not the time for a military intervention,” Renzi told an Italian television station Monday night and said the United Nations had to lead the way. “Our proposal is to wait for the U.N. Security Council. The strength of the U.N. is decidedly superior to that of the radical militias.” [Don’t you bet on it, bub.  Wait until they get their hands on some MANPADS and AAA.  These guys should not be underestimated…….nor should the appeal of a violent caliphate and unholy jihad has with a very large percentage of muslims]

Whether the time is right or not, there is no question that there is a palpable tension in Italy over the ISIS threat—Libya is just 109 miles away from the island of Lampedusa and 300 miles from Sicily—made worse by a 64 percent increase in illegal migrant arrivals by sea since last year. In all of 2014, more than 170,000 people arrived from Libya and Turkey, the highest number ever recorded. Last weekend, as the embassy staff made their way to Italy on a mercantile ship, 2,164 migrants left the same Libyan shores en route to Sicily. The week before, more than 300 people were lost in the same seas as their rickety fishing boats capsized before rescuers could save them.

Where on earth is the benefit to this unconstrained, mass immigration?  Oh yeah……corporate titans want to drive down wages so they can take in another $50 million in their golden stock parachutes.  But aside from that, how long are governments going to foster national suicide through this insane immigration procedures?  While the presence of muslim radicals in Mexico is a bit speculative, their presence in Libya is not!  And yet they continue to accept this mass influx!  Doing so reveals more than just a desire to appease those who buy political influence, it reveals something approaching a desire for cultural suicide.  But that’s our self-loathing leftist elite for us.

The progressive Church Empire is striking Back? February 19, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, persecution, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Events over the past week have raised in my mind the specter that the progressive elements which dominate the levers of power in the Church may be signalling they have had enough pestering “input” from troublesome laity and even their own brother bishops, and are not going to let some piddling concerns over attacking perennial Dogmas or the causing of immense confusion and scandal derail their plans.

I know I’m late to the game (I have a life at times, too) on some of these matters, but to me it was interesting that both Cardinal Wuerl’s blatant attack on Cardinal Burke (and Archbishop Lenga?), as well as the incredible threat of lawsuit by the really scurrilous Fr. Thomas Rosica (the very epitome of post-conciliar clericalists) against a Catholic blogger came out in such close proximity to each other.  Probably coincidence, but knowing how well organized the modernist-leftist cabal in the Church is, I don’t think we can discount the possibility of a correlation.

For the few who don’t know, Cardinal Donald Wuerl of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC, a long time dissenter from Church Doctrine in matters like the distribution of the Blessed Sacrament to pro-abort politicians, even going so far as to disobey and misconstrue Pope Saint John Paul II’s order on the matter, wrote a blog post in which he excoriated those bishops he views as dissenting from the “new order” ushered in that fateful conclave of March 2013:

As I was watching the Holy Father on TV, my inbox was filling with a number of email including an interview and an article by brother bishops who are less than enthusiastic about Pope Francis.  Those emails reminded me of a much, much earlier time in my life when I first experienced dissent from the teaching and practice of a pope.

That’s truly rich, coming from Cardinal Wuerl, as John Henry Weston at LifeSiteNews notes:

Cardinal Wuerl is here on new ground. For years he was, by his own definition, the “dissenter” under Popes John Paul II and Pope Benedict.  The issue also revolved around Holy Communion. However, rather than giving Communion to divorced and remarried, the previous popes were asking that Communion be denied to pro-abortion Catholic politicians.

In 2004, Pope John Paul II had the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith intervene in the US Bishops deliberation over the question of Communion for pro-abortion politicians. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later to become Pope Benedict XVI, wrote in his letter titled “Worthiness to receive Holy Communion,” that a Catholic politician who would vote for “permissive abortion and euthanasia laws” after being duly instructed and warned, “must” be denied Communion…….

