I’ll never forget February 12, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Admin, disaster, General Catholic, Papa, sadness.
The third anniversary of the tragic abdication of Pope Benedict XVI was yesterday, but I still feel betrayed and massively let down. I remember my wife telling me the news, and at first I thought it had to be a hoax. I refused to believe it until the evidence became overwhelming.
I know some feel he had every right, that he alone could judge his age and capacity, but I am convinced Pope Benedict XVI was “forced out,” or fell to the wolves around him. His resignation remains unparalleled, the comparisons to Celestine being really apples and oranges. It was the seizure of Vatican financial assets that compelled him to believe he could no longer govern, I think. We’ll likely never know for certain, in this life.
I also cannot believe what happened later that same day was just “one of those things:”
In less than a year, Jose Bergoglio will be 80. But mark my words, he will never resign. He is having waaay too much fun remaking the Church to suit his ideology. Progressives almost never give up power voluntarily.
Fathers of the Church on the Unity of the Church…… February 11, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, different religion, Ecumenism, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Papa, sanctity, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
1 comment so far
…….and the grave evil of placing oneself outside the Church in a schismatic and/or heretical sect. All the quotes below come from Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Satis Cognitum (1896). The Fathers quotes are identified in line. I add a few explanatory comments:
Origen writes: “As often as the heretics allege the possession of the canonical scriptures to which all Christians give unanimous assent, they seem to say: ‘Behold the word of the truth is in the houses.'” [I take this to mean something akin to protestant viewing a church as just whatever group of people who come together to worship the Lord, rather than the formal institution founded by Christ]
“But we should believe them not and abandon not the primary and ecclesiastical tradition. We should believe not otherwise than has been handed down by the tradition of the Church of God.” Irenaeus too says: “The doctrine of the Apostles is the true faith……..which is known to us through the Episcopal succession…….which has reached even unto our age by the very fact that the Scriptures have been zealously guarded and fully interpreted.” And Tertullian: “It is therefore clear that all doctrine which agrees with that of the Apostolic Church – the matrices and original centers of faith, must be looked upon as the truth, holding without hesitation that the Church received it from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God……..We are in communion with the Apostolic Churches and by the very fact that they [the many local churches] agree amongst themselves we have a testimony of the truth.” And so Hilary: “Christ teaching from the ship signifies that those who are outside the Church can never grasp the divine teaching; for the ship typifies the Church where the word of life is deposited and preached. Those who are outside are like sterile and worthless sand; they cannot comprehend.” [I really like that quote by St. Hilary of Poitiers]
Rufinus praises Gregory of Nazianum and Basil because “they studied the text of Holy Scripture alone, and took the interpretation of its meaning not from their own inner consciousness, but from the writings and on the authority of the ancients, who in their turn, as it is clear, took their rule for understanding the meaning from the Apostolic succession.”…… [Which is contrary to what the protestants have done, rejecting the Faith that has been handed on and searching the Scriptures, interpreted solely by themselves, for ways to justify that rejection. That is the critical point to keep in mind, with all the headstrong protestants (not those so much born into error and ignorant of it), they start from the position “Catholic = wrong” and search for justifications for that belief. They can be murderously dangerous to the poorly formed.]
……..In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? – without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches it, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His Grace, we believe that what He has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived……..
……..In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me, the many things in which they are will not profit them.
And this indeed most deservedly; for they who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ,” they more truly obey themselves than God. “You who believe what you like of the Gospels and believe not what you like, believe yourselves rather than the Gospel.”…….
………It is then undoubtedly the office of the Church to guard Christian Doctrine and to propagate it in its integrity and purity. But this is not all, the object for which the Church has been instituted is not wholly attained by the performance of this duty. For since Jesus Christ delivered Himself up for the salvation of the human race, and to this end directed all His teaching and commands, so He ordered the Church to strive, by the truth and its doctrine, to sanctify and to save mankind.
With regard to that last paragraph, is that what the large majority of the institutional Church has been doing since Vatican II – striving to convert, sanctify, and save the world? Is that what Francis is doing with his attacks – for that is what they are, whether he intends them to be so or not – on belief and practice that certainly impact doctrine?
The Church is alienated from herself. She is at war with herself. The outlook expressed in, say, Evangelii Guadium, and Satis Cognitum, are not just alien to one another, they are mutually exclusive. One might even say irretrievably opposed. How the faithful are supposed to reconcile all this is always left unsaid, except we’re just supposed to go along with whatever Rome says today, even if that contradicts what was said yesterday and will be contradicted twice again tomorrow. It is the way towards doubt, indifference, dissension, and collapse.
Once again, feature/bug, and all that.
