jump to navigation

“Saved by Race Alone:” Great riposte to Vatican’s Judaizing stand February 4, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, different religion, Ecumenism, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, silliness.
comments closed

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 Francis
Vatican City
January, 2016
Dear Holy Father
I 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!
Genius.  I needed a laugh.  Might take a break this afternoon.  C ya later.

How can ecumenism be reconciled with St. Paul and the entire pre-conciliar Magisterium? February 3, 2016

Posted 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.
comments closed

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, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Papa, persecution, sanctity, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

Rorate has another interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider.  You might recall they published one last year.

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, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, catachesis, different religion, General Catholic, Interior Life, mortification, Papa, Revolution, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
comments closed

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).

———-End Quote———-

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, 2016

Posted 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.
comments closed

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, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Bible, episcopate, error, foolishness, fun, General Catholic, Papa, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, silliness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

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:

252

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?

Jeanyus.

 

Religion of Peace Alert: Afghan cuts off wife’s nose when she opposes his 2nd “marriage”…..to 6 year old January 21, 2016

Posted 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.
comments closed

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:

  1. Bigamy (and trigamy and more)
  2. Keeping of slaves, especially female
  3. Buying and selling of children as possible
  4. Child rape (male and female)
  5. Brutal treatment of women (to nary a peep from Western feminists)
  6. An institutionalized culture of violence and “might makes right”
  7. General barbarism (which is why islamic “culture” is frozen at about the 9th century level)
  8. Use of the sword and male dominance of women as its major tools of “evangelization”
  9. Ritualized rape of adult women if they are not defended by male relatives
  10. 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!

Ladies man

Ladies man

While Cardinal Koch dreams of the future of the “priesthood” in the background.

Best take I’ve seen on Maundy Thursday female foot fetish, er, washing January 21, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Liturgy, paganism, Papa, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

 Vox Cantoris has a post that I think brings up an important point.  He recommends the new foot washing rubric as a great reason to abandon the Novus Ordo and immerse oneself in the bosom of tradition.  I really couldn’t agree more (most emphasis in original, I add comments):

Pope proves that if you disobey a law long enough, the Church will change it.

His “god of surprises” has more in store!

Reason #5264 why we should just leave the Nervous Disordered Mess and its Bugnini lead Masonic inspired sacrilege. It has just been revealed, hidden as it was since a few days before Christmas, that Franciscus has changed the rubrics for Holy Thursday from “Viri Selecti.”

That’s right ladies, you can wear a short skirt and give a little flash to Father Bob as he pours water on your feet in front of the congregation. But don’t worry, he’ll probably have no interest because he’s as queer as this decision…….

…….You and I, however; we are the dissenters. We are the sinners of course. We are those not open to his “god of surprises.” [Leftism masquerading as the Holy Spirit, more like?]

Well, surprise!

Does Franciscus have the legal power to do this? Of course.
Does he have the moral authority? NO, not in a million years. [But that’s just the thing.  The liturgical and doctrinal revolution of Vatican II ushered in an era of progressive will to power, where whatever they want, they just do, whether justified by tradition or morality or not]
It is another example of dissenters changing practice, changing doctrine. [Concur]
Communion-in-the-hand.
Girl Altar Boys.
Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
It is all, as it this, a liturgical abuse, legalised through the breaking of the law.
So, how do you like the god of surprises, so far, eh?

I will never, ever attend the Sacred Triduum in the Novus Ordo as long as I shall live. I will sit home and read it first before I will ever attend it again if that was all I could do! 
…….
Is it true then? Did he really stand up and shout that he would strip the 13 Cardinals of their red hats? “Full power has been given to me, I run the show around here?”Did he say it? Because if he didn’t, he sure acts like it! [So I almost blogged on this yesterday, but kind of ran of time and sorta thought it was still a bit conjectural.  But frankly, I don’t doubt it a bit that Francis lost his, uh, stuff, when he first heard about the intervention of the 13 cardinals at the Ordinary Synod.  Too bad it wasn’t 130 cardinals]
No Wotyla, No Ratzinger would ever have gotten away with this.

What a blatant, idiotic, abominable decision on the part of the Bishop of Rome. The lawbreaker has become the lawmaker!

