Cardinal Sarah: not even Pope can change Divine Law on Communion November 20, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, episcopate, Eucharist, General Catholic, Papa, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership.
Via LifeSiteNews, not exactly surprising, but perhaps some cold comfort that not everyone in Church leadership is on board with some of the notions abounding in the Church today. In fact, Cardinal Sarah gives some commendably strong catechesis below, even if he does not condemn the source of the sudden resurgence of error as some might like:
On the heels of a statement by Pope Francis seeming to suggest openness to non-Catholic Christians receiving Holy Communion, the cardinal who heads the Vatican congregation dealing with the sacraments has said that there are preconditions for the reception of Holy Communion and when those conditions are not met, and the situation is publicly known, ministers of the sacrament “have no right to give him communion.”
Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, added, speaking of priests: “If they do so, their sin will be more grave before the Lord. It would be unequivocally a premeditated complicity and profanation of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Jesus.” [Yeah, well, most priests, in their horrific formation, couldn’t care less. They’re invincibly convinced none of this matters and almost everyone (save for those mean ol’ judgy types and all right wingers) go to Heaven, anyway]
“The entire Church has always firmly held that one may not receive communion with the knowledge of being in a state of mortal sin, a principle recalled as definitive by John Paul II in his 2003 encyclical ‘Ecclesia de Eucharistia,’” said the prefect. “Not even a pope can dispense from such a divine law.” [I agree. But perhaps be even more explicit in your refutation]
……Regarding “communion for all, without discrimination,” Cardinal Sarah says that those in grave sin who are unrepentant (unless in total ignorance) “would remain in a state of mortal sin and would commit a grave sin by receiving communion.”
Even in the toughest case of an abused wife who left her first marriage and was remarried without an annulment, Cardinal Sarah notes there can be no communion unless she decides to live without sexual relations with her new partner.
The cardinal’s most powerful statements, however, are his lament at the confusion about Holy Communion among the clergy. “I feel wounded in my heart as a bishop in witnessing such incomprehension of the Church’s definitive teaching on the part of my brother priests,” he said. “I cannot allow myself to imagine as the cause of such confusion anything but the insufficiency of the formation of my confreres.” [Bad formation, yet. But also likely a marked predisposition towards progressive-modernist beliefs, and a likely attachment to sexual immorality which powered such beliefs, before they even entered seminary. How many good men have been denied admittance to seminary, and how many manifestly unfit men chosen in their stead, all to help force the “crisis in the priesthood” to such a state that the Church would, in desperation, complete the final destruction of the priesthood by opening it to married men and even women? That’s been the modernist game for 50 years now, anyway]
Recalling his position as “responsible for the discipline of the sacraments in the whole Latin Church,” Cardinal Sarah said he was “bound in conscience” to spell out the Church’s teaching regarding sexuality – the source of much of the current confusion.
The Church, he said, “stigmatizes the deformations introduced into human love: homosexuality, polygamy, chauvinism, free love, divorce, contraception, etc.”
“In any case, it never condemns persons. But it does not leave them in their sin. Like its Master, it has the courage and the charity to say to them: go and from now on sin no more.”
That’s always been the key, the missing bit from the modernist program to redefine the Church. They say “go and sin some more,” which is the exact opposite of what Christ and His Church have always said.
We’re all sinners. All of us sin to one degree or another. Our Lord warned us more sternly not to judge ourselves superior to those whose outward sins are greater than our own. But at the same time, Jesus Christ took an already strict Jewish moral law and made it far stricter. He, God Incarnate, died for our sins, but He did so after conveying a very high moral standard. We will all fall short of that standard to one degree or another, but what Our Lord made plain was absolutely vital was our constant striving to meet it (carrying our cross).
Modernists throw out the bit about striving, and just pretend – on no real rational basis – that Jesus just forgives carte blanche, no matter how much we not only continue to sin, but make no effort whatsoever to amend our lives. They reveal their dishonesty in the fact that they pretend Christ’s only condemnation is reserved for their ideological opponents, but I digress.
That’s the key. Intent. The difference between a faithful soul and an immoral one comes down to will/intention. The unfaithful soul loves his sins, revels in them, and feels no need to change. The faithful soul abhors his sins and strives, to varying degrees, to no longer fall into them. This used to be Catholicism for Kindergartners, but apparently its beyond the vast majority of bishops and cardinals today, who prefer to go along with the zeitgeist than hold culturally disapproved beliefs. It’s only beyond them, because they want it to be.
Shock! Pope Francis unequivocally condemns tens of millions worldwide! November 20, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
Too bad those tens of millions are involved in a perfectly legitimate enterprise that has long been found as perfectly justifiable by the Church.