But I thought some of those Church Fathers quotes on Church unity might be helpful, so……yay us.
What do you think of this list of the top twenty most dangerous Catholics? – UPDATED February 4, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, Papa, Revolution, scandals, secularism, the struggle for the Church.
So Church Militant TV has a new video up I both saw, and a reader sent to me, concerning a list of the top twenty most dangerous Catholics of the last 100 years.
Now, the list remains incomplete, only half has been released so far, but as I read it, I was quite surprised to find so few in the upper echelons of the hierarchy. The entire list is there if you take the survey. My mistake, I only read the article at Church Militant itself. So all the points made below stand. No popes listed, the names are heavily American, and almost no one in the curia or a major leader at Vatican II. For instance, Donald Wuerl is a politician, tends modernist (or is, whatever), and has given scandal on numerous occasions, but, really? Top 20 worst Catholics? Not even close. He’s nothing compared to some of the radicals in Europe, or some of those from the 60s-70s timeframe. To leave off Cardinal Martini is inexplicable to me. He’s the father of the current-day progressive wing in the Church. No de Chardin? No Congar? But bear in mind, some of those – de Chardin, Congar – received numerous plaudits from post-conciliar popes. Perhaps that played a role?
Here are some of the more prominent names:
Hans Urs von Balthasar
I’m struck by several things. For one, the list is overwhelmingly American. But many of the most destructive ideas have flowed out of Europe, and often, from high cardinals and others deeply entrenched at the highest levels of the Church. Most of the names listed here are priests, whose ideas, while certainly damnable, would not have had the impact they did had ecclesiastical authority not failed in its duty to discipline them or exclude them from the body of the faithful.
Now, the list is only half complete, so I’m hoping a whole slew of names – Martini, Frings, Alfrink, Bea, Congar, Suenens, Bugnini, etc., will make the list. Well, they didn’t. A list that does not include a number of the leading radicals from Vatican II – which includes those appointed by Paul VI to lead the Council – is woefully incomplete. And there are more top officials from today that I might include in my list – Koch, Schoenborn, Marx, Kasper…….basically the entire German episcopate.
But I’ll say something else. It is true that the crisis in the Church is a crisis of bishops. But who has appointed those bishops, and kept them in office, and even protected them, at times? If the list of “most dangerous Catholics” means those who have contributed the most to the crisis in the Church, can any list be complete that does not feature the names of Giovanni Montini and possibly Jose Bergoglio?
Look, I understand CMTVs editorial views. I know they are loathe to criticize any pontiff, especially the post-conciliar ones. I understand their viewpoint, even if I think it erroneous.
Having said that, from what limited study I’ve done of Vatican II, I am unable to conclude otherwise than that Pope Paul VI got the Council he wanted, more or less. John XXIII set the tone, but it was Paul VI who packed the all-important leadership/management with the Council almost entirely with thoroughgoing progressives. It was Paul VI who decided, at virtually every important logjam, in favor of the progressives, at least until the very end, when their excesses began to surprise and shock even him. And it was Paul VI who unleashed the Novus Ordo and deliberately put forth the notion that the TLM was abrogated, to the point of persecuting those priests who refused to go along. I could go on, HJA Sire and others have thoroughly criticized the pontificate of Paul VI in quite harsh terms.
Since the Council, with some exception for Benedict XVI, the dominant liberal interpretation of it has been allowed to stand, and even be promoted, by every pontiff of the intervening period, at least by silence and inaction if not by actual promotion (which, of course, has frequently occurred, as well). But you know all this already.
So I guess the question is…….can a list of the most “dangerous” Catholics of the last 100 years be complete without including any popes? Or is it tending too much towards scandal, with the wide audience CMTV has, to say so? (I tend to take more liberties, as I regard my readership as generally very well formed and steadfast, and able to stand “sterner stuff”).
And what of the many non-Americans/fathers of Vatican II who have contributed most to the collapse? And no Tielhard de Chardin? No Anibale Bugnini?
Nevertheless, while argument over who should be included could go on forever, I think the basic idea, to identify by name some of the most damaging Catholics of recent years is a pretty good one. While you or I might already be aware of most or all of these folks, many are not. It’s helpful to get those names out there. Who else would you have on your list?
“Saved by Race Alone:” Great riposte to Vatican’s Judaizing stand February 4, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, different religion, Ecumenism, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, silliness.
