jump to navigation

Saint Alphonsus on the Proper Hearing of Mass November 11, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, Grace, Interior Life, Latin Mass, priests, reading, Saints, sanctity, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
3 comments

From Volume XV of Saint Alphonsus Ligouri’s Ascetical Works, Preaching (only get the translations by Father Eugene Grimm, CSsR, the others are markedly deficient and full of modern errors and radical changes to Saint Alphonsus crystal-clear theology), an exhortation on the proper hearing of Mass, including what constitutes, in the Saint’s mind, irreligious and even sinful hearing of Mass:

Before I begin the excerpt, I should note that the section below regarding not going to Confession during Mass does not mean Sacramental Confession, which is of course not only permitted but encouraged during Mass or any other time, but the “implicit Confession” of the Confiteor.  Alphonsus is saying that if you have some grievous sin on your conscience, Mass does not remove the guilt of that sin, and explicit sacramental Confession must first be sought before assisting at Mass (this could of course be ongoing during Mass, but certainly before receiving Communion).

How should one hear Mass?

To satisfy the obligation of hearing Mass, two things are necessary: an intention and attention.

It is necessary to have an intention of hearing Mass, so that a man who is force into church against his will, or who enters only to look about him and see the place (NB: as many tourists do during Mass at famous churches throughout Europe), or to wait there for a friend, or for any other purpose except hearing Mass, does not fulfil the obligation.  But, should a person hear Mass through devotion, believing that the day is not a holiday, he is bound, when he finds that it is a holiday, to hear another Mass?  No; it is enough to have done the work commanded without having adverted to the intention of fulfilling the precept of hearing Mass.

It is necessary to hear Mass with attention – that is, to attend to the Sacrifice that is celebrated.   This attention may be external and internal.  It is certain that a person who hears Mass without external attention does not fulfil his obligation; for example, if during the Mass you are asleep, or are drunk, or are employed in writing, talking, or other external operations, you do not fulfil the precept of hearing Mass.

It is disputed among theologians whether a person who attends Mass without internal intention satisfies his obligation’ that is, if he sees what is going on, but is at the same time distracted, and employed in thinking not on God, but on other things.  Many theologians say that he is guilty of a venial, but not a grievous, sin, as often as he is voluntarily distracted, and that he fulfils the substance of the precept because he hears Mass with a moral presence. But the greater number of theologians, following St. Thomas, teach that such a person does not fulfil the obligation of hearing Mass, namely, when he is conscious that he is distracted, and not attending to the Mass, and positively wishes to continue in his distractions.

Hence I exhort you, in hearing Mass, to reflect on the great Sacrifice which is being offered. Meditate on the Passion of Jesus Christ; for the Mass is a renewal of the Sacrifice that Jesus Christ offered on the cross. Or meditate on some eternal truth – on death, judgment, or hell. Let him who knows how to read make use of some little book, or let him recite the office of the Blessed Virgin……..say the Rosary, or some other vocal prayers: let them, at least, attend to what the priest is doing.

Does a person who makes his confession during Mass satisfy the obligation of hearing Mass?  No; for then he would attend it as a criminal accusing himself of his sins, and not as a person offering sacrifice; and it is certain that all who hear Mass offer sacrifice along with the priest.

Hence it would be advisable during Mass to offer the Holy Sacrifice for the ends for which it was instituted: adoration, contrition, thanksgiving, and supplication.

During the Mass, then, we ought, first, to offer to God the Sacrifice of His Son in honor of His Divine Majesty; secondly, in thanksgiving for all the benefits we have received from him; thirdly, in satisfaction for our sins; and fourthly, to implore of God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the graces necessary for our salvation.  At the elevation of the Host, let us ask God to pardon our sins, for the sake of Jesus Christ, and at the elevation of the chalice, let us beg of God, through the merits of that Divine Blood, the gift of His love and holy perseverance. And during the Communion of the priest, let us make a spiritual Communion, saying: My Jesus, I desire to receive Thee; I embrace Thee: do not permit me to ever be separated from Thee.

———————-End Quote———————

No special message in this post, just some hopefully helpful reminders and exhortation to even better devotion and practice at the source and summit of our Faith, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Ligouri: The Ruin of Souls Who Through Shame Omit to Confess Their Sins October 3, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, Interior Life, priests, reading, Sacraments, sadness, scandals, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

In light of this post from last week, I recently read the following excerpt from one of Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri’s great Ascetical Works and it was a perfect treatise on the matter of invalid confessions, and reasons for them.  Of course, Saint Alphonsus is the great Moral Doctor of the Church.  He is widely considered to be the single greatest authority on moral theology in the Church’s 2000 year history.

One hugely important post I failed to make in last week’s postfor a confession to be valid, EVERY mortal sin, in kind and number, committed since the last VALID confession, MUST be conveyed to the priest, or the confession is invalid, and every subsequent reception of the Blessed Sacrament in this foul state is sacrilegious and, in itself, a mortal sin, as was the original invalid confession.  Thus, if someone were to string out a long history of mortal sins over, say, 10 confessions, he would subsequently have to confess those 10 invalid confessions, and the 10 or 50 or 70 sacrilegious communions in the interim.  In fact, the longer a sin remains unconfessed for reasons of shame, the less likely it is that it will ever be confessed.  Thus, it is always best to confess all sins as soon as possible, both to alleviate the threat of damnation, but also to strike while the positive effects of shame are motivating the soul to seek forgiveness of its greivous offenses against God.

Saint Alphonsus repeatedly declared that more souls are lost through shame and subsequent invalid confessions than virtually any other reason.  Many Saints personally related mystical experiences of souls of the damned who lamented their sacrilegious, invalid confessions.

Now, the great moral Doctor, Ligouri (excerpts from pp. 316-317):

In the missions we should moreover strongly and often inculcate the necessity of overcomign the shame that one feels in confessions one’s sins.  Those who are experienced missionaries know that this cursed shame has been the cause of the loss of innumerable souls………

It is a pity to see how many souls the devil gains by this means, especially in matters concerning impure sins; for he makes th em lose shame at the moment of committing them, and gives this shame back to them when there is qustion of mention ing them in the confessional.  Saint Antoine, speakign of this matter, relates that a holy hermit, seseing one day the devil in the church going among those that wished to confess, asked him what he was doing there: the evil spirit answered: “To induce thse people to commit sin, I have taken shame from them; now I return it to them in order that they may not confess well and properly.”  Saint John Chrysostom also sayhs: “God has given shame to the commission of sin, and confidence to the confession of it. The devil inverts this: he inspires him who sins with confidence before the sin, and with shame afterwards, so that the sin may not be confessed and the soul lost forever.”

Alas! Christian soul, you have sinned; if you do not confess your sins you will certainly be damned. Why then do you not confess your sin?  You answer: “I am ashamed.” Hence, rather than overcome this shame you wish to be condemned for all eternity to the fire of hell? It is a shame to offend so good a God Who has created us; it is not a shame to confess to have offended Him.  But since you do not wish to manifest your sin, refrain at least from going to confession.  To the sin that you have committed do you wish to add the sacrilege of a bad confession?  Do yo know what you are doing when you commit sacrilege?  For the sins on accou nt which you have deserved hel there is no other remedy than the Blood of Jesus Christ, who will purify you if you confess it well; but by concealing your sin, you even tread under foot the Blood of Jesus Christ……….