That’s how it reads to me, anyway, when he indulged in this……..I have to call it a rant…….today at Casa Santa Marta. So apparently fornicators, adulterers, and even sodomites are beyond judgment, but those involved in the defense of nations……..cursed:
Pope Francis went on to recall the recent commemorations of the Second World War, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, his visit to Redipuglia last year on the anniversary of the Great War: “Useless slaughters,” he called them, repeating the words of Pope Benedict XV. “Everywhere there is war today, there is hatred,” he said. Then he asked, “What shall remain in the wake of this war, in the midst of which we are living now?”
“What shall remain? Ruins, thousands of children without education, so many innocent victims: and lots of money in the pockets of arms dealers. Jesus once said: ‘You can not serve two masters: either God or riches.’ War is the right choice for him, who would serve wealth: ‘Let us build weapons, so that the economy will right itself somewhat, and let us go forward in pursuit of our interests. There is an ugly word the Lord spoke: ‘Cursed!’ Because He said: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers!.’ The men who work war, who make war, are cursed, they are criminals. A war can be justified – so to speak – with many, many reasons, but when all the world as it is today, at war – piecemeal though that war may be – a little here, a little there, and everywhere – there is no justification – and God weeps. Jesus weeps.”
The Holy Father went on to say that, while the arms dealers go about their business, there are the poor peacemakers who, perforce to help another person, and another and another, spend themselves utterly, and even give their lives……
Pope Francis is applying a corollary that is non-scriptural and also not part of the Tradition. Yes, our Blessed Lord certainly did say “Blessed are the peacemakers,” but he did not say “damned are the soldiers are weapons merchants.” That’s a huge logical leap that is totally unsupported by the Church’s extremely well developed doctrine surrounding warfare and the taking of human life. Pope Francis is emoting that false modern belief that to be Christian is to be pacifist. This belief, like so many others, is based entirely on distortions of the words of great Saints and fathers, wrong interpretations of bits of Scripture, and a burning desire to witness not to the Faith but the worldly progressive zeitgeist.
It is also manifestly unjust. It takes more than a bit of cheek for a man who, by many reports, cooperated with the military junta during Argentina’s Dirty wWar, to call those “who work war, who make war” cursed and criminals. There are many perfectly morally justifiable reasons to serve in the armed forces and to be involved in the defense of one’s country. There are situations in which armed combat is not just permissible, but even a moral imperative. Our Lord never once condemned soldiers, he simply told them to do their duty and not abuse people sinfully. Our Lord in fact reserved some of his highest praise for a Roman Centurion, who described his faith in terms of military discipline and left Our Lord amazed.
This pope once again shows himself as a man upon whom nuance is lost. He also shows himself to be a disturbingly ideological creature, and a man given to fits of passion. He has here condemned many dozens of very good souls I know who are involved either in the defense industry or the military. It is simply an amazing departure from the kind of careful thought and thorough grounding in tradition we have come to expect from popes going back centuries, even the relatively recent (and more problematic) ones. I wonder if the Holy Father gave any thought to the grave disconcert his statements would give to the millions of Catholics worldwide who work in some capacity related to the defense industry and/or armed forces? This is a blanket condemnation without exception, compared to the extravagant “mercy” he extends to those involved in actual moral depravities, it’s really an unconscionable statement.
It’s also inconsistent as hell. Remember when he excoriated the WWII Allies for not bombing the railroads leading to Dachau and Sachsenhausen? But I thought all war-making and war-fighting was cursed? Never ask a liberal to be consistent, it all depends on his feels at a given moment.
But not altogether unpredictable. Indeed, in so many ways, this pope seems to be gradually revealing his very novel, doctrinaire vision to the world as time unfolds.
Rorate notes the translation appears solid. They also add this:
More than ever, Francis symbolizes a Church and a civilization that is tired and has lost its will to live: a “West” that in the face of wrath it could not comprehend, possessed with only a fraction of the conviction that its enemies has, takes refuge in meaningless slogans that inspire no one, help no one, and only encourage those who would like to destroy everything that is holy, everything that is of value.
Indeed. Enjoy your Camp of the Saints.
Great quotes on the Revolution November 18, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, disaster, episcopate, General Catholic, history, horror, Papa, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church.
add a comment
- Blessed Pius IX (1871): “Believe me, the evil I denounce is more terrible than the Revolution…. that which I fear is Liberal Catholicism, which endeavours to unite two principles as repugnant to each other as fire and water ….”
- St. Pius X (1910): “[W]hat has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organisation… is now [part] of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world… the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak…”
- Yves Marsaudon (1964): “[W]e are unable to ignore the Second Vatican Counciland its consequences… With all our hearts we support the Revolution of John XXIII… This courageous concept of the Freedom of Thought that lies at the core of our Freemasonic lodges, has spread in a truly magnificent manner right under the Dome of St. Peter’s.”
- Cardinal Danneels (2001): “Before Vatican II, in theology, as in other areas, the discipline was fixed. After the council there has been a revolution — a chaotic revolution — with free discussion on everything. There is now no common theology or philosophy as there was before.”
Really long article at the second link. I can’t vouch for it, I’ve had no time to read it, but Papist seems to think it good.
