jump to navigation

Coulombe Critiques the Novus Ordo and a Few Pics from Fatima Conference May 3, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, different religion, Father Rodriguez, General Catholic, Liturgy, Restoration, Revolution, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

A great excerpt from the weekly Tumblar House series of video Q&As with Charles Coulombe wherein Mr. Coulombe discusses the Novus Ordo and the problems with it.  He gives a fair and accurate assessment, though not as harsh and thoroughly critical as perhaps I might be.  He does note, quite rightly, that some “presentations” of the Novus Ordo are much better than others.  Indeed, the Novus Ordo in Latin, Ad Orientem, offered with great reverence with the Asperges and a solid priest giving good catechesis in the sermon with all the bells and smells, is what the Novus Ordo perhaps should have been, though I would argue that no change to the Mass was necessary and that humans are always on perilous ground in playing around with divine creations, which I would say the Mass largely is.  My family and I derived great fruit from just such a Mass for several years in the mid-2000s, and that experience paved the way for our eventual “transition” to the TLM.  Having said that, I strongly believe the TLM is the once and future Mass for the entire Church, but getting back there will likely take a very long time.

But what is generally offered in most parishes is a far, far cry from that relatively benign Novus Ordo experience.  In fact, what is offered in most parishes is a positive danger to the faith of many souls, especially those badly formed in the Faith (or formed well but in some false simulacrum of Catholicism).

What I really like in the analysis below, however, one thing Mr. Coulombe says: the Council did not address the problem truly affecting the Church, that the Mass did not need a radical makeover but that the penetration of Leftism into the minds and heart so most priests did, but this was ignored, as was the original driving force behind the Council, at least in the minds of the large majority of bishops polled before it took place – formally condemning communism as a philosophy and condemning those who embraced it.

I also very much appreciate the fact that many of the liturgical innovations that came as a result of the Council, though very few were called for in Sacraosanctum Concilium, already stood condemned before the Council took place!  These were condemned by Pius XII in his encyclicals Humanii Generis and Mediator Dei (which reminds me, I really need to re-read those).  Anyway, it’s a really good video and I hope you find watching it edifying:

Are those five Eucharistic miracles, or miracles associated with the Eucharist, he mentions above approved or clearly demonstrated?  I’m only familiar with one or two.

The pics below came from the March conference of Our Lady’s Army of Advocates at the DFW airport. It was a wonderful experience, not only for the talks, but for meeting so many good friends and readers of this blog.  The wonderful Rodriguez family of El Paso was there, and I got to take some pictures with members of their family, along with others.  The pics are a bit on the blurry side, but you takes what you gets.  Thank you to the kind Beatrice Rodriguez for sending these to me, and sorry it took so long to get them posted!

David Rodriguez, myself, Beatrice Rodriguez, and Father Michael Rodriguez

Michael Matt, Beatrice Rodriguez, me

Advertisements

Cardinal Marx Praises Man Responsible for 150 Million Deaths or More May 3, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, cultural marxism, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, sickness, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

Cardinal Marx is the primate of Germany and longtime head of the German episcopal conference.  He is also one of Francis’ closest allies and the man responsible for numerous heresies and errors emanating from Germany, including the recent sin-nod that gave Francis cover for extending reception of Communion to adulterers.  He is also a driving force behind the upcoming sin-nod to extend sacramental roles to women, including the probable creation of women deacons and women cardinals, all setting the stage for the ultimate goal, priestesses (just as our good protestant leaders and guides have done for years).

So it is probably little surprise that a man so morally lost and so abjectly destructive would praise the author and founder of the most deadly system of errors of modern times – the always anti-Christian leftist utopian fantasy called communism (h/t occasional reader JB):

On the occasion of the 200th anniversary of Karl Marx’ birth, Cardinal Reinhard Marx gave an interview in Germany in which he claimed that Marx unmistakably influenced Catholic social doctrine, adding that he was “impressed” by the Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx has often been referred to as the father of Communism, a political theory linked to the deaths of millions.  [I respect the author of this piece, Maike Hickson, very much, but communism is not “linked” to the death of millions, but is the direct, unavoidable cause of their deaths.  It is a system that requires mass death and suffering in order to survive.  I cannot stress enough, to understand the purblind evil of communism, the infinite depths to which it always causes humans to sink, being founded on that most destructive of sins, envy, to read The Gulag Archipelago by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn.  Even if you already hate and loathe communism, if you have not read The Gulag Archipelago, you still do not have a proper appreciation for its endless cruelty and cause of human suffering.]

Cardinal Marx, one of the council of nine cardinals chosen by Pope Francis to advise him, is at the forefront of pushing what is being hailed as a “new paradigm” in the Church that departs from previous Church teaching on sexual morality (herehere, and here) and marriage.

As the news website of the German bishops Katholisch.de reports on 30 April, Cardinal Marx, the archbishop of Munich-Freising and president of the German bishops’ conference, told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung that the Communist Manifesto “quite impressed” him. That declaratory document had been written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and promulgated in 1848. [Fifty million corpses lie dead in the Soviet tundra]

In another recent interview, Cardinal Marx admitted to finding the writings of Karl Marx “fascinating,” adding that the Communist Manifesto has “an energy” and “a great language.” “One only has to read Karl Marx without prejudice, then his power will surprise,” the prelate explained. “There is an inspiration, a revolutionary impetus,” he stated. [And a hundred million corpses molder in Chinese soil]

According to Vatican News, Marx also said in his interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung that Karl Marx “can be very helpful” in light of the current conflicts, revolutions and wars which very well might have their roots in economic injustice. “Human rights without material participation remain incomplete,” the cardinal said. Cardinal Marx – who himself was once a professor of social ethics – also called Karl Marx “the first serious sociologist.” [But it is capitalism – as many problems as it has, and as much as it may aggrieve many traditional Catholics – that has raised more people out of poverty than any other economic system in history.  Indeed, according to some sources, an astounding 300 million people have escaped poverty in the last 10 years alone,and that didn’t happen in “socialist” states.