Fathers reading this! You have a choice. 
[This is really key…..]  The Washing of the Feet was not part of the Mass until 1955. It was a rite reserved to Cathedrals, Monasteries, Seminaries and Religious Houses. When it was put after the homily on Holy Thursday in the “Reformed Holy Week” by Pius XII at the urging of Annibale Bugnini and other modernists hidden away in the liturgical offices of the Vatican, it was the first time in 2000 years that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was interrupted for a para-liturgy. It was then and remains in the traditional Missal and in the modernist Missal, an “option.” It does not have to be done. It can be optioned out! So, option it out! The decree only changes what it expressly seeks to change. The fact is, it is still an option! [Yes, but we can rest assured that almost all national conferences and individual bishocrats will insist on this being the “norm” for their nations/dioceses, upon pain of supposed “disobedience.” Ergo, fleeing for the Ecclesia Dei communities is really the best if not only option, at least for now.  We’ll see how long that lasts, what with pressure being applied to Pope Francis by liberals to modify the traditional Liturgy, as well.  In which case, I suspect the Society can expect rapid growth]

It does not apply to the traditional Mass.

Where is the consultation with the “brother bishops?” Where is the “collegiality?” This Pope has become a dictator, an absolutist, a Peronist!…….

…….You have one choice friends, leave the Novus Ordo. Get out of it and get into Tradition in every way. It is going to come crashing down. It is a valid Mass when, blah, blah, blah; but it cannot be reformed, it can only be abrogated and it will be! [Said the man who has worked for the “reform of the reform,” by his own admission, for 30  years.  That is to say, this is not a flippant admission.  I have to agree.  I have to further agree that I plan to never attend another N.O. as long as I live, and have great sympathy for those whose circumstances make a fully regular TLM difficult to impossible to assist at]

Tell us how you really feel, Vox!

Naw, I’m right there with you.  I’m not surprised, but I am scandalized as all get out.  And I don’t think this is anywhere close to the end.  If you hold out hope that this pontificate may be shortened by abdication, you may as well forget that now.  I’ve never known a progressive to not hold onto power as long as humanly possible.  So we can probably expect dramatically worse things to come.

Metaphor for the Church:

Ja, Russkieland. And the dude just drove on!

But seriously, we really must be praying for our Church and for Francis.  The reckoning that man will face……….makes me shudder.

“I have decided:” Francis introduces massive liturgical novelty as personal whim January 21, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Liturgy, Papa, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

So the inevitable has happened, and Francis has further paved the way for fake women priests by formally directing the women’s feet may be washed during the Maundy Thursday Mass in the universal Church.  It is assumed this does not apply to the Ecclesia Dei communities, but I don’t know on what sure basis such assumptions stand.  The formal declaration is worded in such a way that this act would require a direct repudiation by a successor to repeal: something the conservativish popes since the Council have been reticent to do.  Some details via the Vatican Information Service:

Vatican City, 21 January 2016 (VIS) – The Holy Father has written a letter, dated 20 December and published today, to Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in which he decrees that from now on, the people chosen for the washing of the feet in the liturgy of Holy Thursday may be selected from all the People of God, and not only men and boys.

The Pope writes to the cardinal that he has for some time reflected on the “rite of the washing of the feet contained in the Liturgy of the Mass in Coena Domini, with the intention of improving the way in which it is performed so that it might express more fully the meaning of Jesus’ gesture in the Cenacle, His giving of Himself unto the end for the salvation of the world, His limitless charity”. [Certainly the foot washing had that intent.  But it also had the intent of confirming the male apostles as the heirs of Christ’s salvific action and the inheritors of his Body on Earth, the Church.  This action is a huge demonstration of the all-male priesthood intended by Christ, and by stripping it away, Pope Francis now severely undercuts the popular rationale for the male priesthood.  I cannot believe this to be incidental.]

“After careful consideration”, he continues, “I have decided to make a change to the Roman Missal. I therefore decree that the section according to which those persons chosen for the Washing of the feet must be men or boys, so that from now on the Pastors of the Church may choose the participants in the rite from among all the members of the People of God. I also recommend that an adequate explanation of the rite itself be provided to those who are chosen”. [This “may” will manifest in all non-traditional parishes as a “must.”  I would be shocked if 1 in 100 Novus Ordo parishes did not have women in the lineup this Holy Thursday]

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has today published a decree on the aforementioned rite, dated 6 January 2016, the full text of which is published below:

The reform of the Holy Week, by the decree Maxima Redemptionis nostrae mysteria of November 1955, provides the faculty, where counselled by pastoral motives, to perform the washing of the feet of twelve men during the Mass of the Lord’s Supper, after the reading of the Gospel according to John, as if almost to represent Christ’s humility and love for His disciples. [Nice little bit of return fire there from Cardinal Sarah of the CDW, attempting to undo a bit of the damage by plainly laying out why Christ had only men in the Upper Room and why he only washed male feet – because that was His specific intent, not because he was limited by any constraints of the times.  What a ludicrous proposition to impose such a restriction on the God of the Universe who had worked countless miracles before hundreds of thousands of souls!]