It is quite intriguing to hear Pope St. Pius X, over 100 years ago, speak of a one world religion. The efforts underway to obliterate the Church and Christendom have been with us for a long, long time. For decades they achieved great headway in the world but almost none in the Church herself. Then there was that New Springtime!, and, voila!, freedom of thought was suddenly part and parcel of the Church’s program! There was even a “counter-Syllabus!” Everything was going great!
So long as you don’t mind the tens of millions of lost souls, tens of thousands of departed priests, and 100,000 or more lost religious vocations. Oh, wait………those are features, not bugs!
I have been wanting to excerpt portions from Phoenix from the Ashes for some time. The problem I’ve had is that the material is so dense and involved (in a good way) that a lot of excerpts, to make sense, would run 2000 words or more. And I know posts that long tend not to get read very much.
But, I found a few brief bits that convey a whole lot in a blog-friendly length. Author HJA Sire really explodes the notion of female fauxrdination, and in so doing exposes the heresy that is inherent in the post-conciliar ethos. The Council opened the Church, doctrinally, to numerous modernist notions, including feminist ones. That relatively narrow conciliar opening has metastasized into numerous areas, one of the most malicious being the notion that women could be ordained to the priesthood. Even worse, however, has been the corruption of the entire idea of the priesthood. Ultimately, the Council bears great responsibility for this and many other widely prevalent errors:
Next to the denial of defined dogmas, there is no clearer case of heresy than the advocacy of female ordination: it rejects not only the tradition of the Church from its origins, but divine institution itself; it ignores the condemnations that have declared female ordination heretical, and implies a blasphemous view of Christ’s wisdom and justice in instituting the priesthood in the male sex. No heresy more comprehensively discards every principle by which Christian doctrine is decided. The orthodox teaching has been repeated most recently by John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis of 1994, in which he wrote: “We declare that the Church has no authority whatever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” As one would expect in the modern Church, the ruling has been entirely disregarded. In June 1997 the Catholic Theological Society of America voted by a majority of 216 to 22 that the pope should reconsider the question of women’s ordination. This evidence that nine out of ten official theologians in the United States are heretics comes as no surprise; nor does one imagine that their unorthodoxy is confined to that sole point. In 2011 likewise some 200 Austrian clergy signed a manifesto demanding female ordination. In the general run of seminaries, professors reject the orthodox teaching privately and often publicly, and the priests they train treat it as simply another conservative relic that is due for change. We see here exemplified the contempt in the present-day Church for Scripture, Tradition, and authority, and we see, too, the harvest of submission to modern ideology that the Church sowed in the Second Vatican Council and is now reaping. [I should add, prior to this paragraph, Sire had spent several pages explaining exactly HOW Vatican II, through the documents produced and approved, provide such a huge opening to error/heresy. It is a very thorough discussion but one too long to blog effectively]
To put the preaching function of the priest before the sacramental [i.e., the sacrificial nature of the Mass] is a monstrosity in antithesis to religious realities. Yet simply to condemn that error in itself would be to miss its true significance; the intention of the Council in teaching this was to move the Church towards a protestant concept of the ministry, a doctrine that rejects the sacramental office of the priest and substitutes a ministry of the word. That lead has been used by the modernists to promote an evangelical doctrine (in the sectarian sense of the word) that empties the priesthood of theological meaning. [by turning the priest into an educator, an administrator, a “presider,” and even a first among equals, sacramentally]
Thus the constitution De Presbyterorum Ministerio et Vita [The Vatican II document on the priesthood] stands as one of the main contradictions to the notion that the documents of the Second Vatican Council, as its apologists like to argue, are of a faultlessly orthodox nature. Its teaching is not traditional and was not intended to be traditional. With an ill-conceived aim of ecumenism, the Council allowed itself to be imposed on by those whose program was to diminish the Catholic theology of the priesthood. The intentions of that party have been developed in practice, producing priests whose view of their office is in complete rejection of Catholic Doctrine. When the Church comes to judge the Second Vatican Council in the light of true tradition, the constitution on the priesthood will be one of the documents that most call for disavowal and condemnation.
HJA Sire has now, 3/4 of the way through the book, shown glaring problems in several of the documents of Vatican II. As he notes, it is possible – though unbearably boring – to read large sections of Vatican II and find no problems at all. But that’s like saying a serial killer is really just a nice, quiet guy, except for those 3 hours a month when he butchers someone. It is meaningless. The problem in Vatican II is not with the orthodox majority, it is with the nebulous, problematic, and even erroneous majority. Not perhaps erroneous by direct promotion of error, but by being so nebulous and so open to radical interpretation that it permitted – and almost demanded – radically modernist/heretical consequences to flow from the documents.
There is a tremendous amount of gold in Phoenix from the Ashes. I am not done, yet, but it’s 97% awesomeness with occasional odd rants thrown in. I guess we trads are not without our little foibles.