Quoting yet another news source about the same interview, Marx also said about Karl Marx: “Without him, there would not be any Catholic social doctrine.” [Well this is simply an outright lie, and reveals the papolotry at the heart of the Church today. There is an extensive Catholic social doctrine extending back to the earliest Church.  Indeed, many Church Fathers, and even the Apostles, wrote about Catholic social doctrine.  That is the, or a, primary point of the Catholic Epistle of Saint James. What he means is that popes started writing encyclicals about socio-economic matters in response to the threat posed by communism.  But that is not at all the same thing as saying no Catholic social doctrine existed prior to the advent of communism.  What a fuol error that is] Moreover, he made it clear that Karl Marx is not responsible for the crimes of Stalinism, even though the cardinal admitted that “there is to be found [in Marx’s writings] here or there a totalitarian thought,” such as the collectivism which disrespects the individual person. However, added the cardinal, one may not put Karl Marx into a “direct connection” with the later political Marxism-Leninism, nor even the soviet prison system and work camps.

Cardinal Marx related the little story that Pope John Paul II used to call him playfully “nostro marxista” – “our Marxist.” [In spite of JPII’s appellation of “our little marxist” upon Marx, Pope Benedict saw fit, for some inexplicable reason, to elevate him to the cardinalate in 2010.  Indeed, he was the youngest man so elevated up to that time.  The better, I suppose, to provide him with more time with which to remake the Church in Germany?]

Marx has espoused so many errors and heresies, promoted so many abuses, that he is truly properly named. He has supported sodomy, supported legal recognition of same-sex unions, argued that the Church has no reason to oppose such legislation, and has implied that the Church in Germany will be “blessing” such unions soon.  He of course was the major driver, after Cardinal Kasper, behind the drive to permit adulterers to receive Communion.  He has opposed Church moral doctrine on virtually every major issue outside abortion, and even there, he is reported to have permitted Catholic hospitals in Germany to dole out the baby-killing “morning after” pill.

Cardinal Marx has been such a huge fan of Karl Marx that he even wrote a book critiquing capitalism, in a tired and unoriginal fashion, called – wait for it – Das Kapital.  Apparently, JPII was quite correct in calling him our little marxist.  He may as well get a hammer and sickle cross just like Francis has.  And this is the man that is the leader of Francis’ group of advisers. I suppose we should not be surprised in the least.  Birds of a feather, and all that.

Survey: Fewer Americans Believe in God, Atheism Driven by Leftist Political Convictions April 26, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, demographics, disaster, Ecumenism, error, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society.
comments closed

Ever since the “New Left” captured the leadership of the democrat party in the early 70s, both that party and its adherents have undergone a closely tied, two-element transformation – they have moved ever more radically to the Left, and they have become increasingly atheistic.  These movements are not unrelated.  Indeed, they are incredibly closely coupled – Leftist politics becomes a substitute religion for those who reject traditional morality informed by religious belief, especially Christian belief.  Or, as I have noted in the past, leftism is religion for immoral people.  That is to say, personal immorality, in the Christian sense, very often (if not invariably) both proceeds and informs those who develop and adhere to Leftist political beliefs.  There are exceptions, but they are increasingly rare.  Speaking across the broad spectrum of millions of people, my aphorism is much more true than not.

Of course, I have written at length on the subject numerous times in the past, so as not to bore you, some recent data  shows the increasing secularization/paganization of American society, and its tight correlation with the leftist political-social outlook (with the usual caveats that polls can be wrong, the way poll questions are answered have a huge impact on the results, as does the accuracy of the sampling, etc).  First, a new poll reveals that only 56% of Americans self-define as believing in the God of the Bible (Good Lord, Jordan Peterson could spend 50,000 words dissecting what “believe” and “God of the Bible” mean), but this disbelief is centered in one particular cultural political grouping – white democrats:

Solid majorities of black Democrats as well as Republicans of all races describe themselves as Bible-believers, but the numbers fall off the table for white Dems — so much so that the number of white Dems who don’t believe in God at all is slowly catching up to the share that counts themselves as Bible-believers. In fact, if you count the share that believes in some vague “higher power” or “spiritual force” as not belonging to a “faith” in any meaningful way, then fully two-thirds of white Democrats are post-religious. The share of white Dems that describe themselves as Bible-believers is so low that, even with a strong contingent of black Bible-believers, just 45 percent of Democrats overall say they believe in the God of the Bible. Effectively, the Democratic Party is post-Christian.

The supporting data for that paragraph is below:

But the overall survey purports to show that 19% of Americans overall are atheists, or fall into the yellow category –

Now, not to  undermine my own point, but this data does not make sense to me.  If 19% of Americans don’t have any belief in God or a higher power (are avowedly atheist), but only 5% of Republicans AND non-white democrats are atheists, how do we wind up with an overall population that is 19% atheist, when only 21% of even white democrats describe themselves that way?  That would imply there is an even higher percentage of atheist independents, which doesn’t make any sense, either.  This makes me wonder whether this survey was not severely skewed to include white democrats in its sampling – if Pew interviewed 80% white democrats for this survey the overall results would match the more detailed ones, but it would not be a valid representation of the nation overall.

That aside, the collapse of Christian belief among white liberals/leftists is amazing.  So is the divide between Republicans and democrats – goodness, white (native) Republicans are nearly 2 1/2 times more likely to believe in God than similar democrats.  This is very troubling for the future of this nation, and points to the increasing irreconcilable differences between vast swaths of this nation’s population. I would like to see the age breakdown on those white democrat believers – I would hazard they are far older than the general democrat population.  Which means liberal Christianity is dying breed – which our Church leaders should really take note of.  The future of the Church in this country is not they and their cohort – it is those they loathe and have sought to ostracize and ignore.

Back to the main point, another poll on a more generic question of “how religious are you” does provide further evidence of the correlation between leftism and atheism, as if we needed it after reading Solzhenitsyn and doing even the most rudimentary study of 20th century Russian and Chinese history:

This month, Gallup released the results of their annual poll on religious practice in America.

The most religious state? Mississippi, which has held the crown since 2008. According to the poll, 59% of Mississippi’s residents report being “Very religious,” meaning that “religion is important to them, and they attend religious services weekly or almost weekly.”