I also included that last bit to say this: we can see where even the well-meaning reforms of the 1950s could lead.  Some of those reforms under Pius XII were returns to ancient practice, to be sure, but others were great novelties.  There were reasons they had been abrogated or diminished over the Church’s long history.  When meddling with ancient, infinitely sacred things, unintended consequences tend to abound.

I wonder if more priests of relative orthodoxy will now, following the example of a few already, determine it pastorally unhelpful to do the foot washing?

Will this be one of Francis’ “grand gestures” that prove difficult or impossible to reform?  Do you think this is just a bit of multi-kulti pandering, or is this an act deliberately intended to fundamentally weaken the logic behind the male priesthood?

Do priests who have steadfastly held to the liturgical rites as written in spite of great pressure to emulate the Franciscan example now feel total fools, having the rug pulled out from underneath them?

Note that Francis remains disobedient to the liturgical norms even as he has modified them: he speaks of inviting the “people of God,” which means souls in union with the Church, to the Mandatum, but he himself has used those not in such union, including practicing muslims.

Also note that the constant apologists for the papacy are now telling us how wonderful a gift to the Church this act is, even declaring, as a good reason for the reform (and I am not making this up), that women’s feet are cute.  It is amazing the lengths to which these folks will go to justify the unjustifiable.  It leaves me wondering the extent to which their adherence to the Novus Ordo (and I mean no disrespect to those here who have no option) informs this seeming willingness to see the Liturgy continuously reformed out of existence.

Bergoglio has been doing this for a looong time.  There are numerous photos of him as Archbishop of Buenos Aires washing the feet of women, whether Catholic or not (and typically not).  How many of those subsequently converted by this “grand example” is not known.  A small sampling below:

images (12)

pope-bergoglio-01

images (13)

I have to say to the cardinals who elected this pope……really?!?  This guy was so known for who and what he was, we have the testimony of the “St. Gallen” group of collaboration in destroying Benedict and electing this guy, and yet most cardinals still went along with it.  Were 2/3 really in on the plot?  Or is my surmise right, that half or more of even cardinals are just reeds shaking in the wind, blowing whichever way they see as favorable for them from one minute to the next, with no real faith or even backbone to guide them?

 

Vatican preparing a betrayal of the Church in China? January 20, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, Holy suffering, horror, martyrdom, paganism, Papa, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Vox Cantoris has a couple of posts on the renewal of the idol “dialogue” between the Vatican and the Chicom government.  The second of the two contains commentary from Cardinal Emeritus Zen of Hong Kong, seemingly the last of the old lions of the free, true Chinese Church.  Cardinal Zen is having nothing of the dialogue being pursued by arch-liberal Cardinal Parolin and the Vatican bureaucracy.  It seems our new progressive overlords have in mind a replay of the Ostpolitik that helped maintain the communists in power for years in Eastern Europe while throwing faithful, saintly souls like Cardinal Mindzenty under the bus.

I take excerpts from Cardinal Zen below.  Emphasis from Vox, my comments:

I remember that at the beginning of last year the newspaper Wen Wei Po announced jubilantly that “relations between China and the Vatican will soon have a good development.” Soon after, the Vatican Secretary of State said that “the prospects are promising, there is a desire for dialogue on both sides.” I had my doubts about this unexpected wave of optimism, I saw no basis for this optimism. More than a thousand crosses were removed from the top of the churches (in some cases the churches themselves have been destroyed). After so long, we can no longer delude ourselves that this was anything beyond an episode of some local official’s exaggerated zeal. Several seminaries have been closed. Students of the National Seminary in Beijing were forced to sign a declaration of loyalty to the Independent Church, promising also to concelebrate with illegitimate bishops (otherwise they would not receive a diploma at the end of their studies). The Government is continuously strengthening a church that now objectively is already separated from the universal Catholic Church; with enticements and threats they induce the clergy to perform acts contrary to the doctrine and discipline of the Church, denying their conscience and their dignity. [I agree the Chinese Patriotic church is already schismatic. It always has been.  As for whether prelates and priests who cooperate with the state-owned church are violating their conscience, that is known only to God]

………. Pressed by some journalists as to whether there was real progress, Cardinal Parolin responded: “The fact that we speak is already positive.” It seems that there is no agreement in sight as of yet……..[The holy grail of dialogue has been found!  God be praised!]