This is really funny. Picked it up from Pertinacious Papist. An open letter from a Jewish Catholic convert to Francis, glad to know that, in true progressive biological determinative fashion, he is saved not by Grace, but by race, alone. He is rather non-plussed over the donations he was encouraged to make over the years, though (my emphasis and comments):
His Holiness, Pope FrancisVatican CityJanuary, 2016Dear Holy FatherI am a Jew. I have the assurance, as did Menachem Mendel Schneerson of Crown Heights, Brooklyn, of direct descent from King David on my father’s side (my mother, I was assured was descended of Hillel).I am 74-years-old. I converted to the Roman Catholic Church at the age of 17 in the last year of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. I did so because I was under the conviction that I had to accept and have faith that Jesus Christ was my savior, and I believed it. And I believed that I had to be a baptized member of his Church to have a chance of salvation. So I converted and was baptized in the Catholic Church, and then I was confirmed. [I know baptism by desire and blood, but I also know, a heckuva lot of older Catholics, raised in the pre-conciliar Church, were taught to the point of total conviction that one had to be a visible member of the Church to be saved. My pious mother-in-law, God rest her soul, prayed constantly for my conversion based on that belief.]Over the years I have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to both Peters’ Pence (the pope’s own treasury about which you of course must be very familiar), and my local parish and diocese.During that time I attended thousands of Masses, hundreds of holy hours and novenas, said thousands of rosaries, and made hundreds of trips to the Confessional.Now in 2015 and 2016 I have read your words and those of your “Pontifical Commission.” You now teach that because I am a racial Jew, God’s covenant with me was never broken, and cannot be broken. You don’t qualify that teaching by specifying anything I might do that would threaten the Covenant, which you say God has with me because I am a Jew. You teach that it’s an unbreakable Covenant. You don’t even say that it depends on me being a good person. Logically speaking, if God’s Covenant with me is unbreakable, then a racial Jew such as I am can do anything he wants and God will still maintain a Covenant with me and I will go to heaven. [The public declarations are so general this “automatic salvation” can be inferred. Is it really extreme Zionist propaganda masquerading as new wisdom in the Church?]Your Pontifical Commission wrote last December, “The Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews…it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God.” [This statement still hurts. Goodness what a repudiation of Jesus Christ. Lord, I pray they know not what they do.]You are the Pontiff. I believe what your Commission teaches under your banner and in your name, and what you declared during your visit to the synagogue in January. As a result, I no longer see any point in getting up every Sunday morning to go to Mass, say rosaries, or attend the Rite of Reconciliation on Saturday afternoon. All of those acts are superfluous for me. Predicated on your teaching, I now know that due to my special racial superiority in God’s eyes, I don’t need any of it. [It’s not just Jews, is it? Many people are concluding they no longer need Mass, or don’t need to take Church Doctrine seriously, because “who am I to judge” and all the rest. I personally two folks who have fallen away entirely in the last year, quoting Francis as they exited]I don’t see any reason now as to why I was baptized in 1958. There was no need for me to be baptized. I no longer see why there was a need for Jesus to come to earth either, or preach to the Jewish children of Abraham of his day. As you state, they were already saved as a result of their racial descent from the Biblical patriarchs. What would they need him for? [Let’s just chuck the entire Gospel of John while we’re at it, right?]In light of what you and your Pontifical Commission have taught me, it appears that the New Testament is a fraud, at least as it applies to Jews. All of those preachings and disputations to the Jews were for no purpose. Jesus had to know this, yet he persisted in causing a lot of trouble for the Jews by insisting they had to be born again, they had to believe he was their Messiah, they had to stop following their traditions of men, and that they couldn’t get to heaven unless they believed that he was the Son of God. [Can any of this be disputed? Can you imagine how this new line makes Jewish converts feel, how much torment and scandal it must cause?]Your holiness, you and your Commission have instructed me in the true path to my salvation: my race. It’s all I need and all I have ever needed.God has a covenant with my genes. It’s my genes that save me. My eyes are open now. [Isn’t that more or less what the Jewish “dialoguers” with the Church have demanded, though? A pretension that some are saved by race alone? And how much is liberal katholyc acceptance of this driven by latent guilt for the Holocaust and whatever else? Really, the pro-Jewish stance demanded of the Church devolves, like so many other progressive shibboleths, to “shut up,” Catholics]Consequently, you will be hearing from my lawyer. I am filing suit against the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church. I want my money back, with interest, and I am seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the psychological harm your Church caused me, by making me think I needed something besides my own exalted racial identity, in order to go to heaven after I die.I am litigating as well over the time that I wasted that I could have spent working in my business, instead of squandering it worshipping a Jesus that your Church now says I don’t need to believe in for my salvation. Your prelates and clerics told me something very different in 1958. I’ve been robbed!
How can ecumenism be reconciled with St. Paul and the entire pre-conciliar Magisterium? February 3, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, different religion, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, Papa, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, suicide, the struggle for the Church.