Consider the above possibly some useful information when confronted with individuals who insist that there is nothing wrong with the documents of Vatican II, but only their unorthodox interpretation. Sire’s prime contention (similar to previous authors like Michael Davies, though Sire is much more forceful and to the point) is that the nebulous bits, and how to draw them out into formal error, radically changing the Church, were always intended by the modernists at Vatican II, and are inseparable from the documents as produced. I am inclined to agree with him, for whatever that’s worth. I think this is absolutely critical information to know, for the restoration of the Church must be based on a clear understanding of the ultimate source of the errors that have caused such devastation in the Church.
Michaes (Micah) Chapter 3: God’s wrath on unworthy shepherds November 17, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Bible, catachesis, different religion, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Papa, reading, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
The prophet Michaes, or Micah, was a contemporary of the great prophet Ezekias (Ezekiel). Both of these men lived in a time of general Jewish apostasy, an apostasy that was punished by God with the fall of the Kingdom of Judah, the sacking of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, and the Babylonian exile. This is what God allows to happen when His people, and especially His priests, become unfaithful. There was great unfaithfulness in the time of Michaes, especially serial fornication, even fornication within the Temple itself, adoption of pagan beliefs and practices including the sacrifice of infants to the demon Moloch, excessive greed and lust for material comfort, and rejection of the plain command of God as revealed through Scripture and prophets.
Michaes Chapter 3 is a specific warning to the priests and Levites as to what was to befall them for their heretical unfaithfulness:
1 And I said: Hear, O ye princes of Jacob, and ye chiefs of the house of Israel: Is it not your part to know judgment,
2 You that hate good, and love evil: that violently pluck off their skins from them, and their flesh from their bones?
3 Who have eaten the flesh of my people, and have flayed their skin from off them: and have broken, and chopped their bones as for the kettle, and as flesh in the midst of the pot. [This was said in response to decades of abdication of duty on the part of the priestly caste, who failed to call the people back to the truth faith and far too often fell into error and grave immorality themselves]
4 Then shall they cry to the Lord, and he will not hear them: and he will hide his face from them at that time, as they have behaved wickedly in their devices. [They shall do this once the chastisement begins in earnest, in this case, when the Assyrians had 200,000 troops ringed around Jerusalem]
5 Thus saith the Lord concerning the prophets that make my people err: that bite with their teeth, and preach peace: and if a man give not something into their mouth, they prepare war against him. [Those few who remain faithful were despised for so doing, and were the subject of vicious attacks from those who had fallen into sin and error]
6 Therefore night shall be to you instead of vision, and darkness to you instead of divination: and the sun shall go down upon the prophets, and the day shall be darkened over them.
7 And they shall be confounded that see visions, and the diviners shall be confounded: and they shall all cover their faces, because there is no answer of God.
8 But yet I am filled with the strength of the spirit of the Lord, with judgment and power: to declare unto Jacob his wickedness, and to Israel his sin. [The faithful prophet persisted in spite of all persecution and opposition]
9 Hear this, ye princes of the house of Jacob, and ye judges of the house of Israel: you that abhor judgment, and pervert all that is right.
10 You that build up Sion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity.
11 *Her princes have judged for bribes: and her priests have taught for hire, and her prophets divined for money: and they leaned upon the Lord, saying: Is not the Lord in the midst of us? no evil shall come upon us. [They’ve been condemned. Now come the consequences]
12 Therefore, because of you, *Sion shall be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem shall be as a heap of stones, and the mountain of the temple as the high places of the forests.
I’ve written about Old Testament types of the New. It is always a bit dodgy reading too much into particular bits of Scripture, but given the chastisements of the church of the old covenant and the parallels with the present crisis in the Church, there is certainly grounds for concern. This isn’t to say the world is about to end. But I don’t think it takes any special knowledge of prophesy to forecast that the Church as a whole has some very dark days ahead, and the leadership, for its role in the crisis, could be coming to an account with God.
Or not. Either way, we do need to pray for our Church leaders, no matter how they may disappoint us. It is our duty. I like some of the intentions for Church leadership I’ve heard from readers, praying for their faithfulness and fidelity to Church belief. Those are very good starting points.
Vatican response to Paris terror attacks – more sucking up to Muslims! November 17, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, General Catholic, Society, scandals, foolishness, Ecumenism, disaster, Papa, episcopate, error, secularism, abdication of duty, the struggle for the Church, different religion.
Rorate had this post yesterday. The extremely left-wing Secretary of Vatican State, Pietro Parolin, issued a statement in response to the Paris terror attacks wherein he declared the proper response to unyielding, unremitting muslim atrocities was more of the same failed kumbayah policies that have worked so well over the past 40 years. If muslims are either at one’s feet or at one’s neck, as Churchill maintained (and he had extensive experience in the matter, having fought in two wars against islam), and if muslims are heavily influenced by perceptions of overt strength (the strong horse theory), this kind of indifferentism run wild will likely only encourage further muslims acts of barbarity.