…….So what is the formula now under discussion for the appointment of bishops? As an old Cardinal out on the peripheries, I have no way of knowing, let alone guessing.

A recent article “A winter of darkness for religions in China” by Bernardo Cervellera on AsiaNews, says: “From information that has arrived from China it would seem that Beijing’s proposal is limited to complete recognition by the Holy See for all official bishops (even illegitimate and excommunicated bishops), without any mention of the unofficial bishops and those in prison; Vatican approval of the government recognized Council of Bishops, which excludes underground bishops; approval of the competency of this Council (and not the Pope) in the appointment of new candidates to the episcopacy who will be “democratically” elected (in short according to the suggestions of the Patriotic Association). The Holy See must approve the Council’s appointment and has a weak veto only in “severe” cases, which must be justified if used. If the Holy See’s justifications are considered “insufficient”, the Council of Bishops may decide to proceed anyway”. [Long story short, negotiating with communists, without a few hundred B-52s in your back pocket, is a complete waste of time unless one is prepared to completely, utterly capitulate.  That certainly appears to be the case with the Church’s “dialogue” with the evil, Christ-hating Chinese Communist junta]

If this information is accurate, can the Holy See accept the claims of the Chinese counterpart? [Nope]  Does this approach still respect the true authority of the Pope to appoint bishops? [Nope]  Can the Pope can sign such an agreement? [Sure, he can sign, but it would be a total betrayal of the faithful in China and around the world and the largest scandal of this papacy to date]   (Pope Benedict said: “The authority of the Pope to appoint bishops is given to the church by its founder Jesus Christ, it is not the property of the Pope, neither can the Pope give it to others”).

Do our officials in Rome know what an election is in China? Do they know that the so-called Episcopal Conference is not only illegitimate, but simply does not exist? What exists is an organism that is called “One Association and One Conference”, namely the Patriotic Association and the Bishops’ Conference always work together as one body, which is alwayschaired by government officials (there are pictures to prove it, the Government does not even try more to keep up appearances, it starkly flaunts the fact that they now manage religion!). Signing such an agreement means the authority to appoint bishops delivering the Church into the hands of an atheist government. [That’s the whole point!  Why do you think the Chicoms are so eager to have this dialogue?!?  This is their first clear opportunity in 60 years to get the Church clearly and totally under their blood-stained thumbs!  They recognize a fellow-traveler when they see one]

This scheme is often compared to a (poorly defined) Model Vietnamese, but it is much worse. The Vietnamese model is based on an initiative that began with the Church in Vietnam, the true Catholic Church in Vietnam. In China on the other hand, the so-called Association and Conference hide the reality that it is the Government calling the shots. [And the Vietnamese situation is far from ideal]

Even in Eastern Europe of the past, such as in Poland and Czechoslovakia, it was the Church that took the initiative and then gave the Government veto power. In doing so, even if the government vetos a proposal for the hundredth time, it is still the Church that presents a candidate and makes the appointment. If the Government insists on a veto, it will only prolong the impasse, and it will still allow the Church time to look for a suitable candidate. But it is unthinkable to leave the initial proposal in the hands of an atheist Government who cannot possible judge the suitability of a candidate to be a bishop. Obviously, if the Church gives in to pressure from the government, the only result – despite proclamations to the contrary – is that it will have sold out the pontifical right to appoint bishops. Can this happen? According to an article written by a certain András Fejerdy: “For pastoral reasons – that is, because the full administration of the sacraments requires completely consecrated bishops – the Holy See believed that the completion of the Hungarian Bishops’ Conference was so urgent that it accepted a solution that formally did not upset the canonical principle of free appointment, but that in practice gave the regime a decisive influence in choosing the candidates”. [Meaning, under the disastrous “Ostpolitik” of the former record-holder for most progressive Pope in modern history, Paul VI, the Church surrendered her liberty and her sacred rights in order to appease a murderous leftist authoritarian regime]

UCAN News reports recent news from Chengdu (Sichuan): “Shortly after the visit of the Vatican delegation to Beijing, the Holy See approved the episcopal candidate elected in May 2014”. Is this also a case of “not upsetting the canonical principle of free appointment, but …in practice giving the regime a decisive influence in choosing the candidates “? [Chicoms choose a figurehead bishop, likely more beholden to Beijing than to God, and the Church goes along.  Very not good, especially given the thousands of bishops, priests, and faithful killed or indefinitely imprisoned by this communist cabal for defending the True Faith!]