Older Catholics will tell you, they remember a day when it was clearly taught that to even step foot in a protestant church was a mortal sin. Participating in the kind of “joint ecumenical service” that Francis – and he is not the first post-conciliar pope to do so – would have been utterly unthinkable. The mind of the Church was guided by St. Paul’s 2nd Letter to the Corinthians:
Bear not the yoke together with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? *For you are the temple of the living God: as God saith: **I will dwell in them, and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Wherefore, go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing:
Pope Pius XI taught that Catholics were forbidden to engage in liturgical celebrations with protestants, and in doing so he was only reiterating what the Church had clearly taught for some 350 years. The post-conciliar Church has most frequently tried to pretend that protestants and Catholics both belong to some “invisible church” consisting of “believers” (usually reduced to a shared baptism), but this kind of thinking was rejected by numerous pre-conciliar popes. Thus very clear statements such as those by St. Paul, which served as justification for “fundamentalists” like Saint Athanasius to have no contact with, and to give no recognition to, even the heretical Arian “Catholics” of his day. St. Basil stated that the faithful should even go into the desert to offer Mass, rather than participate in the liturgies of the heretics of those days.
And yet here we are, 2000 years later, after a completely novel council, the first ever in the history of the Church to proclaim no dogma and declare no anathemas, with a radically changed mindset, a mindset that much more plays to worldly thinking and approval than to the constant belief and practice of the faith.
50 years ago, in the immediate wake of Vatican II, there was a great outburst of ecumenical efforts. Thank God, those efforts largely subsided under the previous two pontificates (obviously, there were some scandalous exceptions, like Assisi), but they have come roaring back under Francis and especially in this run up to the 500th anniversary of the outbreak of the protestant heresy cum revolution. It must be remembered that many leading lights at Vatican II were scandalous in their acceptance of protestant belief, from Congar to Bugnini, who felt that in many cases the protestants had got in more right than the early Church Fathers directly informed by the Apostles. Congar reverenced Luther greatly, and Bugnini desired to create a Mass so bowdlerized of Catholic content that it would never be offensive to protestants.
Michael Matt and Christopher Ferrara have a valuable video on this subject below. I found it providential that I read a biblical verse with a note that pointed me to II Cor vi:14-17 just hours before I saw this video show up in my Youtube feed. I especially like the early reference Matt makes to St. Thomas More and his excoriation of protestants for loathing order and seeking to create a society based on disorder and the triumph of the will (which, perhaps, makes subsequent German history rather less than surprising).
Some more important points regarding the below. I have already reported on the disturbingly pro-protestant nature of elements of this joint “liturgy” composed by uber-liberal Catholics in the Congregation for Christian Unity and the Lutheran World Federation. As Matt notes below, this Federation is exceedingly modernist/liberal in and of itself, and is rejected by more conservative Lutheran bodies like the Missouri Synod. So what this amounts to is a self-congratulatory confab of progressives in the two bodies patting themselves on the back for their progressive beliefs. But such has been the practical nature of the ecumenical movement since its inception, it’s far more about confirming progressives in their beliefs than it is concern for souls, arriving at the truth, or, most especially, conversion:
Is it too much saying that Francis is trying to destroy the Church, or complete its destruction? As I said, these kinds of things have gone on for years, though not always with such fanfare, with such high-level participants, or with as much significance as the quincentenary portends.
Having said all that, I plan, for a time, to start ignoring the many problematic statements emanating from the Vatican, and limit myself to discussion/analysis of actions. At this point, I think we, who pray we adhere to what the Church has always believed, know who and what this man is. We know his penchant for highly destructive rhetoric. To some degree, reporting on that is feeling like repetitive non-news (water is wet), and I also need to do so to preserve my own faith and sanity. This planned confab with Lutheran heretics, and modernist ones at that, is a concrete act of such monumental significance that it does merit a good deal of coverage. I pray somehow, by some miracle, there may be an end to all this, but I won’t hold my breath.
I think it important to stress that the ecumenical/interreligious dialogue movements are radically counter to the Church’s pre-conciliar approach, and serve as one of the prime indicators that the Council, no matter what was intended (those arguments are endless, and quite possibly were intended to be), ushered in an era where practice, and belief, was irreconcilable with the Catholic ethos before 1962. That’s the take-home point.
Another insightful Rorate interview with Bishop Schneider; gives strong support to SSPX February 1, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Papa, persecution, sanctity, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
You might also recall a separate interview +Schneider gave in which he spoke positively of the SSPX. This was in the wake of his apostolic visitation, conducted at the request of Francis. That interview contained very positive comments towards the SSPX, comments that developed into a bit of a furball involving CMTV trying to get Schneider to retract or explain his comments away, which he never did, to my mind. at least not to change their meaning.