But there is great joy in Francis’ Vatican Mudville, the Year of Mercy is “open to muslims:”
The Secretary of the Vatican State, Pietro Parolin, has confirmed that the Jubilee (from December 8th 2015 to November 20th 2016) is on schedule, as the spokesman for the Holy See, Padre Lombardi had already said, and that, in fact, will be open also to Muslims. “In a world torn by violence, it is the right time to launch the campaign of mercy” said the Cardinal in an interview with the French Catholic newspaper La Croix. “It is understandable that there are sentiments of revenge after the attacks, but we really need to resist them. The Pope wants the Jubilee to be used for people to meet each other, understand each other and rise above hate”, explains the Secretary of the Vatican State.After the attacks, this endeavor appears more pressing. We receive the mercy of God in order to adopt this behavior with others. Mercy is also the most beautiful name of God for Muslims, who can also be involved in the Holy Year, as this is what the Pope wants.” … [So maybe more muslim prayers in St. Peter’s. But don’t hold your breath on Catholic prayers in Mecca. “Dialogue” with muslims is always a one way street.]The attacks in France show that “nobody can think they are safe from terrorism. The Vatican may be a target for its religious importance. We are able to increase the level of security measures in the Vatican and its surroundings. Let’s not allow ourselves to be paralyzed by fear” Parolin added.“These events change nothing in the Pope’s agenda.”……[Of course…….]
Keeping focus on the crisis in the Faith is critical and charity for souls demands it November 16, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Admin, Basics, catachesis, Dallas Diocese, different religion, episcopate, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Papa, persecution, sanctity, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
I’ve had some discussions with several traditional/”orthodox” Catholics, maybe even including some priests, of late who have remarked to me that there is little point in constantly “carping” on or “whining” about the crisis in the Church. With regard to my blog, that would include posts examining the history of the crisis, or specific manifestations of it today, or reviewing/excerpting books that discuss it in earnest, etc. I have to say, I very, very much disagree with this viewpoint. I understand it, on a couple of levels, but I think it really misguided.
I would say to priests and others who have some reluctance to “dwell” on the crisis in the Church, yes, you may have been raised in a traddie home, read all the books, and maybe even gone on to become a traditional priest. All this may be very old hat to you. You may be sick of talking about it, or, more likely, having to fend off very uncomfortable questions that arise surrounding the crisis, and its particular apotheosis under the pontificate of Pope Francis. And, yes, sometimes (very rarely in my experience) some folks get so twisted off regarding the crisis in the Church that they wind up falling away entirely. While the latter is something to keep in mind, it should not be so omnipresent as to make discussing the crisis either a chore, or something one refuses (or are extremely reluctant) to do.
Why? Because while someone who has been blessed to be in traditional communities for decades may be dreadfully familiar with the crisis and all its particulars, millions of others are not. Every year, every week, hundreds if not thousands of Catholics in this country alone, many of them converts, wake up to the reality that the Church as they experience it every week in your typical Novus Ordo parish is not at all what the Church is supposed to be. These people don’t know the SSPX, Michael Davies, Romano Amerio, Dr. Roberto de Mattei, or the FSSP. If they’re anything like I was ~8 years ago, they’ve never even heard of any of them. They don’t know if the TLM is valid or not, and have no idea what is meant by “traditional practice of the Faith”. They see the Pope and many others saying and doing incredible things, destructive things, and they aren’t sure if its right or not. Even more, they are extremely uncertain if it is possible to be a faithful Catholic and to examine the Church of today critically in the light of Tradition. Many have been told that to do so is to make oneself a possible heretic or schismatic, or at least a “bad Catholic”.
In a very real sense, those souls are abandoned in the Church today. It is a matter of either blind luck or special divine intervention if they don’t fall away before finding a traditional/orthodox parish that provides the answers – and far more importantly, the spiritual food – they so desperately crave. In fact, in my mind, there is a far, far greater likelihood of those kinds of souls falling away entirely, into sects that seem to make more sense and offer far greater spiritual sustenance than the pablum fed souls in most parishes today, than there is of souls scandalizing themselves out of the Church by getting overwrought in their too-great knowledge of the crisis.
When I say that, I am thinking much of my own experience, and that of other souls who have been blessed to follow a certain path. We managed to stumble into a TLM parish, almost entirely by word of mouth (because almost all dioceses that have TLMs try very hard to pretend they don’t), and through Grace and the presence of good priests and other good orthodox souls managed to start to learn about the Church prior to the Council. But we are a tiny minority. The vast majority of souls in the Church who feel spiritually starved or distraught over the abuses and heresy they face on a constant basis never make that connection. Instead, they leave. I can name dozens off the top of my head who have followed that route. They outnumber those who found a good home (almost always traditional, but sometimes not) probably 5:1 or more. More distressingly, they outnumber those trads who “scandalize themselves out of the Faith 20:1 or more.