And the least religious state? It’s Vermont, where 59% of their residents report being “Not religious,” meaning “religion is not important to them, and they seldom or never attend services.”

Gallup also noted that only 16% of Vermont’s residents reported being “Very religious”—a figure that was six points lower than any other state.

If you look at the map of the poll’s results below, you’ll see that religious behavior tends to be a regional phenomenon. The most religious states in America are in the Southwest and Southeast—which is heavily Protestant—and the least religious states are clustered in New England and on the West Coast. After Vermont, the least religious states—in order—are Maine (55% “Not religious”), New Hampshire (51%), Massachusetts (49%), Oregon (48%), and Washington and Alaska (both 47%).

Some of the least religious states are also states that have, or had, a substantially higher number of Catholics than the national average.  Establishment Catholicism is dying as fast or faster than any major Church group aside from reform Judaism and a handful of “mainline” sects.  One wonders how many of these new atheists are former Catholics. Probably millions. And what role have the attempts to radically redefine the Church into some nebulous humanist construct by the neo-modernist Vatican II crowd played in that unprecedented falling away?

In spite of serious quibbles with the Pew poll’s methodology, the fact that a growing number of Americans describe themselves as atheists or non-believers is not in dispute.  From low single-digits forty years ago to repeated surveys that indicate 15-20% self-describe as atheists today, a huge swath of the nation has never held, or in most cases fallen away, from some kind of belief, almost always Christianity of one form or another.  Similarly, there is no doubt that an increasing number of Americans – and the number has soared in the last 20 years – embrace far left political views, largely as a result of thorough propagandizing in the schools and university.  Historically and worldwide, there has been an extremely strong correlation between atheistic belief, and leftist politics.  From the French Revolution through all the 19th century social upheavals through the communist empires of the 20th century and down to today, hedonism tends to presage leftism which leads to widespread atheism.  It is unbelievably sad to see the nation I grew up in becoming everything it stood against when I was a kid, but there it is.

Which is why I hate to say it, but an amicable, agreed upon divorce is about the best option I can see for this nation.  I don’t see how two such radically different belief sets, and ones which are growing apart at an accelerating rate!, can long coexist in the same nation.

What do you think, along that line?  Is it simply silly, or unthinkable, to prophecy the breakup of these United States?  Pending some kind of miraculous Catholic revival, is there any way to co-exist without increasing violence and disaffection from each side to the other?  If they regain the presidency, will the democrats ever give it up again? (and mind you, the endless furor over the supposedly “unprecedented” immorality and illegality of Trump would have been applied to ANY other Republican/non-member of the statist monoculture who won – just as they are now rehabilitating the once “worst ever Republican” Bush 43 into a “relatively good one.” Remember the protests?  Remember the assassination fantasies?  Remember all the loathing and jeering from Hollywood and the statist media?  And yet I heard Bill Maher over the weekend relate how leftists wouldn’t be freaking out to the degree they are if Trump were another Bush or a Romney.  That Trump somehow represents a “unique threat to American democracy.”  BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT BUSH!  Just like they called McCain and Romney racists.  Give me a break. The freakouts and attempted impeachments are just a means to the same end they are always after  -power).

But what happens if they succeed?  What if upon some travesty of justice they hound Trump from office?  How will 100 million Americans react?  As Jordan Peterson tries very gently but insistently to infer below – this will not end well, and they had better reconsider what they are doing before they do something that can’t be undone (language warning):

California Assembly Bill Would Ban Bible, Most Books on Christian Morality……. April 24, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, Bible, cultural marxism, error, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

…….or anything that has to do with opposition to the “sacred” act of sodomy, one of the sacraments of the sexular pagan religion (along with abortion – the anti-baptism, “gay marriage” – the anti-matrimony, and others).  A new bill under consideration in the California Assembly purports to ban any book or publication that inveighs against the acts of Sodom and Gomorrah and those who choose to define themselves by those same acts.  Thus the Bible could quite easily – and predictably – be found beyond the scope of state-approved literature, since there are of course nearly 20 clear denunciations of sodomy and the lifestyle associated with it in both the Old and New Testaments.

Of course, the radical Left that is pushing this bill claims that the old fuddy-duddy Christofascists are wrong again, postulating slippery slopes where none exist.  But based on how previous bills have been used to ban opposition to sexual license, or punish bakers and florists who refuse to service a same-sex couple’s pretense of a wedding, my money will be on this very broadly worded bill being yet another attempt by the Left to force Christians out of the public square and deep underground.  Which may well be the very best thing that could happen to a Faith that has become lazy and complacent, so if it were not for the damage that would result, one could almost say bring it on:

If liberal lawmakers in California get their way, that west coast state may be one step closer to being unrecognizable as part of the United States. A bill currently pending in the legislature would essentially ban the sale of books that include traditional Christian views on marriage and sexuality.

Shockingly, the proposed law could even be construed to make it illegal to sell Bibles, since they include verses that the far left finds unacceptable.

Assembly Bill 2943 would make it an ‘unlawful business practice’ to engage in ‘a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer’ that advertise, offer to engage in, or do engage in ‘sexual orientation change efforts with an individual,’” explained National Review.

That’s a lot of legalese to digest, so let’s break it down. What the bill basically says is that anything that can be seen as trying to impact a person’s sexual orientation would be illegal to sell or offer. [Looking even farther down the road, it is not inconceivable to foresee an attempt to define church services as a kind of “transaction” and thus also open to meddling by a segment of the population that never sees any need for limits to the state’s power – when used against their enemies]

This would almost certainly include traditional Christian counseling services and books.

“The bill then defines ‘sexual orientation change efforts’ as ‘any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex,” continued National Review (emphasis added). [And you can see how this is really about imposing a wholly new, and totally hostile, moral order on the state/country.  The rights of unrepentant sodomites trump those of repentant ones.  Anything that alludes to Christianity can and must be suppressed and persecuted. “Bu- bu-but tax write offs for church donations!  That proves there is no persecution!”  Uh huh.  That will be one of the final steps, once all the other institutional supports for Christianity have been not just removed, but inverted and turned into means of persecution.]