I excerpt a bit of this most recent interview below. Bishop Schneider, while drawing necessary distinctions, appears to reveal an even more positive attitude towards the SSPX than he did last summer (among a few other matters addressed – my comments as usual):
The very crisis of the Church in our days consists in the ever growing phenomenon that those who don’t fully believe and profess the integrity of the Catholic faithfrequently occupy strategic positions in the life of the Church, such as professors of theology, educators in seminaries, religious superiors, parish priests and even bishops and cardinals. And these people with their defective faith profess themselves as being submitted to the Pope.
The height of confusion and absurdity manifests itself when such semi-heretical clerics accuse those who defend the purity and integrity of the Catholic faith as being against the Pope – as being according to their opinion in some way schismatics. [It’s a train wreck. To add to the tragedy, I have now had two different people tell me just in the past couple of weeks that protestants on the cusp on converting have backed off due to scandal and confusion caused by Francis. I imagine my two examples are hardly the last] For simple Catholics in the pews, such a situation of confusion is a real challenge of their faith, in the indestructibility of the Church. They have to keep strong the integrity of their faith according to the immutable Catholic truths, which were handed over by our fore-fathers, and which we find in in the Traditional catechisms and in the works of the Fathers and of the Doctors of the Church. [Bishop Schneider is saying in times like these, we cannot always look to the institutional Church for orthodox catechesis, but must turn to the unchanging “Magisterium of the Dead” – Tradition]
………When someone or something is unimportant and weak, nobody has fear of it. Those who have fear of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X ultimately have fear of the perennial Catholic truths and of its demands in the moral and the liturgical domain.
When the SSPX tries to believe, to worship and to live morally the way our fore-fathers and the best-known Saints did during a millennial period, then one has to consider the life and the work of these Catholic priests and faithful of the SSPX as a gift for the Church in our days– even as one of the several instruments which the Divine Providence uses to remedy the enormity of the current general crisis of the faith, of the morals and of the liturgy inside the Church.
In some sectors of the SSPX there are, however, as it is the case in every human society some eccentric personalities. They have a method and a mindset which lack justice and charity and consequently the true “sentire cum ecclesia,” and there is the danger of an ecclesial autocephaly and to be the last judicial instance in the Church. [I think he is pointing at the SSPX-SO here] However, to my knowledge, the healthier part corresponds to the major part of the SSPX and I consider their General Superior, His Excellency Monsignor Bernard Fellay, as an exemplary and true Catholic bishop. There is some hope for a canonical recognition of the SSPX. [That’s a pretty clear and bold statement. Fellay is an exemplary bishop. Quite an endorsement. And not one that seems prone to walking back.]
………We have to believe firmly: The Church is not ours, nor the Pope’s. The Church is Christ’s and He alone holds and leads her indefectibly even through the darkest periods of crisis, as our current situation indeed is. [Something very important to remember. We MUST keep the Faith, in spite of all the temptations to the contrary. We cannot run away like the twelve Apostles. But there is a world of discussion surrounding just what “keeping the Faith” means, and how that faith can be best exercised. I try to be as liberal in understanding as possible in that regard, within the bounds of my mediocre conscience, working out my salvation with fear and trembling]
This is a demonstration of the Divine character of the Church. The Church is essentially a mystery, a supernatural mystery, and we cannot approach her as we approach a political party or a pure human society. At the same time, the Church is human and on her human level she is nowadays enduring a sorrowful passion, participating in the Passion of Christ.
One can think that the Church in our days is being flagellated as our Lord, is being denuded as was Our Lord, on the tenth Cross station. The Church, our mother, is being bound in cords not only by the enemies of Christ but also by some of their collaborators in the rank of the clergy, even sometimes of the high clergy………[Or very often the high clergy. The crisis in the Church is a crisis of leadership, of bad bishops]
………We have to pray that the Pope may soon consecrate explicitly Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, then She will win, as the Church prayed since the old times: “Rejoice O Virgin Mary, for thou alone have destroyed all heresies in the whole world” (Gaude, Maria Virgo, cunctas haereses sola interemisti in universo mundo). [So there it is. It seems Bishop Schneider believes Russia has not been explicitly consecrated, which, judging from Russia’s lack of conversion and the worsening crisis in the Church, would certainly appear to be the case.]
……..Expressions like “development of doctrine” and “pastoral compassion” are in fact usually a pretext to change the teaching of Christ, and against its perennial sense and integrity, as the Apostles had transmitted it to the whole Church, and it was faithfully preserved through the Fathers of the Church, the dogmatic teachings of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Popes.