……….What do you fear?  Ah!, here are no doubt the pretexts that the devil suggests to you, to keep you from confessing:

  1. What wil my confessor say when he hears that I have fallen in such a way?  Well, he will say that you have been weak, as happens to so many others who live in this world; he will say that you did wrong to sin, but that you afterwards performed and admirable deed in overcoming shame to confess your sins.
  2. At least he will not fail to give me a scolding! – oh no, why should he scold you?  Know that confessors cannot have greater consolation than when they hear a person accusing himself of a sin that he has committed; for then he can securely absolve him and deliver him from hell.
  3. I have not enough confidence to manifest this sin to my spiritual Father – Well! Go to confession to another priest of the place or to a stranger.

 

————-End Excerpt————–

Really, folks, your not that special, nor half as “bad” as you think.  The priests have heard it all.  If you go to Confession on Sunday at a busy parish, the priest might hear 80 or 100 confessions that day.  They all run together.  God gives priests special graces to forget what they hear in the confessional.  Most priests, most all the time, literally forget what they heard just moments ago in the confessional.  So don’t worry so much, trust God, and just spill it all.  Kind/type, and number.

The absolutely vital point to remember, is that, no matter what a foolish priest may tell you, you cannot receive the Blessed Sacrament with one unconfessed mortal sin on your soul!  If you do you commit another and worse mortal sin, the sin of profaning the Blessed Sacrament, and, many moral theologians maintain, literally re-crucifying Christ.

 

 

Please Pray for the Repose of the Soul of Gregory Latz June 17, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Four Last Things, General Catholic, Interior Life, reading, SSPX, thanksgiving, Tradition, true leadership.
comments closed

I have asked for prayers for this man for some time.  He fought a long battle with cancer and I learned to my sadness some weeks ago that Mr. Latz had died.

Please, if you would, also pray for my brother-in-law Brian Haeglin, who suffered a severe stroke about 2 weeks ago and is still hospitalized, and likely will be for weeks.  Thank you and God bless you and your family.

They don’t call this a vale of tears for nothing.

I would also like to thank longtime reader Tim T for his continued support, and for his surprising gift in the mail this morning of some good and very interesting Catholic books.  I haven’t read them yet, obviously, but I look forward to doing so, especially the biography of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.  This is the one by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais.  Interesting timing, I had been strongly considering ordering Michael Davies’ Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre.  Do any of you familiar with both have any thoughts on these two books or preferences between them, as I believe they are generally regarded as the best studies of Archbishop Lefebvre.  ?

Whatever one thinks of the SSPX, and I am personally well-disposed towards them and thankful for their existence (as they, at the very least, saved the public practice of the TLM, in my opinion), Marcel Lefebvre has had a huge influence on the Church in the past 60-70 years and more and deserves careful study.  Plus, history has always been my favorite subject.

So thank you again Mr. T!  I pity the fool!

No relation, I just felt like throwing a pic in this post.

Blessed Are the Meek – But Who Are the Meek? Cornelius A Lapide Tells Us March 22, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Bible, catachesis, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, reading, sanctity, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

I’ve been reading – slowly – The Great Commentary by Cornelius a’ Lapide, in the Loreto Press version with the introduction by none other than Charles Coulombe.  It’s an excellent if exhaustive biblical commentary.  I can see why it is so often used by traditional priests – there are insights to Scripture I’ve never seen anywhere else, though a few are dated (like the medical references to the latest 16th century medicine).

Nevertheless, it’s an excellent if expensive biblical commentary. I strongly recommend it.

As I said, it’s an exhaustive commentary, a’ Lapide does not manage to cover all of St. Matthew’s Gospel in a single 600 page volume (not including a ~130 page introduction).  In fact, he doesn’t even make it halfway.  Sometimes it does get a bit draggy into really minute detail.  Overall, however, it’s the best Catholic biblical commentary available in English, at least until someone finishes translating Bellarmine, which hopefully Ryan Grant is working on (Mediatrix Press, by the way, has a 10% off sale for Lent. It’s a good time to save).

I haven’t done enough Lenten content this year due to circumstances, but here’s a nice exegesis on Saint Matthew Chapter V verse 4, Blessed are the Meek.  But who is meek, and what is meekness?  Aside from Christ’s exhortation to be meek, what role does meekness play in God’s plan for our salvation?  Divine Intimacy certainly provides many answers, but these from a’ Lapide are quite worth sharing, as well. I pray you find this useful:

Fittingly are the meek conjoined to the poor in spirit, because the poor and lowly are wont to be meek, as vice versa, the rich and the proud are often impatient and quarrelsome.  Poverty and meekness are neighbors, and related virtues………For “the meek,” says Chromatius, are “those who are gentle, humble, modest, simple in faith, patient under all injury, who set themselves to follow the precepts of the Gospel and imitate the Lord’s example of meekness.  Therefore, the meek are those who rule over impatience, anger, envy, vengefulness, and other disturbances and troubled movements of the soul, and do not murmur against God when He permits adversity, nor become indignant at injuries caused by neighbors, nor seek revenge upon those who harm them, but bear all things placidly in God’s providence, who orders all these things to His glory and for their salvation, when they practice resignation and acquiesce in them. This is why the meek, by the sweetness of their manners, reconcile to themselves the souls of all.

Christ alludes to what David says in Psalm xxxvi:11, The meek shall inherit the land, and shall delight in abundance of peace.

Meekness, therefore, makes us 1. pleasing to God and men 2. like Christ, Who says, Learn of Me, because I am meek, and humble in heart (Matt xi:29), 3. apt for wisdom and gaining celestial goods. For capable of receiving these is the heart which is meek, placid, and tranquil, as Psalm xxiv:9 says: He will guide the mild in judgment: He will teach the meek His ways.

The grades of meekness and the beatitude consequent upon it are these: 1. To converse with all with a meek heart and lips. 2. To break the anger of others by a meek reply. 3. To bear with gentleness all injuries and wrongs. 4. To rejoice in being injured and wronged. 5. By our meekness and kindness to overcome the malevolence of our enemies and those who are angry with us, and win them to be our friends. [This is very hard to do, especially in our proud and selfish age, where we are taught in ways subtle and gross to always exalt the self, to always get what we want, when we want it, and to take great offense if we do not. But this is not the way of Christ, or of the great Christendom that existed for many centuries. I count myself at the head of the list of those who fail in meekness.] 

Finally, Climacus gives the reason, indeed several reasons, why the meek are blessed when he says: “Meekness is the helpmate of obedience, the leader of religious community, a curb to those who steal, a power that expels the wrathful, the teacher of joy, the imitator of Christ, the property of the heavenly, fetters and bonds of demons, a shield against bitterness and harshness of spirit. The Lord rests in the hearts of the meek.  The turbulent soul is the nest of the devil.  The meek shall inherit the earth, or better, shall rule the lands, while the furious shall be driven our out of their lands……….

[This last bit is not entirely related, but it was so good i had to include it]……..Moses promised earthly goods to the Jews, but Christ promised heavenly goods to Christians.