…….Archbishop Wuerl repeatedly refused to comply with that directive. In fact, he was open in his dissent.  Asked by various media since the mid-1990s, he said it was not his pastoral style, and also claimed that denying Communion is tantamount to wielding the sacrament as a weapon.

But for the Washington archbishop it wasn’t only a matter of words – he backed up his rhetoric against the pope’s wishes with action. In March 2012, he stripped a priest of his faculties to publicly celebrate Mass for refusing Communion to a woman who was known to have been living in a homosexual relationship. [I’m sure readers recall this event.  So Cardial Wuerl has taken concrete action to impose his will, so contrary to canon law, in this matter.]

…….In 2012, when asked about refusing notorious pro-abortion politician Nancy Pelosi Communion, Wuerl opined, “I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.” [And once again we see the American bishops, along with most around the world, twisting Canon Law, Tradition, and Sacred Scripture to their own end. Canon 915 didn’t just fall from the sky, an odd-duck Doctrine that has no visible support. It comes straight from Scripture.  But perhaps Cardinal Wuerl has forgotten this bit of Scripture, since it was carefully excised from the Novus Ordo readings (all of them).  I refer to 1 Corinthians XI:27-29, wherein St. Paul makes clear that those who receive the Blessed Sacrament unworthily eat and drink condemnation on themselves, committing the gravest of sacrileges.]

At that time the head of the Catholic Church’s highest court dealing with canon law was none other than Cardinal Raymond Burke. Burke told LifeSiteNews unequivocally at the time: “The Church’s law is very clear.”

“The person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [canon law] doesn’t say that the bishop shall decide this. It’s an absolute.”

So perhaps Cardinal Wuerl is savouring a little revenge with his dissenter remark. But, the hypocrisy is so very blatant. [If you think our prelates are above things like petty revenge, you’re wrong]

Speaking of petty revenge, Vatican spokesthug Fr. Thomas Rosica has threated a lawsuit against the owner of the good blog Vox Cantoris, one David Domet.  The lawsuit demands Mr. Domet remove about 10 posts mentioning Fr. Rosica, all of which, mind you, contain nothing but Rosica’s own public statements and some brief commentary on them. Domet is a Canadian, and I know free speech law there is not nearly so open and liberal (or sacrosanct, if you will) as it is in the United States, but I would say that, in the US, this would be nothing more than a nuisance lawsuit and a form of harassment that would have little chance of a finding in Rosica’s favor. But that’s not the point, the point is to bully and threaten a Catholic lay person who has pointed out numerous problematic statements by Rosica over the past 2 years into silence.  Most laypeople do not have the resources to retain attorneys and pay hundreds of dollars an hour to respond to a lawsuit.  Rosica, by contrast, apparently does. I have to wonder if this funding comes from his own pocket, or if he is able to use Church money  – our money – to fund it.  Even a threatening letter like that probably cost $4-800.

You can see the cease and desist order, in all its fury, here ——>>>>> spec-2015-02-19

Since Fr. Rosica is official English language spokesman for the Vatican under Pope Francis (and given his modernist-progressive sensibilities, what a revealing choice that was), and works directly under the questionably competent Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ, one must wonder just how high up approval for this action went.  Is it limited to Fr. Rosica alone? I doubt it.  Did his boss approve?  Quite likely.  What about his boss’s boss, Pope Francis?  I tend to doubt a Pope would bother with such a trifling matter, but then again, we have been told that this is the most detail-oriented, authoritarian pope in decades, so who knows?

One thing is certain, David Domet now faces a poisonous moral choice.  I pray he gets some pro bono legal assistance, and quick.

On the positive side, Fr. Rosica would not have taken this step if Mr. Domet were not scoring some pretty significant hits.  And I say that not just of Fr. Rosica, but of the entire agenda we see unfolding before us. There’s an old saying “if you’re receiving fire, it means you’re over the target.”  That is why I think this may be part of a broader campaign to vilify and fluster the growing opposition.

Saul Alinsky would be proud.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 501 other followers