Ultimately, those clerics want another Church, and even another religion: A naturalistic religion, which is adapted to the spirit of the time. Such clerics are really wolves in sheep’s clothing, often flirting with the world. Not courageous shepherds – but rather cowardly rabbits.
There is a great deal more at the link. Bishop Schneider generally does not mince words and tells it like it is. He goes beyond what some of the other relatively orthodox bishops are willing to say, especially with regard to the Society. He seems to really feel they are part of the Church, even in their current situation. Which is not a point I have ever been inclined to argue, while noting that there are problems and limitations attached to that situation.
+Schneider does seem open to the possibility of confrontation with this pontificate over matters of Doctrine, which is hardly surprising. Saying so publicly, I imagine, means he has been much more strident behind the scenes, as that tends to be how such things go. He is careful in his words – which some might find disappointing – but I always try to be reasonable in my expectations of bishops who have to walk a fine line. Yes we’d love to see fire-breathing excoriations and razor-sharp clarity, but that might mean that bishop is removed from office and loses whatever influence he has. It’s not easy for lay people to understand the risks relatively good bishops like Schneider take in going even as far as they do, and the enormous pressure and threats they face.
With that in mind, I’d say it’s a very good and helpful interview, overall. I’m glad we have Bishop Schneider in the Church.
How can I possibly reconcile this pre-conciliar catechesis and the “new doctrine” of Francis? January 26, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, catachesis, different religion, General Catholic, Interior Life, mortification, Papa, Revolution, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
That’s what struck me last week as I read the following chapter from Divine Intimacy (Day 54, What Jesus’ Teaching Exacts). This catechesis, which was utterly orthodox at the time it was written (early 50s) seems to stand in stark contrast to the “new doctrine” being promulgated in the Church under Francis. Mind, it’s not just Francis, it’s the entire post-conciliar ethos of the Church that stands in contrast, though Francis seems to be taking that ethos to new heights (or depths) and have given new life to the modernist-progressive project to remake the Church. But if the principle of non-contradiction stands, and Truth ultimately cannot change (or at least contradict), how can the below be reconciled by what is promoted as acceptable belief and practice in the Church today?
I also thought it was a good post for the start of the penitential season of Septuagesima. So begin quote:
In calling us to imitate the holiness of His heavenly Father, Jesus summons us to an unrelenting war against sin, which is in direct opposition to God’s infinite perfection and is the greatest offense against Him. In all His teachings He tries to inculcate in us a deep hatred of sin, especially of pride, hypocrisy, and obstinate willful malice, all of which constitutes a state of complete opposition to God…….Again, He describes the ugliness of sin and its disastrous effects on man, lowering him to the state of complete moral degradation, such as that of the prodigal son who, because he left his father’s house, was reduced to “feeding swine” (Lk xv:15).
“Whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin” (Jn viii:34); a slave of sin cannot be a servant of God; hence, the words of the Master: “No man can serve two masters…..” (Mt vi:24). [How can this be reconciled with endless mercy that never asks, let alone demands, conversion? How can it be reconciled with permitting those manifestly in a state of grave sin to receive the Blessed Sacrament?]
Jesus, Our Savior, came to destroy sin by His death; it is precisely by His death that He shows us most clearly the terrible malice of sin. Sin is such a great enemy of God and has such a destructive power that it brought about the death of the divine Master. [And yet we see sin treated so flippantly in the Church today, like it just doesn’t matter]
Only mortal sin is completely opposed to God; this opposition is so great that it separates the soul from God. However, every sin, even venial sin, and every fault and imperfection, is in opposition to God’s infinite holiness.
Our nature, wounded as a consequence of original sin, bears within itself the seed of sin, in the form of evil tendencies or habits. If we desire to follow Jesus, who offers us the perfection of His heavenly Father as a norm for our life, we must engage in an intense struggle against sin in order to destroy its deepest roots and even its slightest traces in us. This is just what Jesus teaches us with the brief words: “Deny thyself.” We must deny “self” with all its imperfect habits and inclinations; and we must do so continually. Such a task is fatiguing and painful, but it is indispensable if we wish to attain sanctity. Jesus says: “How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life, and few there are that find it!” (Mt vii:14). We approach the infinite perfection of God only in the measure in which we take upon ourselves the work of complete self-denial. Hence, all the masters of the spiritual life insist so strongly on detachment and self-renunciation as the indispensable foundation of the spiritual life…….. [Again, how can the above, very good, but, from the standpoint of the constant belief and practice of the Faith, unremarkable catechesis be reconciled with what we hear almost every day now? If we desire to follow Jesus – and following Him is absolutely vital for salvation – we must engage in an intense struggle against sin. How does providing quickie annulments and flirting with allowing those in grave sin to receive the Blessed Sacrament aid in that struggle? How does proclaiming the public fight against immorality counterproductive and embarrassing – as we have heard with regard to faithful opposition to abortion, contraception, and even pseudo-sodo-marriage – aid in the struggle against sin necessary for salvation? These things cannot be reconciled. One is right, and the other wrong.]