The aforementioned AsiaNews article stated, again based on information received from China: “Beijing (demands) the Holy See’s recognition of all the official bishops, even the illegitimate and excommunicated ones.” I wonder: is it only the government that makes these demands, without repentance of those concerned? Will the excommunicated only be released from excommunication or even recognized as bishops? Even without any act of repentance? Has the mercy of God come to this? Will the faithful be obliged to obey these bishops? [Great questions]

So much remains to be resolved.

Illegitimate bishops who have been excommunicated have abused the sacramental power (including ordination of deacons and priests) and judicial (assigning offices) and the Holy See seems to be without rebuke for them. [There hasn’t been much rebuke for decades, going back to JPII.  Pope Benedict was somewhat better, but only somewhat.  Fear of men, and all that. Church leaders tie themselves in not worrying over the “pastoral implications” of doctrinal matters that should be crystal clear.  It’s the worst of both worlds.] 

…….Shortly after the Vatican delegation’s journey to Beijing began, the government organized a large gathering of Church leaders, forcing on that occasion a celebration of all the bishops, legitimate, illegitimate and excommunicated. These are all objectively schismatic acts. [Think about that] The government now can string along a large number of bishops, resulting in an irrecoverable loss of dignity. If the Holy See signed some agreement with the Government without clarifying all these things, it will cause a severe wound to the conscience of the faithful……. [And given the overall poor health of the Church in China, and the enormous inroads protestants have made there, a potentially fatal one]

……….Obviously our underground communities are non-existent for the Government. But now is even the Vatican ignoring them in negotiations, to appease their Chinese counterparts?  [I have long sensed – going back to before Pope Francis  – that the underground Church is something of an embarrassment to many in the Curia.  The progressives there would really like them to go away, so they can have the “victory” of normalizing relations with a schismatic group of government-controlled dupes] To “save the day” will we abandon our brothers and sisters? But they are the healthy limbs of the Church! (Of course, they too have their problems, especially when dioceses remain without bishops, which can only lead to disorder). Is silencing the underground community to please the government not a form of suicide?

In the recent negotiations there has been no mention of the case of Msgr. James Su Zhimin in prison for 20 years. Nor of Msgr. Thaddeus Ma Daqin of Shanghai under house arrest for more than three years because these issues have been deemed “too sensitive”!?

……..Beijing has no intention of negotiating, only making demands.

…….What makes me restless is the sight of our Eminent Secretary of State still intoxicated by themiracles of Ostpolitik. In a speech last year, at a Memorial for Card. Casaroli, he praised the success of its predecessor in having secured the existence of the Church hierarchy in the communist countries of Eastern Europe. He says: “In choosing candidates for the episcopate, we choose shepherds and not people who systematically oppose the regime, people who behave like gladiators, people who love to grandstand on the political stage.” I wonder: Who had he in mind while making this description? I fear that he was thinking of a Cardinal Wyszynski, a Cardinal Mindszenty, a Cardinal Beran. But these are the heroes who bravely defended the faith of their people! It terrifies me to think this way and I sincerely hope that I am wrong. [Ostpolitik was possibly the greatest diplomatic disaster of the Church in the past 200 years.  It was also a pastoral disaster.  Ostpolitik played a substantial role in helping the communist states of Eastern Europe survive a further 20 years.  It resulted in many great, holy, faithful men being thrown under the bus.  I wonder if their well-deserved reputations as opponents of leftism, within the Church and without, played a role in that process under the pontificate of Paul VI and the many progressives he appointed to the Curia?  I know one thing for certain – Paul VI, Cardinal Casaroli, and the other architects of Ostpolitik have blood on their hands.]

The innocent children were killed, the angel told Joseph to take Mary and the Child and flee to safety. But today would our diplomats advise Joseph to go and humbly beg for dialogue with Herod!?

Is that even a question at this point?  Is there anything more exalted, more precious, more holy to most of the institutional Church today than Saint Dialogue the Endless?

I don’t have any clear answers to Cardinal Zen’s many trenchant questions (and note, he also said he his many important concerns have been totally ignored by the Vatican), but I do know this: I get very nervous whenever a left-leaning (or falling) Vatican negotiates with an authoritarian, left-wing government.  The lure of a deal, any deal, regardless of the price, may simply be too great to resist, and progressives tend to be manifestly blind to the evils of governments they see as being on the side of goodness and light.

Long enough post. I actually worked on this on Monday but thought it was too long, then I see Life Site News ran it yesterday!  So I figured what the heck.