Better and fuller with St. Jerome – by earth in this place, understand Heaven, which is the land of the living, since this earth is the land of the dying, as it is said in Psalm xxvi: “I believe to see the good things of the Lord in the land of the living.” [so meekness is a necessary to be with God in Heaven]

————End Quote———–

I think that’s it for today. I’m sure enjoying a Lapide – I only wish I had more time to read, to soak up this glorious Faith of ours, which always seems, providentially, to provide an answer to one’s yearnings, even if those yearnings were unrecognized.  Sometimes you don’t know what you need, or what really hurts, until God shows it to you.  May He be forever praised!

God bless you!

1 in 4 Americans Haven’t Read a Book in a Year, Can’t Name an Author…… December 6, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, cultural marxism, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, rank stupidity, reading, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society.
comments closed

…….and of those who can name an author, the vast majority of those name Danielle Steele, Stephen King, or some other living, pulp fiction writer. A substantial majority fail to name a single major literary figure.

So, the planned dumbing down of the West’s population, addicting them to the bread and circuses of the elite, continues apace?  There is no way educational systems this bad have not been deliberately contrived, especially after – or perhaps, because of – the trillions of taxpayer dollars pumped into them.  Common core?  Give me a break.  More effective methods were available over a century ago in Catholic National Readers.

Last fall, Pew Research found that 27 percent of Americans had not read a book in the preceding year.

Unfortunately, our friends across the pond aren’t much better in this respect. According to a 2014 survey, roughly 26 percent of adults in Great Britain admitted to not reading and finishing a book for pleasure.

One might be able to dismiss such statistics to busyness or other similar factors. But is it possible that the growing numbers of the non-reading public are instead a sign of the decline of knowledge about books and the canon of literature in general? A March 2017 survey suggests such might be the case. Produced by The Royal Society of Literature, the survey asked nearly 2,000 British adults about their literature reading habits. Similar to the aforementioned 2014 survey, roughly 1 in 4 British adults had not read a piece of literature in the previous six months. [Well I’m not clear what they mean by “literature?” Does reading books about Saints count, or is this only F. Scott Fitzgerald, de Cervantes, and the like?  I think they are speaking very broadly, as in Mickey Spillane would qualify.]

But even more interesting were the responses when researchers asked respondents to name an author of a literary work. As it turns out, 20 percent of respondents were unable to name even one. Of those who were able to name an author, more than half selected a modern, living author, such as J.K. Rowling. [Such pap]

Much of the world in which we live today is laid upon a foundation of knowledge. These ideas can be found in the great literary works of William Shakespeare, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, and other men and women who are no longer with us. If many in today’s society can’t even name these authors, how can we expect them to participate in the “Great Conversation” of ideas, insights, and knowledge which still have profound effects on us today?

We can’t.  And that would be the point, my dear.  A population so ignorant is one that cannot think for itself, and must be led by the hand by its self-anointed “betters.”  Interestingly, however, in many cases the anointed are among the most ignorant among us, if the media and academia are any indication.  Oh, they know like religious mantras the left-liberal propaganda they’ve been indoctrinated in, but they are wholly ignorant of great sweeps of subjects, from history to geography to philosophy to theology…….you get the point.  The SAT and other deformations to our educational industry have created generations of clever regurgitators and test-takers who are thus marked, like a superior caste, for the college start of the path of elite credentialization that will chart their course to the new aristocracy, but not intelligent people who can think.  In fact, most of these JournoList types are blithering idiots, and prove it constantly.  I still want my chain saw bayonet option for the AK!

Present company excepted, of course, as I ride my high horse off to my ivory tower.

Reason number infinity plus one to homeschool.  One of the innumerable things of which I am proud of my kids, is that they are almost all avid readers.  The “least” of them is quite above average, while some are absolutely voracious and hard to keep stocked with books.  Having learned to read phonetically, they can read much faster than I can, and easily devour 2 or 3 books in a day. Half Price Books loves us.

New Book Blasts Francis and His Wholesale Inappropriateness for the Chair of Peter December 5, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, cultural marxism, disaster, episcopate, fightback, Francis, General Catholic, horror, reading, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Via Steve Skojec at One Peter Five comes a review of a short (141 pp) book on Francis, his seedy and troubling past life, his outlook, his philosophical and psychological shortcomings, and his disastrous agenda.  The review is quite long, about 4000 words, so I’ll only hit some high points.  In summation, however, the author of this book, who is anonymous (and has apparently caused a furious response in Rome and a search for his identity) but who goes by the deliciously Catholic name of Marcantonio Collona (the leader of the fleet of the Papal States at Lepanto), ties together much already known about Francis and his hard left agenda, while at the same time delving into his past and revealing a very great deal about Francis’ apparently nasty personality, his carefully crafted image as a great humble man (note the contradiction), and the mysterious twists and turns that led a man who was lambasted by his superiors in the post-conciliar Jesuit order as wholly unfit for high office (think about that) to become Pope. This naturally includes a great deal about the deceased Cardinal Martini, long-time leader of the leftist/anti-Catholic “Bologna School” of misfits and miscreants in the Church otherwise known as the “St. Gallen Mafia.”

The name of this new book is The Dictator Pope, and it is available for purchase online, but only in Kindle and similar e-formats.  I look forward to purchasing the book once it is available in print, if a publisher can be found (and believe me, with this pontificate, that will not be an easy task).

Taking up with some excerpts from Skojec’s review:

The book promises a look “behind the mask” of Francis, the alleged “genial man of the people,” revealing how he “consolidated his position as a dictator who rules by fear and has allied himself with the most corrupt elements in the Vatican to prevent and reverse the reforms that were expected of him.” [Indeed.  Whatever happened to the reform of the Vatican Bank (IOR), or the advancing of even stiffer penalties and interdictions against abusive priests, or men unsuited to the priesthood due to their addiction to perversion, or the financial reform of numerous corrupt Roman ministries, especially those associated with the disgustingly corrupt Cardinal Angelo Sodano and the entire group of high prelates and curial officials who were given enormous graft from Maciel Maciel to cover up his hideous abuses and double life?  And these barely scratch the surface.  In point of fact, after battling mightily to undo the tremendous power Sodano had accumulated under Pope JPII, Benedict has had to live to see this wholly corrupt and heterodox creature not just restored to his former power and influence, but perhaps more influential than ever.  These are the kinds of creatures Francis has chosen to surround himself with, since they will OK any ideological agenda so long as their nests continue to be feathered.]

The book promises a look “behind the mask” of Francis, the alleged “genial man of the people,” revealing how he “consolidated his position as a dictator who rules by fear and has allied himself with the most corrupt elements in the Vatican to prevent and reverse the reforms that were expected of him.”

OnePeterFive has obtained an advance copy of the English text, and I am still working my way through it. Although most of its contents will be at least cursorily familiar to those who have followed this unusual pontificate, it treats in detail many of the most important topics we have covered in these pages, providing the additional benefit of collecting them all in one place.