…..Jesus, the Divine Teacher, has pointed out to use the absolute necessity of passing through this way: “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself.” (Mt xvi:24).
A long way to get to a very short point, I guess, but I pray much of the above is useful to you: different religion. There isn’t much more to say than that, I’m afraid.
Franciscan Ecumania Gathering Steam as 500th Anniversary of Protestant Revolt Approaches January 25, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, different religion, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, Eucharist, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
Two recent posts by Rorate highlight the growing impetus in the pontificate of Francis to give tremendous credence to protestant claims by participating in “celebrations” marking the 500th anniversary of the (to date) permanent rending of the union of Christendom and the launching point for the unleashing of forces that have all but totally destroyed Western Civilization. That is to say, events are to be given official approbation, if not approval, and the direct participation of the highest levels of the Church (to the scandal of millions), which should rightly be lamented and deplored.
Nevertheless, the new god of ecumenism must be worshiped, and worshiped it shall be, apparently for an interminable year-plus.
First up, Pope Francis will participate in a common worship service with Lutheran heretics in Sweden on All Hallow’s Eve this year (more on the date below):
Vatican Radio confirms (Pope Francis to travel to Sweden for joint Reformation commemoration) that the event on October 31 is intended to kick off a whole year of events marking the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation.
The Pope will lead the “common worship service” along with two Lutheran leaders: Lutheran World Federation (LWF) President Bishop Dr Munib A. Younan and LWF General Secretary Rev. Dr Martin Junge. It will be held in Lund cathedral, a medieval cathedral held by the Lutherans from the 1530’s to the present day. [That is, it was stolen from the Church in the protestant revolution, occupied by heretics who very often (I don’t know the details of this particular occupation) killed or drove off those Catholics who refused to depart. In the process of the “reformation,” tens if not hundreds of thousands of faithful Catholics were killed, while priceless treasures of art and architecture were lost forever in pogroms of iconoclastic destruction]
The common worship will be based on the controversial “Common Prayer” liturgical order published earlier this month by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) and the Lutheran World Federation (LWF). As we have earlier reported this “order” contains prayers and passages extolling Martin Luther and the Reformation. We can only hope that these truly scandalous prayers will not be included in the actual service to be headed by the Pope. [I blogged on that horrid liturgy here]
About the date……how significant is that? This is All Hallow’s Eve. Did they originally want All Saints Day? That is a time of year in the Church that is very special, with great indulgences available for the faithful to earn for the souls in Purgatory…….and just exactly the kind of belief that Luther founded his revolution against. That is to say, a day more significant to the protestant revolution, and offensive to Catholic belief, could hardly be chosen. Luther was no fool when he chose that day in 1517 to nail his erroneous theses to the door of Wurttemburg Cathedral. That the Church would go along in celebrations of this foul date, which so cut against huge swaths of the sacred beliefs for which thousands of martyrs (many of them now canonized Saints) went to their deaths is simply incredible. What an insult to their memory and all they stood for. But the world, or at least the progressive portion of it, will cheer wildly, as they will see very clearly what grave damage is being done to the Church’s reputation in the process.
And as an indication of where this kind of runaway ecumania will shortly lead (it’s 1968 all over again!), another post from Rorate indicates that the heretofore relatively moribund ecumenical “movement” has sprung to new life under this pontificate, with precious distinctions being thrown out the window and a largely “kumbayah” approach:
Although the Pope has previously chosen to wash the feet of both non-Catholics and non-Christians, Archbishop Arthur Roche, secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, cautioned that the new change does not necessarily include them.
In Jan. 21 comments to CNA, the archbishop said that the changes are meant for “the local community,” and members of “the local parish.”
He said that reading the decree as an invitation for non-Catholics to participate would be a “selective interpretation” of the text, and that while this could be something that happens “in the future,” it’s probably not what the Pope’s decision intended.
However, Archbishop Roche did say that although the decree is meant for the local community, it’s possible that a non-Catholic spouse of a parishioner who regularly attends the Catholic liturgy could be chosen to participate…….