I pray I never forget where I was several years ago, when I was starting to learn about the Faith in earnest and gaining the rapidly dawning realization that what I found in your typical suburban parish in Plano or Richardson was a very far cry from the Faith as it has existed throughout almost her entire history, until recently. And that’s why I won’t stop talking about the crisis, I won’t stop pointing up particular examples of it, and I won’t stop repeating the responses from the Church’s bi-millenial Tradition that effectively answer the claims of modernists and provide guidance to souls who are desperately craving such. I will continue to do so even if it means this blog’s readership falls off, as some get tired of reading the same old thing over and over again.
On that note, I’ve always maintained that this blog is meant to confirm the faithful, less than convert those outside the Church, and it is, but it is especially meant to help those who have been in the Novus Ordo, post-conciliar wilderness their entire lives find the path to traditional sanity and, I pray, sanctity. My most cherished “achievements” as a blogger will always be the handful who have told me they converted to the Church through my writings. I have no idea to what degree that is true, but I am profoundly thankful and humbled to have played what I’m sure was a small role in that process. More to the point, however, while always striving to be aware of the poorness of my efforts, I am almost as proud to have been inspiration for the few dozen souls who have told me they started assisting at the TLM and adopting a much more traditional practice of the Faith after reading my blog.
Please forgive my braggadocio. I highlighted these “achievements” (which were absolutely God’s, not mine), not to toot my own horn but to stress the very practical reasons for this blog’s focus. The crisis in the Church is THE topic that dominates all others, aside from the always paramount necessity to practice virtue, receive the Sacraments, and correspond to the best of our ability with God’s Grace. I try to post about daily some material that is uplifting and hopefully helpful to souls in that correspondence with Grace, but on a practical level the crisis is the unavoidable topic, it looms over everything like a deadly shadow. To ignore it, to pretend it doesn’t exist, to try to wish it away, would be to me to be irrelevant. Even more, it would mean to me to fail in my duty of charity to souls, to not give them the fullest picture of the Church in these days as I understand it, the unbelievable crisis afflicting the Church, and the only possible response: return to Tradition, centered, wherever possible, on grounding one’s life in the Traditional Mass and all the Sacraments.
I am saddened that in this time, when the crisis has grown particularly acute and may even exceed the dread days of the late 60s/early 70s in terms of destructiveness, it seems not everyone is willing to forthrightly answer the errors emanating from the highest levels of the Church and to elucidate souls in a proper response to them (that is to say, to tell souls that rejecting these errors is not merely permissible, it is a moral imperative). I pray all our good leaders may realize it is not whining or complaining to point out, even with grave frequency, the elephant in the Catholic living room, the revolution against the Church from within. To me, it is the paramount duty to charity and truth to address this unprecedented crisis. Pray forgive me if my doing so becomes tiresome, but whether it is or not, I feel a definite compulsion to continue. I firmly believe at this time Our Blessed Lord absolutely desires His Church, His Body on earth, to be purified and restored to her former glory.
May we be blessed with far more leaders who feel quite similarly called.
Pope Francis says Lutheranism, Catholicism essentially same, Lutherans can ‘discern’ to receive Eucharist? November 16, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, different religion, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, horror, Papa, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
By the time this guy is done, will there be anything left?
Pope Francis visited the Evangelical Lutheran community in Rome yesterday. Yes, all 137 of them. He was asked some questions by the audience. This was his response to a question regarding whether a “faithful” Lutheran woman married to a “faithful” Catholic husband could not receive the Blessed Sacrament in the Church. The answer is scandalous, and seems to lean positive:
When asked together to share the Lord’s Supper, it is not easy for me to answer you, especially not in the presence of theologians like Cardinal Kasper! I’m afraid! [laughs;laughter; Applause] [OK, first, the question was phrased in the highly misleading protestant phraseology regarding “partaking the Lord’s Supper.” This kind of language was deliberately adopted by the protestant revolutionaries due to their explicit rejection of Catholic Eucharistic theology – the essence of our Faith – regarding the Sacrificial nature of the Mass, the Real Presence, the sacerdotal priesthood, and all the rest. So the question was phrased in a way that should have been offensive to pious Catholic ears from the start, and really merited a response on that basis alone. But that is not what happened, sadly……]
I think that the Lord has told us when he gave us this mandate: “Do this in remembrance of me”. And if we share the Lord’s Supper, remember and imitate him, we do the same, that the Lord Jesus has done. And the Lord’s supper, there will be the last banquet in the New Jerusalem, but that will be the last. On the way, however, I wonder – and I do not know how to answer, but will make your question my own – I ask myself: Is this common Lord’s Supper the goal of a path or it is to go the provision for the road to go together? I leave the question to the theologians, those who understand something of it. [What kind of shepherd – especially Vicar of Christ – constantly waves his hands in the air, turning problems not even over to especially delegated authority, but to nameless, faceless “theologians?” What role have they ever played in really formulating doctrine? The vast majority have no particular office at all. OH, but they would love to arrogate to themselves doctrinal authority, which Pope Francis seems quite willing – when it suits his audience – to endorse.]