The author of the work is listed as Marcantonio Colonna — a transparently clever pen name laden with meaning for the Catholic history buff; the historical Colonna was an Italian nobleman who served as admiral of the papal fleet at the Battle of Lepanto. His author bio tells us he is an Oxford graduate with extensive experience in historical research who has been living in Rome since the beginning of the Francis pontificate, and whose contact with Vatican insiders — including Cardinals and other important figures — helped piece together this particular puzzle. The level of potential controversy associated with the book has seemingly led some journalists in Rome to be wary of broaching the book’s existence publicly (though it is said to be very much a topic of private conversation), whether for fear of retribution — the Vatican has recently been known to exclude or mistreat journalists it suspects of hostility — or for some other reason, remains unclear. Notable exceptions to this conspicuous silence include the stalwart Marco Tosatti — who has already begun unpacking the text at his website, Stilum Curae — and Professor Roberto de Mattei, who writes that the book confirms Cardinal Müller’s recent remarks that there is a “magic circle” around the pope which “prevents an open and balanced debate on the doctrinal problems raised” by objections like the dubia and Filial Correction, and that there is also “a climate of espionage and delusion” in Francis’ Vatican.

Some sources have even told me that the Vatican, incensed by the book’s claims, is so ardently pursuing information about the author’s true identity that they’ve been seeking out and badgering anyone they think might have knowledge of the matter. The Italian version of the book’s website has already gone down since its launch. The reason, as one particularly credible rumor has it, is that its disappearance was a result of the harassment of its designer, even though that person had nothing to do with the book other than having been hired to put it online.

If these sound like thuggish tactics, the book wastes no time in confirming that this pope — and those who support him — are not at all above such things. Colonna introduces his text by way of an ominous portrait of Francis himself, describing a “miraculous change that has taken over” Bergoglio since his election — a change that Catholics of his native Buenos Aires noticed immediately:

Their dour, unsmiling archbishop was turned overnight into the smiling, jolly Pope Francis, the idol of the people with whom he so fully identifies. If you speak to anyone working in the Vatican, they will tell you about the miracle in reverse. When the publicity cameras are off him, Pope Francis turns into a different figure: arrogant, dismissive of people, prodigal of bad language and notorious for furious outbursts of temper which are known to everyone from the cardinals to the chauffeurs.

Colonna writes, too, of the “buyer’s remorse” that some of the cardinals who elected Bergoglio are experiencing as his pontificate approaches its fifth anniversary: “Francis is showing,” writes Colonna, “that he is not the democratic, liberal ruler that the cardinals thought they were electing in 2013, but a papal tyrant the like of whom has not been seen for many centuries.”  [Gee, a hardcore leftist ideologue who is also an out and out tyrant.  Who would have known?  I thought these Vaticanistas and high cardinals were political sharpshooters?  How could they be so naïve?  Maybe they are not so sharp as they like to think.]

Colonna then transitions to an opening chapter exposing the work of the so-called St. Gallen “Mafia” — the group of cardinals who had been conspiring for decades to see to it that a pope of their liking — a pope like Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was capable of becoming — would be elected. Formed in 1996 (with precursor meetings between progressive European prelates giving initial shape to the group as early as the 1980s) in St. Gallen, Switzerland [notice how leftists, supposed friends of the common/downtrodden man, always seem to ensconce themselves in luxury when given the chance], the St. Gallen Mafia was originally headed up by the infamous late archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini. The group roster was a rogue’s gallery of heterodox prelates with a list of ecclesiastical accomplishments that reads more like a rap sheet than a curriculum vitae. (In the case of Godfried Danneels, implicated in some way in about 50 of 475 dossiers on clerical sexual abuse allegations that mysteriously disappeared after evidence seized by Belgian police was inexplicably declared inadmissible in court, this comparison transcends analogy.)[Yep.  Look, the Leftists in the Church thought they were electing a fellow-traveler, at least, in naming a relatively unknown from Poland – a product of the sainted “Ostpolitik “ of Paul VI – as pope in 1978.  But he turned out to be much more conservative (relatively) than they wished.  So they began an illicit, illegal (in Church law) conspiracy, basically, to make sure a pope to their liking would be elected after JPII.  They didn’t quite succeed in 2005, but managed to send Benedict XVI running for fear of the wolves (under threat of the financial ruination of the Church?) and finally got their man in 2013.  The fact that any such collusion prior to an enclave automatically invalidates that enclave AND results in the excommunication of the participants didn’t bother them a whit. Why would it?  They’d have the power if their man got in, and the media would always have their back if they didn’t.  It was low-risk for them.  And since when has a pontiff had the stones to cast out large swaths of the episcopate for being heretics/schismatics, anyway?  The last time was 1908-10, wasn’t it?]

The names of some of the most prominent members of the group — many of which would have been unknown to even relatively well-informed Catholics just a decade ago — have become uncomfortably familiar in recent years: Cardinals Martini, Danneels, Kasper, Lehman, and (Cormac) Murphy O’Connor have all risen in profile considerably since their protege was elevated to the Petrine throne. After a controversial career, Walter Kasper had already begun fading into obscurity before he was unexpectedly praised in the new pope’s first Angelus address on March 17, 2013. Francis spoke admiringly of Kasper’s book on the topic of mercy — a theme that would become a defining touchstone of his pontificate. When Kasper was subsequently tapped to present the Keynote at the February 14, 2014 consistory of cardinals, the advancement of his proposal to create a path for Communion for the divorced and remarried thrust him further into the spotlight. The so-called “Kasper proposal” launched expectations for the two synods that would follow on marriage and the family and provided the substrate for the post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, around which there has been a theological and philosophical debate the likes of which has not seen in the living memory of the Church. For his part, Danneels, who retired his position as Archbishop of Brussels under “a cloud of scandal” in 2010, even went so far as to declare that the 2013 conclave result represented for him “a personal resurrection experience.” [What kind of creature would frame anything like that, let alone the election of a pope, and most of all, this pope?  Oh, right, the same kind of man that would at least cover up, if not directly participate in, mass boy rape for decades]

And what was the goal of the St. Gallen group?

Originally, their agenda was to bring about a “much more modern” Church. That goal finally crystalized around opposition to the anticipated election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the papacy — a battle in which they were narrowly defeated during the 2005 conclave, when, according to an undisclosed source within the curia, the penultimate ballot showed a count of 40 votes for Bergoglio and 72 for Ratzinger. Colonna cites German Catholic journalist Paul Badde in saying that it was the late Cardinal Joachim Meisner — later one of the four “dubia” cardinals — who “passionately fought” the Gallen Mafia in favor of the election of Ratzinger. After this loss, the Gallen Mafia officially disbanded. But although Cardinal Martini died in 2012, they staged a comeback — and eventually won the day — on Wednesday, March 13, 2013. For it was on that day that Jorge Mario Bergoglio stepped out onto the loggia of St. Peter’s Basilica, victorious, as Pope Francis the First. Those paying attention would take note that one Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Belgium stood triumphantly by his side.

———-End Excerpt————-

There is much more at the link, but I’ve taken too much already. Skojec will take a tire iron to my shooting hand if I take anymore.