“Efforts to change behaviors” is where the real problem is. After all, almost all counseling and even common psychiatric care are intended to “change behaviors” in various ways.

If you think about it, that’s the entire reason people seek help in the first place: They want to stop drinking or becoming angry or, yes, having troubling thoughts about their sexuality.

It’s also worth pointing out that the bill as written would apply to people who are trying to change their own behavior. This would mean that if a person was struggling with same-sex behavior or sexual identity and they themselves wanted to change, it would be illegal for them to buy any book meant to help them with this……… [Of course.  Because sodomites want to be told that their sin is an unalloyed good, and nothing may be permitted that undermines that belief.]

……….You don’t even have to particularly agree with the Bible verses mentioned here to see the problem. Efforts like the proposed bill represent dangerous slippery slopes that would use the legislature to attack traditional beliefs, and even mainstream views that happen to be at odds with the far-left agenda.

If nothing else, it’s an affront to the free exchange of ideas — yes, even ones that someone might dislike — and a censorship of speech.

“No one doubts that (Christianity’s) teachings on sexual morality are increasingly unpopular,” summarized National Review. “But they remain constitutionally protected, and no state legislature should be permitted to ban a ‘good’ (such as a book) or a ‘service’ (like counseling) that makes these arguments and provides them to willing, consenting consumers.”

It’s amazing that the same liberals who bemoan “government in the bedroom” eagerly jump at the chance to give the same government control over sexual and moral topics the moment it helps their cause.

“No government in the bedroom” was always a convenient lie.  Just like “born that way,” “safe, legal, and rare,” and “federal government involvement in schools won’t lead to politicization.” All these statements have simply been means to an end, a wedge to use against Christians in the public eye as a means to split unthinking people from core cultural/social beliefs that evolved over centuries to produce that great construct known as Christendom, by far the greatest culture the world has ever known. It was all as hypocritical and cynical as hell, but that’s how they’ve managed to subvert the culture almost totally, while their opposition – in a sense rightly – preferred to adhere to their principles and clutched their collective pearls at it all.

Islam is the State Religion of Britain, While the Secular Pagan Religion Increasingly Falls Apart April 23, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Christendom, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Immigration, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

A couple of brief videos for you, one from a fairly unlikely source, a professor of physics at UC-San Diego who presents an argument that modern science’s attempt to explain all creation through natural processes absent God is becoming increasingly frayed and desperate.  While it is not stated in the video, the key fact that is driving belief in the multi-verse is detailed study that has shown that for macro-evolution to work, and to have resulted in the diversity and advanced forms of life presently on earth, far, far more time would have to have elapsed than actually has, even by the enormous ages of “scientific time” (going back over 10 billion years) to have resulted through Darwinian “natural selection.”  That is because the “evolution” that can be actually observed directly takes place so agonizingly slow (for the scienticians), and major variations like severe mutations are almost always evolutionary dead ends, not major breakthroughs.

So major public scientists like Steven Weinberg and Steven Hawking have opined that, since evolution must be true (it is the cardinal belief the God-denying scientists, basically taking the place of God in this mode of thinking), but not nearly enough time has passed for all the multivariate forms of life now found on earth, there must be an infinity of universes out there (existing so that every possibility that can occur in a given situation does occur in one universe or another – like Star Trek’s Mirror, Mirror episode), each one somehow invisibly interconnected with the other, so that there is now plenty of time – indeed, an infinity of time – for evolution to take place.  Voila!  Problem solved.  But as the professor notes below, there is no way to prove these other universes exist, and thus, belief in the multiverse is just another article of faith for the God-denying sexular pagans (which, I would argue, evolution is, as well, since the “evidence” there is largely contrived, or fully explainable by other means):

In the next video, a young woman in Britain who has received numerous death threats for having the temerity to criticize islam (the invasion and subsequent conversion of Christendom by islam is far more advanced in Europe than here) is told by the state – in the form of the police – that it is acceptable to criticize Christianity but not islam.  Mind, she has not been told this by one police official, but by several.  Coupled with the state’s continued cover-up of muslim pedophile rape gangs that pray exclusively on non-muslim girls, general prohibition by cultural elites of any public criticism of islam as “hate speech,” and a growing kow-towing to islam in virtually every major sphere of life, it appears the successful devolution of Britain from “Our Lady’s Dowry” to muslim despotism is moving apace.  Note that gutting of Christianity both in concept/meaning and unity through the protestant revolution was a central part of this process, since protestantism led to a self-serving conception of God/Christ and our relation to them, which led to collapse of belief, which led to rationalism/endarkenment values, which led to where we are today.  Painting with a broad brush but I’ve written about this before.

Britain is simply ahead of the US by about 30 years, but the exact same process is at work, here.  Why do the powers that be allow hundreds of thousands of muslims to emigrate to this country a year (mostly legally), while legal immigration from the same countries for Christians, or from Christian-majority nations, is extremely arduous?  It’s all about replacing the native population, and, more importantly, the native culture, with a multi-culti dystopia.  Given the paltry progress on the wall so far, this nation is going to be a disaster for our children and grandchildren to inhabit (sorry for the bare shoulders, it ends pretty quick):

This ascendance of fealty, perhaps obeisance is a better word, towards islam, is a classic case of seeing cultural suzerainty in action.  Even though islam has grown at an explosive rate in Britain, it still constitutes a small minority.  Muslims constitute barely 5% of the British population, but their political and especially cultural influence far outweighs their numbers.  Why is this?  It’s because few in the “Christian” majority have any kind of certainty in their beliefs, while the muslims are very convicted.  Thus a small minority is dictating much of the cultural/societal norm to the vast majority, which, thus far, has gone rather sheepishly along with this, and has managed to completely co-opt the political class and cultural elites.  In terms of actual numbers, there may be far more devout muslims in Britain today than there are devout Christians.  Certainly, there are many muslims quite willing to impose their culture and their moral norms on Britain, and very few British willing to defend their rapidly deteriorating legacy culture.