It is true that in some ways that there are no differences between us; that we have the same doctrine [No, we don’t] – I underline the word, a difficult-to-understand word – but I wonder: But have we not the same baptism? And if we have the same baptism, then we have to go together. [What?!? No one aside extreme progressives have ever pretended that baptism is a sufficient basis for faith, for establishing essential equivalence between the Church and sects. This is incredible]
………When you pray together, this baptism is growing strongly; if you teach your children who Jesus is, why Jesus came, what Jesus has done for us, you are doing the same whether in the Lutheran language or in the Catholic language, but it is the same. [No, it isn’t. I’m a former protestant. The Catholic Church and protestantism are NOT THE SAME. They can NEVER be the same. The fact that the Pope seems to think they are breaks my heart, and causes me to have the strongest possible doubts regarding his fitness to hold such an august office]The Question: And the Supper? There are issues on which one, if one is honest with himself and with the few theological “Lumina”, which I have, nonetheless must respond, see for yourself. “This is my body, this is my blood,” the Lord has said, “do this in remembrance of me”, and that’s a provision on the way which helps us to go. I had a great friendship with a 48-year-old, married Anglican bishop [he’s referring to Tony Parker. And he was a “bishop”] with two children and he had this difficulty: a Catholic wife, Catholic children, himself a bishop. He accompanied his wife and children on Sunday for Mass, then went and directed the worship with his community. It was a step of participation in the Lord’s Supper. Then he was gone, the Lord has called him, a righteous man. [Wow, so I guess we needn’t pray for him?] On your question I will pose to you only one question: How can I go with my husband, so that the Lord’s Supper [Stop with “Lord’s Supper!” That is an incredibly loaded phrase in a protestant milieu. They mean something radically different than traditional Catholic Eucharistic theology. AND THAT IS WHY THEY CANNOT RECEIVE!!!] accompanies me on my way? This is a problem that everyone must answer. But a pastor friend told me: “We believe that the Lord is there at present. He is present. You believe that the Lord is present. And where is the difference?” —- “Ah, there are the statements, interpretations … “. [No, Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, a very different thing from transubstantiation. And it depends very much which variety of Lutheran you are speaking to – many reject the Real Presence outright, con- or trans-, just as many Catholics do]
Life is greater than the explanations and interpretations. Take always with respect to the baptism: “One faith, one baptism, one Lord,” Paul tells us, and draw the consequences. I’ll never dare to give permission to do this, because it is not my responsibility. One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Speak with the Lord and continue. I do not dare to say more.
So there it is, isn’t it? Isn’t he basically telling her “I can’t tell you what to do [what a lie!] but I can wink wink nudge nudge suggest you might give it a try wink nudge. Can you imagine a pope speaking in this way? This is the second time he’s said, directly, I’m basically speaking error here, even heresy, but gosh darnit I just can’t help myself! Speaking of which, this post from several months ago is most important to reconsider, is it not?
Am I being too harsh? Is this yet another step on the Francis error train – first it was mortally sinful Catholics being admitted to Communion, now it’s protestants, pretty soon, will it be the entire world? And what sacredness, what uniqueness, will the Blessed Sacrament have when it’s available to everyone including dogs and Chinamen, when it is a veritable “reward” for bad behavior?
It is amazing what is going on. I would not believe it, if I did not have to live it every day.
PS – Phoenix from the Ashes, the book by HJA Sire I’ve blogged on a few times, really, totally destroys the modernist inventions regarding the Mass and the priesthood, especially notions like the “Lord’s Supper” theology laid out in the heretical 1969 General Instruction of the Roman Missal for the 1969 Mass and allied items. I hope to get to some of that this week, but it’s pretty hard to condense to a post. I shall try, however.
UPDATE: Some comments on this from Vox Cantoris. I know some commenters feel very strongly that Pope Francis is, for certain, a heretic. I simply cannot allow myself to make that kind of judgment, for reasons that are as personal as they are my understanding of how the Church works. But the below, I can and do very much agree with. Good job DD for putting this so well.
Jorge Bergoglio, stop this insanity. You are the Bishop of Rome! You are creating division and anxiety amongst the Catholic faithful. You are creating confusion. You are playing with heresy. You have told this woman to commit sacrilege.
Step back from the brink of heresy
Bergloglio is on the verge of heresy. History will condemn him.
Is this enough for Bishops and Cardinals to intervene?