But he goes into quite a bit about Francis’ emulation of his youthful political paramour, Juan Perón, and how, aside from a sort of reflexive populist leftism, little informed that man’s career save for his own lust for power.  Readers should take from this a cold shot of reality against any hopes that Franky George Bergoglio will follow his predecessor into abdication.  Quite the contrary, having access to power will probably lengthen his life by 5-10 years.  That’s how these things seem to go.  Look at finally deposed 94 year old Robert Mugabe.

Also reviewed are the synods, which I would argue were doctrinally meaningless, and the subsequent deconstruction of the Church’s moral edifice through Amoris Laetitia.

Sounds like an excellent book. I look forward to reading it, even as I wonder, just what, if anything, of the human element of the Church will be left if Francis lives another 10 years?  I fear the Franciscans of the Immaculate are our guide for the future of the Church under Francis.

I’m Not Wrong, I’m Just Ahead of My Time November 9, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, cultural marxism, General Catholic, history, reading, scandals, sickness, Society, true leadership, unadulterated evil, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

Four years ago, I posted my opinion, based on quite a bit of evidence, that the United States irrevocably lost the war in Vietnam after the Kennedy administration approved, and helped instigate, the assassination of the only patriot leader of sufficient standing and capability to lead the fledgling nation of South Vietnam through a domestic insurgency and foreign invasion, Ngo Dinh Diem.  I didn’t get much flak for that post – I think it was outside most reader’s area of interest – but I was gratified to see last week that an author has written a book advancing just my point – that Diem was falsely maligned by the US press and a Kennedy administration that badly wanted a pliant stooge leading Vietnam, rather than a dedicated patriot who was vehemently opposed to seeing mass US ground troops taking over the war in his country.  Diem knew that a US takeover of the war would de-legitimize his government and be the perfect propaganda piece for the communists to convince rightly nationalist Vietnamese to oppose the southern government.  This is, to a very large extent, what happened.  US involvement post-Diem expanded massively, successive unstable puppet governments ruled the country until the ineffectual and autocratic Thieu took over, and support for the government of South Vietnam remained divided and tepid, at best.

There is a long post on the book at The Federalist, which my friend, fellow Catholic, and Vietnamese Patriot Hiep Nguyen sent me.  Some excerpts below:

That man is Ngo Dinh Diem, president of the Republic of Vietnam (better known as South Vietnam) from 1955 to 1963, his rule and life cruelly ended in a military coup tacitly supported by the U.S. government. A recent book on Diem’s life, “The Lost Mandate of Heaven: The American Betrayal of Ngo Dinh Diem, President of Vietnam,” by military historian Geoffrey Shaw clarifies why Americans would do well to mourn the tragic loss of a man many deemed to be Vietnam’s best chance of defeating communism……..

[Follows an interlude in which the dominant leftist narrative of Diem as a grasping, incompetent autocrat is described at length.  We’ll skip that]

……..Shaw’s biography of Diem paints a far different picture of “America’s Mandarin.” For starters, Diem was a deeply religious man, whose Catholic faith was central to every decision in his life. Often attracted to the religious life, Diem had to be constantly pushed to embrace his natural skills as an administrator and politician.

Diem had a reputation both as an ascetic scholar and a capable bureaucratic, one who seemed to perfectly fit the role of the ideal Vietnamese Confucian leader. Indeed, as Shaw shows, Ho Chi Minh admired Diem’s austerity, and likely sought to emulate it. Even at the height of his power, Diem lived meagerly, and was known to constantly give money away to any in need. He was known to rise early every day to attend Mass, and worked brutal 16-hour days………

…….The Buddhist protesters who so famously undermined Diem’s regime in the months leading up to his ouster were in fact a minority within the south, incited by Buddhist extremist leaders very likely supported by the communists. Rather than a reflection of the teetering authority of the government, the Buddhist crisis was more likely a propaganda effort to obstruct what so many contemporary accounts and historical documents suggest: Diem and his brother were incrementally winning on both the political and military fronts. [Winning, but as the author notes, incrementally, and not nearly fast enough for the nascent 24 hours news cycle-dominated American politics of the time.  Of course, the problem of instantaneous victory increased exponentially after mass American ground forces were committed, which is the very thing Diem refused to countenance.  He wanted to win the war for the long haul and build up a survivable independent nation at the same time, and had done a good enough job that the North under Nguyen Tat Thanh (Ho Chi Minh) was compelled to basically invade the South with massive ground forces to keep the Viet Cong from being crushed]

So how have we come to have such a skewed perception of Diem and his reign as president of South Vietnam? According to Shaw, two sources share the majority of the blame: an American press heavily biased against Diem, and a circle of senior government officials — led by Averell Harriman and Roger Hilsman — hell-bent on replacing him.

Correspondents from such publications as The New York Times and Washington Post, contrary to their portrayal by Burns and Novick’s television series, were often junior reporters in search of the next sexy story to burnish their credentials. Many spent most of their time in Saigon and other major cities, inevitably drawn into the circles of rumor and intrigue that represented only a segment of Vietnamese society. This created a skewed perception of Vietnamese popular opinion, which was particularly troublesome given that Diem’s efforts were focused largely on protecting and improving the lot of poor South Vietnamese farmers, who made up a majority of the population.

Throughout the Kennedy administration, the press corps published article after article condemning just about everything Diem did, while urging his removal. The media’s presentation of events on the ground were far more negative than those military assessments offered, or those of U.S. Ambassador Frederick Nolting, who supported Diem’s regime. The media’s hatchet job was so over-the-top that U.S. officials on a number of occasions complained directly to the editors of the New York Times and Washington Post[So here we have it, fake news a la the 1960s.  The author is right, most of the reporters in South Vietnam in the early 60s were very junior, and very ambitious.  They were not as intellectually and physically lazy as today’s media, but they were not nearly so well informed as they thought.  They were also heavily biased against Diem for a wide variety of reasons, but more importantly, generally had no idea what they were writing or talking about.  The intricacies of South Vietnamese politics, still confusing even 50 years after the fact, were way, way beyond them. They sought simplistic “good guy bad guy” scenarios to create narratives for the public back home, just as the media does to this day.]

……….As for Kennedy’s administration, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Averell Harriman  [A nominal Republican, but a very liberal, Rockefeller type] led a cadre of officials within the government vehemently opposed to Diem’s regime. Much of this stemmed from Harriman’s distaste for Diem’s attempts to maintain autonomy over his government, the latter often spurning U.S. directives he viewed as misguided, if not a threat to the survival of his country.

Probably the most famous example is Harriman’s support for the neutrality of neighboring Laos, a policy that allowed the communists to take over large parts of the Laotian countryside and use it to transfer fighters and materiel to communist insurgents (the notorious Vietcong) in the south. The route through Laos became known, jokingly, as the “Averell Harriman Memorial Highway.” Diem was adamant in calling this out for what it was: a direct attack on his nation’s security and viability. Harriman, a classic example of a condescending WASP bureaucrat, was widely known to despise Diem for resisting U.S. policy.

Shaw’s research shows it was Harriman who instigated and led growing support within the Kennedy administration for Diem’s removal, consistently setting the tone of cabinet discussions as explicitly anti-Diem. As would be expected, he sought to sideline those individuals — like Nolting — who offered a different, more sympathetic take……….