Will the same happen in the United States? I think an argument can be built that it already is.  Secularization and collapse of Christian belief and practice has not gone so far in the US as it has in Britain, Canada, and the rest of the West, but it is still occurring, and rapidly.  Each generation becomes successively less Christian and, what is more, convicted in their beliefs.  I fear the process in the US could be especially ugly, since there may be enough Christian conviction, defusely spread, in the country, to lead to much more open conflict with the implacable demands of islam, which asserts its cultural dominance wherever it gains enough numbers (and, as we see, those numbers are very far from requiring a majority).  And Trump’s rise and election was due at least in part to resentment over the seeming flood of muslims into this country along with the unconstrained Hispanic immigration. But that, I fear, will just be the beginning.  The elites seem determined to play this most massive social experiment in history out, even though all of history and ethnography shouts that diversity plus proximity virtually always equals conflict, and very bloody conflict.

Perhaps that’s the end goal after all.  You can’t get to a “perfect” world population of 2 billion without breaking a few eggs, or heads.

By the way, on evolution, has anyone read Repairing the Breach?  I got a copy for Christmas but it will be some time before I can devote the effort to reading it. It’s a massive book, really like a textbook, and some reviews claim it to be THE most thorough attack on evolution that has yet been written.  I’m already pretty tied down in reading at the moment, trying to finish Solzhenitsyn, and that is no trivial task, in itself.  I think I’ve brought this up before, but if anyone has read Repairing the Breach and would like to provide a review, I’d very much appreciate it.

Heretic Pope – Francis Declares “There Is No Hell” March 30, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, catachesis, cultural marxism, different religion, disaster, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Spiritual Warfare, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

The Vatican has tried to sidestep this blatant declaration of heresy, but they have been very careful not to deny that he was accurately quoted.  So Francis outed himself as a blatant heretic for at least the 10th or 11th time:

In another informal interview with Italian atheist journalist (and founder of liberal newspaper Repubblica) Eugenio Scalfari, published today, Pope Francis reveals that “hell does not exist”.

His exact words below (full interview behind paywall here, most important excerpt below):

Title of the interview: “It is an honor for me to be called revolutionary.” [That is also a kind of heresy, at least given the condemnations of leftist revolutions from past pontiffs]4

Excerpt on hell:

[Scalfari:] Your Holiness, in our previous meeting you told me that our species will disappear in a certain moment and that God, still out of his creative force, will create new species. You have never spoken to me about the souls who died in sin and will go to hell to suffer it for eternity. You have however spoken to me of good souls, admitted to the contemplation of God. But what about bad souls? Where are they punished?

[Francis:] “They are not punished, those who repent obtain the forgiveness of God and enter the rank of souls who contemplate him, but those who do not repent and cannot therefore be forgiven disappear. There is no hell, there is the disappearance of sinful souls.”

 

Yeah, you wish.

The timing is no accident. Almost every year at Easter this creature occupying the Chair of Peter has taken perverse delight – diabolical delight – in showing his utter disdain for popular piety and the few tattered remains of Catholic tradition that exist outside the traditionalist-dominated remnant.  He loves to mock and usurp it.  His only use for the Faith he so obviously hates is as a vehicle to his own self-aggrandizement.

Of course, he also loves to be the star of his own self-directed drama, the movie of his mind where he is always the swashbuckling young Peronist waging constantly successful insurgency against the hidebound reactionaries of the Church and world of his imagination.  He cannot see that he and his ilk are now the hidebound reactionaries wreaking destruction and causing suffering at every turn (as they have throughout their sorry lives), as his generation corrupted from the false and illusory ideals of the 60s into just another ruling class blinded by its own self-interest.

I’d be really harsh, but this being Holy Week and all, I’ll lay off.  To me, really, this guy is a joke, elected by infinitely corrupted and corrupting old pederasts who themselves are more sorry and pathetic than anything else.  They’d be laughable if they hadn’t done so damn much damage to so damned many souls.  But my judgment is nothing.  I’m just a man, and probably a fool.  But God is eternal, and hell is real.

Francis will find that out to his absolute horror at some point in the not too distant future.

 

Male “Birth Control,” or Let’s Totally Emasculate Men March 22, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, contraception, cultural marxism, disaster, error, family, General Catholic, horror, manhood, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society.
comments closed

A purported “male birth control” pill works, researchers say.  It apparently works by killing testosterone, which is supposed to reduce or prevent sperm production.  There is already a sort of crisis developing regarding the plunging testosterone levels among males, especially soy latte sipping young millennials (those born between 1980-2000).  But even overall male testosterone levels have been plummeting over the past several decades.  One likely culprit is the mass consumption of phyto-estrogen laden soy products.

At any rate, this attempt to sterilize men en masse seems a bit on the nose, doesn’t it?  Let’s let men play at birth control by denying them the hormone that most predicts and creates distinctions between men and women?  Please:

One of the latest experimental candidates for a male birth control drug is a compound that would be taken much like the daily birth control pill available for women. A pilot study presented Sunday at the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting suggests that the compound—called dimethandrolone undecanoate (DMAU)—can be safe and effective in human test subjects……..

……..By experiment’s end, the volunteers who took DMAU experienced a drop in their levels of testosterone and two other hormones involved in producing sperm, which was starkest in those who took the highest dose. The study didn’t directly test their sperm, since it takes around three months for lowered hormone levels to significantly reduce someone’s sperm count. But the researchers say the hormone levels seen in the high-dose group have been shown to predict infertility in earlier studies of male contraception treatments. Conversely, the levels among all DMAU volunteers returned back to normal within a month’s time after the therapy was stopped………

……….The few side effects Page’s team observed were weight gain and lowered levels of HDL cholesterol (the “good” kind). But they feel a tweaked dose could alleviate these symptoms. Importantly, the pill didn’t seem to cause any other lasting symptoms of low testosterone. Eight men in the treatment group did report lower libido, but the effect faded away after treatment had ended. [Does anyone else severely doubt this massive hormone ingestion/modification will be side-effect free?  Yeah, right]

For now, though, the as-yet-unpublished results are only a sign of hope.  [How is it a sign of hope to make most men as artificially sterile as most women?  The birth rate in the West is already at civilization-collapse levels.  It will be the same around virtually the entire world outside parts of Africa within 10-20 years.  By 2100, the world will likely experience the most severe economic, social, and cultural calamities experienced in nearly 2000 years as a result of lack of birth.  But that is our human nature – we cannot stand success, comfort, and happiness, and at some level [many] seek to destroy it when we have it.] The researchers are currently in the middle of a trial meant to last for at least three months—a timeline that will let them directly test for lowered levels of sperm. And should that trial go off without a hitch, they would then test DMAU in real-life couples.