…..implemented, naturally, as the means to combat “climate change.” Because we all know what wonderful stewards of the environment communists are. They never have a Chernobyl, Norilsk, or skies so blackened with pollution Chinese have to bicycle to work in full-up respirators and a thousand other obscenities. The “Bolivian’s” – which means Morales’ – ten point plan to
implement the glorious worldwide worker’s paradise and crush the robber baron capitalists and their running dog lackeys combat climate change:
The Bolivians have a ten-point plan:
1. Adoption of a new model of civilization in the world without consumerism, war-mongering, and mercantilism, a world without capitalism; build and consolidate a world order of Living Well that defends and promotes the integral rights of our peoples, undertaking the path of harmony with nature and respect for life. [Ah yes, communist “living well.” Ever looked up photos of post-Chernobyl mutations? That’s communist living well for you]
2. Construction of a climate system based on responsibility to Mother Earth, the culture of life and the full realization of humanity in their holistic development, humanizing the economy, surpassing the simplistic approach to decarbonization of the economy……. [Ah, yes, communist “goodness.” Why is it Evo and his cronies have become fantastically wealthy in office, then? Because all this “goodness” is for the little people, while the self-anointed elites live like Rockefellers]
…5. Elimination of patents on technologies and recognition of the human right to science and technology of life.
7. Establishment of the International Court of Justice Climate and Mother Earth to enable countries to fulfill their international commitments to climate change in a context of respect for the rights of peoples and of Mother Earth. [And to punish those recalcitrants who don’t, right? Yesterday’s post is apropos]
8. Allocate the resources of the military machinery of the imperial powers and the war-mongers to finance the activities of the peoples against climate change. [In other words, give Evo money]
9. Eradication of commodification of nature and carbon markets promoting business climate millionaires, which do not solve the problem of the climate crisis. [Al Gore, your ears are burning!]
10. Decolonize natural resources environmental colonial biased views that see the peoples of the South as forest rangers of Northern countries and communities as enemies of nature.
I don’t have a whole lot to add, other than:
Laudato Si and Evo’s Indo-communism…….like peas and carrots, they are.
Pope Francis threatening the TLM? Some of his strongest words yet against Tradition November 13, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in General Catholic, scandals, foolishness, disaster, Papa, horror, episcopate, persecution, secularism, self-serving, SOD, the struggle for the Church, different religion, Revolution.
Hilary White the very handsome but not quite so lovely as Hilary White Patrick Archbold asks, is this the big reveal, where the (her term) villain of our story reveals his nefarious plans for all the world to see? Not sure, but Pope Francis’ remarks against the traditional practice of the Faith – aka Catholicism – made on Nov. 10 were some of his strongest, yet:
“Before the problems of the church it is not useful to search for solutions in conservatism or fundamentalism, in the restoration of obsolete conduct and forms that no longer have the capacity of being significant culturally,” the pontiff said at one point during his remarks. [So is that why the FIs were thriving, when almost every other “conciliar” religious order is dead or in its death throes?]
“Christian doctrine is not a closed system incapable of generating questions, doubts, interrogatives – but is alive, knows being unsettled, enlivened,” said the pope. “It has a face that is not rigid, it has a body that moves and grows, it has a soft flesh: it is called Jesus Christ.” [I’m sorry, but this is a very modernist-leaning understanding of the Faith. It is an understanding many great Saints and Fathers would largely reject]
“The reform of the church then, and the church is semper reformanda… does not end in the umpteenth plan to change structures,” he continued. “It means instead grafting yourself to and rooting yourself in Christ, leaving yourself to be guided by the Spirit – so that all will be possible with genius and creativity.” [perpetual revolution in practice doctrine, then? The modernist program in full flower]
Patrick Arcbold (Ugh group blogs, so confusing) adds:
The Pope has revealed himself and is telling us what he is going to do. It is impossible not to see him for who he is and what he intends to do. Nobody has the luxury of feigning surprise at what comes next. The Pope is the hackneyed director and writer of his own story and he has given it all away.
In the movies, the mechanism of the “big reveal” serves two purposes. It serves the obvious purpose ofletting the audience clearly know which side this key character is on. It also serves to let the story’s protagonist know that his cause is futile. He cannot possibly win.
Practically speaking, when the more “fundamentalist” sects are some of the only Christian churches still growing in the Church and around the world, how can the Pope possibly make this claim, when liberalism can be categorically shown to be the death of Christianity? Furthermore, how does he square such belief for the Catholic Church with his fawning relationship with fundamentalist evangelicals like Kenneth Copeland? Does he believe protestantism is fundamentally – forgive the term – liberal and prone towards doctrinal re-writing and evolution? If so, he’s correct, but it still seems a very odd juxtaposition, at least philosophically, knowing how uber-conservative some of his evangelical BFFs are.
As to Tradition, and the star around which it orbits, the TLM, it’s difficult not to see in the above at most a begrudging willingness to let it continue, for now. But long term, I think it plain the Pope feels it a total dead end, and something that will have to go away sooner or later.
Reader MFG asks how to square these statements with the Pope’s olive branch to the SSPX. I don’t know that they have to square, I think Pope Francis is very impulsive but generally acts more for political than doctrinal reasons. He may see an advantage in terms of internal Church politics to granting (as if by divine decree, since no mechanism whatsoever was established for this) faculties to SSPX priests for the upcoming “Year of Mercy.” One thing is certain, this Pope feels no compulsion whatsoever to intellectual consistency. He’s all over the map.
What say youse guys?