…………Harriman’s argument — that Diem’s persecution of Buddhists had “made it impossible for the United States to back him” — eventually won in the White House, despite a congressional fact-finding mission in late October 1963 (the month before the assassination) that concluded Washington should stick with Diem. The White House ignored the report, and a wealth of other information, and communicated to Vietnamese military coup plotters they would not oppose Diem’s removal.

The men who supported the coup surely must have known what would happen to Diem and his brother. When the two were discovered inside the Church of Saint Francis Xavier in Cholon on 2 November, soldiers acting on coup leaders’ orders secured them inside a personnel carrier, where their executioner “cut out their gallbladders while they were still alive, and then shot them.”

This was the ignominious end to an American ally, a man whom observers — Americans, French, British, Australian, and even North Vietnamese — believed (or in the case of the communists, feared) was Saigon’s best chance to preserve an independent South Vietnam.

………Ngo Dinh Diem came to power in South Vietnam through the help of the United States. Burns-Novick’s film and Karnow suggest even this was a farce, given Diem’s ultimate rejection of the planned 1956 nationwide elections, though Shaw’s careful research proves this a problematic thesis, as well. Although the communists quite expectedly called “foul” when Diem demurred on elections, Ho Chi Minh’s government had already been in direct violation of the 1954 Geneva Accords by building up their military forces and supporting communist insurgent networks in the south.

Meanwhile, in the north, the communists were busy suppressing revolts, murdering thousands of people during their unpopular and poorly contrived land reform efforts. Moreover, as Shaw argues, their flagrant violation of the Laotian neutrality agreement years later proves the communists would never have allowed a free and fair nationwide election anyway. Diem simply saw the sham for what it was.

Indeed.  Those purported elections, upon which so much of the left-wing criticism of Diem rest, was always going to be a sham. First of all, the North outnumbered the South, even after 1 million mostly Catholic North Vietnamese fled south during the brief period of UN control after the French collapse.  Secondly, with a violently repressive communist government, anyone but a leftist bonehead could predict that the North Vietnamese would vote 100% for the communist government, just as the people of the Soviet Union used to vote 100% for the single-party commie candidate in their sham elections.  Thirdly, as noted, the North had already violated the 1954 accords on numerous fronts.  Only an idiot would submit to an election under such circumstances.

And I think this is the ultimate rub – not so much for the mainline democrats of the day (1956), which were a very different crowd than the democrats of today – for the hardcore leftists in the media and academia who have always held such opprobrium for Diem.  They wanted the North to win. The North were part of the great leftist utopian machine, and thus sacred parts of the worldwide leftist revolutionary element.  Many of these people are the same ones who marched in demonstrations against the war shouting “Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, NLF (National Liberation Front – the Viet Cong) are going to win!”  Diem, an ardent Catholic and anti-communist, was the antithesis in what they wanted to see in government.  Bringing him down would go a very far way to seeing through the ultimate goal of a North Vietnamese communist victory.

I say that is the largely unstated motivation of the historians and media personalities who have blighted Diem’s name.  The government officials complicit in the plot to murder Diem were generally not of this cohort, they were simply liberally minded American incompetents horribly out of their depth and seeking to cover up their role in an unfolding catastrophe.

I think as time goes on there will be a general re-appraisal of Diem’s role and the inevitable events that followed after his death.  I think this historian Shaw (and I have not read the book) is very much on the right track.  Diem was a flawed man, as all men are, but he was by far the best leader the South Vietnamese had, and the one most likely to prevent the country from falling to communism.  It is quite possible to imagine a much different history to that still suffering nation had he not been betrayed by his erstwhile “allies.”

A Beautiful Story on the Persecuted Catholics of Elizabethan England October 4, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, catachesis, Christendom, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, history, manhood, persecution, reading, religious, Restoration, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

I just finished reading a book on the English revolt against the Church, entitled the Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism.  It’s a long book and a bit strange, containing contributions from several authors across different periods and consisting of almost as much commentary as it does the original upon which it was based – Fr. Nicolas Sander’s critique of the Tudor persecution of Catholics.  Still it’s a very worthwhile read, and an eminently timely one given the recent trend in some circles of the Church to celebrate the greatest single revolt against Church authority in history, the revolt of the myriad, multiplying, always disagreeing protestant heretics.

It is impossible to read any Catholic – or even unbiased, non-protestant – history of the so-called Reformation and not come away with the impression that the men who led and foisted this panoply of divergent sects upon the people were, to a man, the furthest possible exemplars from the original Apostles.  This is particularly true in England, where “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs” is an almost laughable compendium compared to the torrents of Catholic blood spilt not over a few years, but over centuries.  Even more laughably, many promoters of modern sexular paganism and the notion of libertine democracy point to the English Reformation as the first blooming of the supposedly new ideals of liberty and freedom, when, in fact, the Tudor state under Henry VIII and Elizabeth the Sterile (and not for want of trying) was probably the first example of a modern authoritarian totalitarian state.  There were spies everywhere, liberties for “recusants” (faithful Catholics) were non-existent, new laws were made up on the fly and retroactively applied, and parliament was just a stacked body of unthinking yes men who did whatever the King or Queen demanded of them –  on pain of a wretched death if they refused to go along.  Both Henry and his illegitimate daughter Elizabeth (born from Anne Boleyn, who Sanders argues was actually Henry’s own daughter – yuck) led amazingly immoral lives, and used their hatred and fear of the Church as a vehicle to acquire absolute power for themselves.  The degree to which the state expanded and intruded into the deepest corners of conscience and privacy was unprecedented for the time, and yet, it was sold as being this great harbinger of “freedom from the tyranny of Rome,” when Rome had never dared, nor desired, to ever make such unyielding demands of the people.

The article excerpted below gives just a few examples of both how the totalitarian Tudor state persecuted Catholics, and how the Catholics of England  and abroad, under unbelievably difficult circumstances, managed to keep their faith through nearly three centuries of unprecedented, unrelenting persecution (seriously – the English persecution of Catholics made those of the Roman Empire seem modest by comparison).  You should read the whole thing, it’s not long and tells some history that is far too little known, even among Catholics:

A strange sight greeted those assembled at Tyburn one January morning in 1601. The executions of two Catholic priests – Mark Barkworth and the Jesuit, Roger Filcock – and one Catholic lay woman, Anne Line, were set to provide the day’s spectacle………..[Such executions, sometimes of single individuals, sometimes of entire groups, occurred almost monthly, and sometimes weekly, at Tyburn]

……….However, the gathered throng must have been momentarily taken aback, for Barkworth had somehow procured a Benedictine habit and was tonsured. Such an attire had not been worn in England since before Elizabeth I had ascended the throne more than 40 years earlier but there, before the mob, stood a Benedictine monk.

Any hesitation caused by such a spectacle was not enough to save Barkworth – in fact, some cruel wretch even shouldered the monk’s body weight during his hanging to ensure that he was fully conscious for the subsequent drawing and quartering. Yet Barkworth’s death marked the start of an English Benedictine presence that remains to this day.