Something tells me this effort has more than a whiff of radical feminism about it – there is little practical need for male birth control at this point.  It’s about making men share the birth control burden, or even more, seeing men effectively neutered and emasculated (even more than many already are).

 

Virginia Delegate Nick Freitas Gives Awesome Defense of Firearms Rights, Destroys Leftist Shibboleths March 9, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, firearms, General Catholic, Revolution, Society, technology, Victory.
comments closed

No real comment here, just one of the best speeches on the matter of “gun control” I’ve ever heard.  Virginia Delegate Nick Freitas effectively destroys all the Left’s main talking points to try to disarm the populace, and also gores a great number of their other sacred cows (like their attacks on the family, the correlation of fatherless young men and these kinds of insane attacks, etc).  It’s about as good a 7 minute speech on the topic as I’ve ever heard.  Enjoy and have a blessed weekend!

Texas, US Bishops See Threat to Tax Exempt Status in Wake of Texas Right to Life Gaffe March 8, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, contraception, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Immigration, It's all about the $$$, Revolution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

There are several players in the articles below from Church Militant, all increasingly isolated and bereft of public support from their colleagues and peers.  There’s Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth, the man who decided against all good reason to attack the state’s largest and most effective pro-life group (Texas Right to Life – TRL), demanding even that a statement from him to all the Catholics of his diocese refusing them “permission” – on a matter of prudential judgment, as if it were even within his purview – to support TRL and desiring souls from each parish report to him as to whether or not his unnecessary and inflammatory statement was read.  As a matter of record, so far as I know – and I know regarding at least 7 other dioceses in this state – Fort Worth is the only diocese where such a statement, issued on Texas Catholic Conference (TCC – the bishop’s conference for the state) letterhead, was created and forcibly read. In fact, other bishops have run for cover, either trying to ignore the firestorm entirely, or outright repudiating the move against TRL.

Then there’s Jennifer Carr-Allmon –  former PR staffer for TCC and now its executive director – who has had a habit of lining TCC up on the wrong side of many sanctity-of-life related issues.  In 2014 TCC waged war against TRL and many individual pro-lifers over a disastrous bill on end-of-life care that would have substantially worsened the already bad laws in effect.  TCC  played a major role in supporting that bill and the RINO stealth liberals in the legislature that were pushing it.  Only heroic efforts by TRL, attorney Kassi Marks, individual committed pro-lifers, and a few good priests, bishops, and especially Bishop Emeritus Rene Gracida finally managed to raise enough fuss to have the proposed bill changed and improved to the point that it did, in fact, wind up making a positive difference on end of life issues facing Texans.

In all of this, like the USCCB, the bishops are most often led by their lay staff bureaucrats within the respective conferences.  That is to say, the bishops are in many cases relying on the lay staff to “stay informed” and give them guidance on many of the various issues, being too busy with golf, exotic travel, and other activities to do so themselves.  Thus what often happens is that the Catholic bishops are advocating for the viewpoint of lay staffers of  unknown provenance, and certainly without any grace of office, to set Catholic public policy at the state, national, and even local level.

So just bear all that in mind as you read through the highlights of the two reports below, the first reporting that Bishop Olson and TCC may have violated the Johnson Amendment provisions of their tax exempt status in this fight with TRL.  Now, I don’t believe there is even a slight genuine threat to their status, but the fact that a complaint has been publicized is a bit unusual.  Now, if someone actually files a lawsuit against TCC and Olson with the IRS, then that would be serious. But mere complaints tend to go in the dustbin.  This article also ties the support of Olson and TCC to the RINOs to their love – and positive need – for continued unconstrained mass, illegal Hispanic immigration.

The second article adds a bit more detail to the coverage.  I’ll start with the tax exemption article via the good Bishop Gracida:

Here in Texas, the RINO Establishment has held power for a long time, and this establishment has been largely backed by the Catholic bishops of the state, casting their votes in ways generally approved of by the bishops and their agenda, particularly in regards to illegal immigration issues. Texas is of course greatly impacted by the question of illegals since it shares the longest border of any state with Mexico where most illegals come from………

……….Last week, in what many are viewing as an attempt to directly influence the outcome of tomorrow’s midterm elections, the bishops issued an unheard-of, unprecedented rebuke of Texas Right to Life, essentially claiming teaching authority over the group in matters political. The statement consisted of three major points, but the most troublesome point is the third point where they publicly decry the Texas Right To Life Voter Guide, which supports the young and upcoming anti-Establishment Republican candidates primed to upset the old-time GOP Establishment politicians favored by the bishops. [Not all of these anti-establishment candidates were so young. And in the case of Senate District 8, I think pro-lifers can be practically equally satisfied with either Ray Huffines or Angela Paxton.  Paxton won the primary, and it was a nasty, expensive race, but which candidate was actually the more pro-life actually figured quite substantially into that race.  At any rate, many voters in Collin County were turned off by Huffines extremely negative campaign and perceived carpetbagger relo to Richardson just to run for this seat]

And here is where the bishops may have actually have run afoul of IRS regulations forbidding Church involvement in politics, a rule known as the Johnson Rule, which actually originated under the administration of Texan President Lyndon B. Johnson back in the 1960s. To have injected themselves into statewide political races just a week before the elections and essentially condemned a political activist group by name, a group that publicly backs certain candidates over others, crosses the line and puts the bishops’ conference in a position where it could thereby lose its tax-exempt status.