……According to Edward Pentin, a group of Lutheran pilgrims were given communion in St. Peter’s Basilica itself this week. What is significant here is that communion was offered to them unilaterally by the celebrants of the Mass — the Lutherans themselves were expecting to receive only a blessing, and the celebrants knew they were not Catholics. [From no longer being a “reward for good behavior,” the Eucharist has become a worthless object handed out to anyone. That’s why standards exist, that’s why distinctions are made, and when those are pulled down, the very sanctity, or meaning, of the sacred matter deteriorates down into meaningless dreck in no time. I am not saying that the Eucharist has lost its sacredness and profound meaning, I am saying it is being treated as such]
It is scarcely possible that this happened without the knowledge of the Basilica authorities. Are we now seeing the practical effects of Francis’ ambivalent words on holy communion for Lutherans?
Those mean ‘ol bastions may have been torn down 50 years ago, but there was still some rubble in the way preventing total ease of occupation of the Church by secular pagan authorities. Some bulldozers seem to have been provided to helpfully clear that out of the way and construct a superhighway from the world straight into the bosom of the Church – as a form of outreach, of course! But it’s never quite revealed just whom is reaching out to whom, or perhaps invading whom would be the more apt phrase. I guess we know, now.
What might have been re: Mandatum January 22, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Bible, episcopate, error, foolishness, fun, General Catholic, Papa, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, silliness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
A good funny, from Bones. If only Judas hadn’t been waylaid by those Jews and their thirty pieces of silver, what might have been. What Might Have Been:
As Bones’ notes, even though the Bible says nothing about Judas’ “real reason” to leave the Last Supper, can’t we, under the revelations of Francis, just assume it?
Religion of Peace Alert: Afghan cuts off wife’s nose when she opposes his 2nd “marriage”…..to 6 year old January 21, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, Papa, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
Ah, the joys of the religion of peace. Brutal subjugation of women. Ritualized child rape (of either sex). Slavery. Freedom to murder in the name of “god.” Oh yes, surely another valid covenant and path to Heaven, no need to convert from this satan-inspired religion, at all:
The woman, Reza Gul, 20, was attacked by her husband with a knife on Sunday in Shar-Shar, a village in an impoverished and Taliban-controlled part of Faryab Province.
On Sunday afternoon, Zarghona said, Reza Gul and Mr. Khan got into an argument over his having taken his uncle’s 6- or 7-year-old daughter as his fiancée, [so not only a 6 year old, but a niece! And how about the father willing to sell his 6 year old! And this is not unusual in islam, at all. South and Central Asia, in particular, are rife with such perverse barbarity] with the intention of making her his second wife this year. During the dispute, Mr. Khan erupted into a rage, took a knife and cut off his wife’s nose, said Zarghona, who goes by a single name.
Mr. Khan and one of his brothers then threw Reza Gul on the back of a motorcycle with the intention of taking her away to kill her, Zarghona said. But news of the attack spread quickly in the village, causing an uproar, and Mr. Khan fled for his life.
“I went to the Taliban,” Zarghona said. “I asked them: ‘Is this the Islam we are following? My daughter’s nose chopped off? But you are doing nothing about it. I want justice.’ ”
Mr. Yaqubi, the police official, said the authorities had heard that “the Taliban has already arrested Muhammad Khan, and he is presently in their custody.”
“We don’t know what they plan to do with him, but we will follow the case and bring him to justice.”
Well given that the Taliban has supported child rape posing as marriage before, I imagine they’re on the horns of a dilemma in this case.
Islam countenances all the following:
- Bigamy (and trigamy and more)
- Keeping of slaves, especially female
- Buying and selling of children as possible
- Child rape (male and female)
- Brutal treatment of women (to nary a peep from Western feminists)
- An institutionalized culture of violence and “might makes right”
- General barbarism (which is why islamic “culture” is frozen at about the 9th century level)
- Use of the sword and male dominance of women as its major tools of “evangelization”
- Ritualized rape of adult women if they are not defended by male relatives
- Murder of women raped by men for “adultery”
But it’s a religion of peace, from which muslims need not even consider conversion to faith in Jesus Christ! I know this, because Franky said so!
And just what have our billions squandered on such a deliberately backwards land accomplished? We may as well have just had a giant bonfire with it, for all its accomplished. Brits, Russians, and Americans have tried for nearly 200 years to bring some semblance of order, decency, and civilization to Afghanistan…….I think we can judge that at this time it is simply impossible.
I should also add that Afghani men have been identified as leading perpetrators of the mass sexual assault against women in European cities recently. And yet our president would open this country to at least some number of these people.
I know what’ll fix ’em up good! Some dialogue! Sick Cardinals Koch and Parolin on them and I’m sure their dulcet tones will sing a song that will bring islam right into the 21st century as an eager partner of FrancisChurch in building a New World Order! Those guys bring success to every endeavor!
While Cardinal Koch dreams of the future of the “priesthood” in the background.