Barkworth himself had been trained as a priest at the English College, Valladolid, but, on his way to England as a missionary, he had been received as a novice at the Benedictine monastery of Santa Maria in Irache, and was told he would die a martyr, in the Benedictine habit. Many of the first wave of Englishmen to become Benedictines after the Reformation similarly entered the religious life in Spain………

……The significance of what they represented was not lost on them: as several monks testified at their martyrdoms, they were from the same order as the first missionary to England, St Augustine of Canterbury, “from whom,” as George Gervase, executed in 1608, put it, “England acknowledged that she had received the Christian faith”. [A sick sad note: toward the end of his reign, Henry VIII figured out that devotion to St. Thomas Beckett represented a threat to his false rule over the schismatical and heretical “church” of England.  After all, Beckett was martyred over his refusal to permit the self-serving Henry II to dictate policy and belief to the Church.  So, Henry had Beckett’s shrine at Canterbury trashed – and it was a major one, it’s the shrine described in The Canterbury Tales – with his bones removed from the church and burned. He had all the precious artifacts, works of art, and gifts taken from the shrine and delivered to his treasury. And he had the income from this shrine, along with many other dioceses and abbeys, diverted to his treasury.  Thus, the great leader and founder of the English church.]

Like the other missionary clergy who had been secretly entering England since the 1570s, these missionary monks brought with them the Catholic Reformation. Imbued with the zeal of a movement then sweeping Catholic Europe and, increasingly, far-flung parts of the globe from Asia to America, they were agents for the transfer of religious and intellectual ideas gaining ground in mainland Europe.

But nor were they solely about the new: they also tracked down the last surviving monk of Westminster Abbey. By the start of the 17th century, the infirm Sigebert Buckley lived under a form of house arrest. In 1607, he aggregated two of the new monks to him, thereby ensuring the continuity of the English Benedictines from the medieval period. [Heck, from the end of antiquity] As the new monastic movement grew and the monks re-founded the English Benedictine Congregation in 1619, this symbolic act took on greater significance.

It meant that the English Benedictines of the 17th century could lay claim to the old monastic properties which the Order had once enjoyed. As such, the English Benedictines throughout the period elected priors of, for example, Durham, Canterbury and Ely cathedrals, ready for the moment when England – as they believed, inevitably – returned to the Catholic faith.

This did not stop the monks forming new houses in exile, three of which remain to this day. St Gregory’s, founded at Douai in northern France in 1606, is now better known as Downside Abbey; St Laurence’s, founded in the town of Dieulouard in Lorraine in 1608, is now Ampleforth Abbey; St Edmund’s, Paris, founded in 1616, is now settled at Woolhampton, Berkshire, as Douai Abbey.

As I said, go read the rest.  Very interesting.  What a scandal protestantism represents.  It is unbelievable how men in leadership positions in the Church at all levels have chosen to forget or ignore this.  There but for the grace of God……

Shall We Come to the Point in the Church Where the Faithful Are Legal Schismatics and the Obedient Manifest Heretics? May 26, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, reading, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

From Mitre and Crook by Father Bryan Houghton (sadly long out of print), a fictional discussion between the hero of the story, Bishop Edmund Forester of England, who in the book returned to Tradition in 1977, and another fictional bishop who took him to task for going against the plain will of the then-Pope Paul VI and the “new orientation” of the Church after Vatican II.

The argument is framed around the following declaration the critic of good Bishop Forester made to try to prove why Forester was in the wrong:

“There is only one object of the Faith: the Church.  I am baptized into the Church, and it is she who gives me Faith.  On her authority I believe all other doctrines.  She can deal with them as she likes, since she is the only constant.  Christ revealed no doctrines but a praxis: His Kingdom the Church.”

With this, I think Houghton is trying to summarize the conservative Catholic but hostile to Tradition camp – the my Church right or wrong camp.  Logically speaking, there are giant holes in the above, least of all in that it subverts constant Truth to the will of fallen men – men who have been guided for 2000 years by the Holy Spirit, but a guidance which sad experience has shown they can all too easily reject.

Bishop Forester replies at length, portions of which I excerpt below – see if you will follow his train of logic to conclude that we may well be in a time where the faithful are generally at variance to the expressed will of the hierarchy, if not “legal schismatics,” whereas most of the so-called obedient have truck with heresy:

But surely it is evident that such an argument is tautological or a vicious circle? I am to know what God has revealed by the authority of the Church.  And how am I to know that the Church has such authority?  Because the Church says that God has revealed it.  It is patently nonsense.  [This actually is a subtle and complex argument, but, in a nutshell, keeping the principle of non-contradiction and knowing that solemnly defined Dogma can never change, you can safely exclude appeals to authority such as those above when they seek to change what cannot be changed.]

……You said: “Christ revealed no doctrines but a praxis: His Kingdom, His Church.” You thereby concede that there is at any rate one object of Faith logically prior to the Church: the authority of Christ. And once you admit that, allthe rest follows.  Is His authority divine? Is He God Incarnate, the Second Person of the Trinity, born of the Virgin Mary, etc?  Indeed, one of those things which follows from your prior faith in the divine authority of Christ is the authority of the Church.  It does not work the other way around: you do not believe that Christ receives His authority from the Church.  The Church is the guardian of God’s revelation but not its source.  She herself is one of the objects of Faith: I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Therein, it seems to me, lies the crux of the present crisis. I mean the crisis between honest Catholics……I am not referring to the heretics who have lost the Faith although the Church no longer excludes them……..Faced with the same crisis, we react in diametrically opposite ways.  Your immediate reaction, along with the overwhelming majority of the institutional Church, is to save the Church and the Faith will have to look after itself.  Mine, along with some laymen [and a handful of priests], is to save the Faith and the Church will have to look after herself. We cannot both be right. Indeed, each day the gulf between us is growing wider.  if we pursue our ways indefinitely we shall come to the point when the faithful are legal schismatics and the obedient factual heretics………[What do you make of that?]

……..At this moment of time it is patently untrue to say that in defending the Church one is automatically defending the Faith and this for two reasons: a) the Faith is ambiguously formulated; b) heretics are no longer excluded from the Church.  The fact is that the Faith is exclusive whereas the Church has become inclusive.  She has changed Our Lord’s lapidary sentence, “He who is not with Me is against Me” into the coward’s whine “He is my friend who bullies me.” [Think how much more boldly error is proclaimed in the highest levels of authority even than it was in the time of Paul VI.  We’re well beyond ambiguity and well into full-throated proclamation of error.]

……The fact is, and we know it, that in our own dioceses it is not we who have defended the Faith; it has been left to pathetic little groups of laity, helped or hindered by a stray priest, to do so.  

It is a very different matter when it comes to enforcing the New Outlook.  Have you ever promoted a priest who has stuck to the Immemorial Mass? Of course not……..What has been your attitude to priests who mumble that Vatican II failed to face the facts and that the post-conciliar legislation has been disastrous; who refuse to be brainwashed by attending compulsory study-days, who jeer at the Bishop’s Collegiality, the National Conference of Priests and the new structures generally; who will not give Communion standing and in the hand; who administer Extreme Unction as of yore; who still say the Breviary, the Rosary and make their meditation, who…….?  Have you reserved key positions in your administration for such men of probity and principle? No more than I have.  We have looked after the Church all right but not after the Faith.