Church Militant has learned exclusively that plans are being drawn up and formulated to file a petition with the IRS to have the tax-exempt status of the Church in Texas completely stripped. It that were to happen, the dollar cost to the dioceses of Texas would run into the hundreds of millions of dollars and bankrupt many dioceses. Additionally, experts observe that since the head of the Texas Catholic Conference, Galveston-Houston Cdl. Daniel DiNardo, is also president of the U.S. bishops’ national conference, this could actually extend beyond Texas and impact the tax-exempt status of the entire Church across the country.

If that scenario were to play out which observers tell Church Militant is certainly a possibility, the Church across America would become financially insolvent as the 194 dioceses across the country would have to scramble to sell tens of billions of dollars of assets to pay the exorbitant tax bill that would surely come their way in the absence of their tax-exempt status — billions and billions of dollars presently and moving forward that the federal government would dearly love to get its hands on. [As I said, it is extremely unlikely that any serious threat to the Church’s tax exempt status will come from this. But what may well happen is that Olson will get some hard questions behind the scenes at the next USCCB meeting of bishops.  Or maybe not.  They may all be in perfect agreement. Hard to say with this crew raised in the post-conciliar Church]

How did this happen? How is it that the bishops of Texas would collectively sign on to an agreement that could potentially bankrupt the Church in the United States? The answer, insiders say, lies with one woman, Jennifer Carr Allmon, the executive director of the Texas Bishops’ Conference, the first woman to ever hold that position.

A little background is in order here. The most vocal bishop in support of the attacks against Texas Right to Life has been Fort Worth Bp. Michael Olson who launched a blistering accusatory social media campaign on his Twitter feed, actually telling parishioners to let him know if his orders to his diocesan priests to read the statement of condemnation out loud at Masses from the pulpit were being followed. Olson is the same bishop who ordered Catholic pro-life groups in his diocese not to protest in front of abortion chambers with banners of Our Lady of Guadalupe because the image of Our Lady was offensive to Protestants who might also be protesting.

The behind the scenes of this is that very wealthy supporters of the Church in Fort Worth, who also support the status-quo RINOs, became very concerned that the young Republicans backed by Texas Right to Life were close to capturing the state legislature, according to internal polls. So they reached out to Olson and Jennifer Carr Allmon and said something needed to be done and done quickly before the elections.

One such establishment figure in the Texas legislature the rich want to protect because he is seen as “their man” is Charlie Geren, who barely hung on to his seat in the last election, almost losing to a Texas Right to Life challenger Bo French. That same race is again coming down to the wire and a loss in that race for the GOP-RINO establishment would signal a massive defeat for the status quo, including the bishops who are wedded to that same status quo.

The bishops are interested in maintaining the current political environment because the up and comer Republicans backed by Texas Right to Life are not friendly to the cause of illegal immigration which is the cause fueling the engine of the bishops’ political agenda in Texas. If the state of Texas suddenly turns anti-illegal immigration, the Texas bishops stand to lose a great deal, so they are willing to settle for weak pro-life support from RINOs in order to hold on to large sums of money going to what they see as the most important issue — illegal immigration……. [Well I would say Texas already is majority anti-illegal immigration, as many Texans see quite rightly that if mass illegal immigration is allowed to continue much longer, Texas will go purple if not blue, and this entire nation will be finished, if it isn’t already.  But there is not much Texas can do to secure the border, unless the governor wants to activate the Guard and start patrolling the border en masse, which may not be a bad idea but would instantly result in a flood of lawsuits and probable instant court injunctions by activist leftist judges to desist.]

………Reports are that some of the Texas bishops are now backpedaling from the statement, some even privately denying any advance knowledge of it. Some of this backpedaling appeared to be the case in a Friday afternoon interview on EWTN where San Angelo Bp. Michael Sis downplayed the statement and offered that everyone just needs to find common ground and work together — a radical departure from the aggressive tone of the earlier condemnation.

That the entire tax-exempt status of the Church, certainly in Texas and possibly in the entire country, owing to the connection between both Cdl. Daniel DiNardo, could come down to a hastily compiled statement by one woman, Carr Allmon, in charge of the Texas Bishops’ Conference and backed by one hot-tempered bishop wanting to do the bidding of some rich donors with political interests, it’s simply mind-boggling. But given the current temperature of the culture with regard to Catholic matters, a financial tsunami could certainly be in the cards for the nation’s bishops. [He does seem to be hot-tempered. It’s also funny how times change. When Farrell was here, Olson was definitely the more orthodox of the two DFW bishops.  Now with Bishop Burns, the situation seems to have reversed.  Bishop Burns is generally keeping a low profile and doing the hard work of trying to reconstitute both the badly depleted priesthood (which Bishop Farrell did revive from practical total death of vocations) and the aging and far too progressive lay administration of the Diocese.  He doesn’t seek after publicity as Farrell very obviously did.  But those cardinal hats don’t fall from trees!  You gotta get out there and make a name for yourself!]

This post is getting really long but here’s a bit more on Olson:

Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth is currently steeped in controversy over his attack on Texas Right to Life, a pro-life group focused on electing authentic pro-life leaders in the Texas legislature. Yet in August 2016, Bp. Olson allowed a pro-abortion Democrat to speak on parish property. This is despite recent tweets to the Catholic faithful about his “apostolic duty” to “guard authentic doctrine in the parishes.”

In August 2016, Congressman Marc Veasey (D-Texas) was allowed to speak on the property of All Saints Catholic Church in Fort Worth. Veasey voted against the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act when it came in front of the House for a vote. He supports abortion through all nine months, and has attended Planned Parenthood rallies. [I sadly live in Veasey’s district, one so gerrymandered that there is virtually no chance he will ever face a serious challenge, let alone lose his seat.  You should see how ridiculously the boundary lines are drawn in Irving, literally looping around apartment complexes and avoiding single-family homes.  Good job legislature!  Veasey is a true extremist who supports all the most extreme fashions of the Left – transgenderism for youth, taxpayer funded abortion on demand and any time, restrictions on homeschooling, etc]

Church Militant reached out to the diocese of Fort Worth for comment. A spokesman claimed the reason Veasey was allowed to speak on diocesan property was that the event in question was a town hall and not a stump speech.