The crowning example is Archbishop Lefebvre.  He has been attacked from all sides, yet nobody has dared impugn his Faith and accuse him of being unorthodox.  In fact, if only he would utter the tiniest, wee little heresy, authority could indulge in charity and all would be forgiven.  The trouble is that the old devil won’t, so there is nothing to forgive.  Thus, he gets suspended and threatened with excommunication on a trumped up charge of disobeying ecclesiastical law.

……..Up to and including the Council, Catholics were bound to believe in all defined doctrines and to obey the commands of the Church’s Magisterium.  Now, apparently, [quoting Paul VI] we are expected to submit to “an outlook.” We must all look in the same direction as the reigning Pontiff: “Company, eyes left!”…….Paul VI is absolutely right – the new look in the Church is due precisely to the substitution of a human outlook for Divine Revelation.  [Paul IV proclaimed that] Vatican II has no less authority than Nicaea and in many respects is more important.”  Exactly.  Nicaea merely defined the Divinity of Christ, whereas Vatican II has given rise to an “orientation,” an “outlook.”  As a matter of fact, Lefebvre is defending the decrees of all Councils, from Nicaea to Vatican II inclusive: he is defending decrees as against “orientations.

————End Quote————-

Well, what do you make of that?  Any thoughts? Do you think we are headed – or already well at – a time when the faithful are at least opposed to much of what the institutional Church does, and where the “Catholics” with ecclesiastical approbation are often practical heretics?  Or you think that’s been the case for 50 years?

Does not this point up the ultimate divide between the loosely defined “conservative” and “traditional” camps?  At least how they define each other, if not themselves?

Eucharistic Devotion of the Saints May 24, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Eucharist, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, reading, Saints, sanctity, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

From Eucharistic Miracles by Joan Carroll Cruz, some thoughts by great Saints on the nature and benefits of the Eucharist.  More specifically, this excerpt and the quotes contain therein highlight once again the enormous, wholly unearned and amazingly generous Gift Christ makes of the Eucharist.  What really struck me is how careful we should be in receiving the Blessed Sacrament.  Not in a Jansenist sense where an 18th century French Jansenist priest bragged there were zero sacrilegious communions at his parish that Christmas because there were NO communions at his parish!  But we’re in the opposite extreme in the Church now, where it is metaphysical certitude that people persisting in a manifest state of mortal sin are receiving Communion – literally re-crucifying Christ in a mystical way.  And not just a few people, but millions, likely tens or even hundreds of millions every day.

So if you fall into a sin make sure you make a good Confession before receiving!   There is a union there we cannot really even comprehend in this life, but we will in the next, God willing.  It is so sublime and generous on God’s part we can only dimly perceive its outer edges.  But it is not something we should ever trifle with, take advantage of, or assume we have “earned” or is our due.  It is always the most incomprehensible Gift imaginable and we should do all we can to be as little unworthy – as inoffensive, as our own “worthiness” will never happen –  as possible:

Devotion to the Holy Eucharist has been expressed in one way or another by all the Saints of the Church.  This is a statement that cannot be contradicted.  Since Our Lord instituted this holy Sacrament to unite Himself with us, to nourish our souls, and as a means of retaining His presence among us in tabernacles throughout the world, the saints have embraced this treasure with faith and love…….

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori expressed his heartfelt appreciation for the Blessed Sacrament in this way:

Our most loving Redeemer, on the last night of His Life, knowing that the much-longed-for time had arrived on which He should die for the love of man, had not the heart to leave us alone in this valley of tears; but in order that He might not be separated form us even by death, He would leave us His whole self as food in the Sacrament of the Altar; giving us to understand by this that, having given us this gift of infinite worth, He could give us nothing further to prove to us his infinite love. 

This same thought is also expressed by St. Peter of Alcantara, who wrote in one of his meditations:

No tongue is able to express the greatness of the love which Jesus bears to every soul.  Hence that His absence might not be an occasion of forgetting Him, He left to His spouse the Church, before His departure from this world, this most holy Sacrament in which He Himself remained, wishing that between them there should be no other pledge than Himself to keep alive the remembrance of Him.

St. Mary Magdalen de Pazzi expresses her faith and love for the Sacrament by praying:

O Lord, You are as truly present under the sacramental species as You are in Heaven at the right hand of the Father.  Because I have and possess this great wonder, I do not long for, want, or desire any other. 

St. Teresa of Avila had the following consideration:

I cannot doubt at all at Your Real Presence in the Eucharist.  You have given me such a lively faith that when I hear others say they wish they had been living when You were on earth, I laugh to myself, for I know that I possess You as truly in the Blessed Sacrament as people did then, and I wonder what more anyone could possibly want.

St. Teresa of Avila gives us cause to consider the great wisdom and kindness of Our Savior in veiling Himself under the appearance of bread.  She prays:

How could I, a poor sinner, who have so often offended You, dare to approach You, O Lord, if I beheld You in all Your majesty?  Under the appearance of bread, however, it is easy to approach You, for if a king disguises himself, it seems as if we do not have to talk to him with so much circumspection and ceremony.  If You were not hidden, O Lord, who would dare to approach You with such coldness, so unworthily, and with so many imperfections?

Saint Bernard calls the Sacrament of the Altar “The Love of loves,” while St. Thomas Aquinas said that the Holy Eucharist is “a Sacrament of love and a to ken of the greatest love that a God could give us.”

Saint Lawrence Justinian tell us, “We have seen the All-Wise made foolish by an excess of love” – to which the Cure of Ars, St. Jean Baptiste Marie Vianney, adds, “I tis the destiny of every consecrated Host to melt with love in a human heart.”

It is said of St. Francis of Assisi that “every fiber of his heart was kindled into love for the Sacrament of Christ’s Body,” and he constantly urged his brothers to bring others to know and love Christ living in the Blessed Sacrament.  From this love sprang  St. Francis deep reverence for priests.  He declared that if confronted  with an angel and  an unworthy priest, he would kiss the hand that had touched the Body of Christ before saluting the angel.  One day someone pointed out a priest living in notorious sin. Francis instantly knelt before him, kissing his hands and saying, “These hands have touched my Lord, and out of love for Him I honor His vicar.  For himself he may be bad; but for me he is good.”  Even before his conversion, St. Francis honored Our Lord in the Eucharist by sending costly and beautiful gifts to adorn poor churches.  He felt nothing was good enough for the dwelling place of Christ. [Contrast that with  the brutalist bathhouse design of most parishes today and of the past 70 years]

Our Lord’s words, “Take ye and eat, this is My Body……” inspired St. John Chrysostom to remark, “It is as if He had said, ‘Eat me, that the highest union may take place.’” The Saint further remarked, “To that Lord on whom the angels even dare not fix their eyes, to Him we unite ourselves, and we are made one body, one flesh.” Of this union St. Cyril of Alexandria observed that “as two pieces of melted wax unite together, so a soul that communicates is so thoroughly united to Jesus that Jesus remains in it, and it in Jesus.”

St. Francis de Sales concludes:

In no action does our Savior show Himself more loving or more tender than in this one, in which, as it were, He annihilates Himself and reduces Himself to food in order to penetrate our souls and unite Himself to the hearts of His faithful ones.

———End Quote———-