When Church Militant asked whether the town hall included a speech from Veasey, the official angrily interrupted, reasserting that the event at the town hall wasn’t a speech. He said he was present at the event and that attendees did ask Veasey about his position on abortion, which Veasey answered by restating his support for abortion.

The diocese claimed that Veasey listened carefully to the pro-lifers in attendance at the event. An article in the North Texas Catholic quoted Bp. Olson on the subject: “My point is, we’ve gotten to the point of our civil discourse — to our understanding of our responsibility as citizens — that the only way we are able to participate in our society politically and to contribute to the common good is in a partisan way.”

In the wake of the Texas bishops’ parish advisory on Texas Right to Life, which Congressman Matt Rinaldi (R-Irving) has called “factually inaccurate,” Bp. Olson tweeted out an order for Catholics attending Mass to spy on priests and report to his office if the Texas bishops’ advisory was not read from the pulpit.

Bishop Olson went so far as to imply that those who don’t read the advisory at Mass are not “true Catholics” and that the advisory is an act of his “authentic teaching office.”

I am told that most parishes did read the statement.  Whether it is really an act of his authentic teaching office is another question, there is no question Texas Right to Life supports the entirety of the Church’s Doctrine on the sanctity of life -in fact, it seems to support it better than the bishops often do. Whether one can be commanded to not support an organization that commits no sin and endorses no error – and is in fact totally wedded to the truth – seems dubious, at best.  I would argue in fact that it is TRL that is upholding Catholic Doctrine in its truest, fullest sense, and that, prudentially, the more accommodationist position of the TCC and Olson may be accepted for particular matters but is morally inferior to the more hardline stand.

Once again, as we see so often in the post-conciliar institutional edifice, the bishops make dogma of prudential matters and treat dogmatic ones as matters of judgment.

I would add in closing that TRL is the only pro-life group in the state, and one of the few in the country, that correctly ties together the issue of contraception with that of abortion.  Texas Alliance for Life, the group Olson and TCC apparently prefer, and which is widely seen as being much, much less reliable on these weighty matters, won’t touch contraception with a 10 ft pole.

Sorry, apparently this is book length post week.

The Unbelievable Evil of Luther’s Ideology – Sin Much Better than Good Works March 7, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, catachesis, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the enemy, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

I am reading a truly amazing book on Martin Luther and his beliefs, called The Facts About Luther by Msgr. Patrick O’Hare LLD. This book isn’t full of Catholic opinion regarding Luther’s belief; no, it is a book literally chock full of direct, in-context quotations from the diabolical heresiarch and his twisted ideology.

Luther is a case study of the lengths to which one can fall when given over to endless pride, overarching pomposity, and intractable stubbornness. Luther was in essence a Pelagian, or wanted to be a Pelagian – someone who wanted to be so very good on his own merits, even without God’s help or Grace, which he constantly refused, that he could attain Heaven on his own efforts.  For nearly a decade prior to his final break into full blown heresy in 1517, he had been warned by religious superiors and others that he was on a path towards destruction with his way, way over-the-top fastings, mortifications, penitential exercises, etc.  When he finally became exhausted from this superhuman effort and realized he couldn’t attain Heaven on his own efforts, did he pause and find some humility and beg God for his aid?  Of course not.  From a family known for its volcanic temperament and unyielding stubbornness for many generations, he instead found blame with first God, and then the Church. It was the whole economy of salvation and system of Grace that was wrong, not Martin Luther!  Of course!  And so he invented the most noxious single error in the history of Christendom – justification by “faith*” alone.

Naturally, if one was saved by “faith” alone, and works were useless, then the whole system of the Law, the commission of good works and avoidance of sin, must be not just rotten but sinful and destructive of souls, as well.  Thus Luther inverted the Faith and invented his own diabolical doctrine.

And of course, being one of history’s most unhinged temperaments, he compulsively attacked not just the Church, not just popes and Saints and Fathers, but even much of the Bible itself upon which he supposedly based his entire conception of the Faith!  He had a special hatred for the 10 Commandments and its human transcriber, Moses.

Below I will place a number of quotes from Luther illustrating the perversity of his beliefs and, thus, the entire protestant project (which was significantly, majorly revamped during the Catholic Counter-Reformation, when great Jesuits and others like Charles Borremeo, Peter Canisius, and Francis Borgia utterly decimated Luther and Calvin’s noxious doctrine, showing how unscriptural and contrary to the early Faith it was, so that later protestants had to substantially re-Catholicize their sects in order to keep them intact).

These come from pp. 108-130 cut and paste to try to form an understandable whole.

As I said, Luther came to positively hate God when he found he could not maintain his Pelagian system of salvation by works alone: “the moral duties [the Law] enjoined were impossible of fulfillment and incited not love, but hatred of God” [speak for yourself, heresiarch]

To claim that the fulfillment of the Law is impossible is as impious as it is blasphemous, inasmuch as it imputes to God the injustice of commanding us to do something not just above our strength, but positively contrary to our eternal good.  It is also contrary to Christ – “What shall I do to be saved? If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments” (St. Matt xix:17).

Luther further remarked regarding the 10 Commandments: “If we allow them [the Ten Commandments] any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies, and blasphemies.” Further – “That shall serve you as a true rule, that wherever the Scriptures order and command to do good works, you must so understand it that the Scriptures forbid good works.” “If you should not sin against the Gospel, then be on your guard against good works; avoid them as one avoids a pest.” [Thus, Christ is a liar and Scripture is full of impossible to penetrate, contrary meanings, and yet should be the sole rule of faith and open to the interpretation of all, and not subject to the understanding of the Church.  What a crock.]

Under what circumstances is it allowable for a “man of God” and a “Reformer” to say of Moses, God’s chosen servant, that he should be looked upon “with suspicion as the worst heretic, as a damned and excommunicated person; yea, worse than the Pope and the devil?” [Such unspeakable blasphemy and boundless effrontery]

Luther again – “A pure heart enlightened by God must not dirty, soil itself with the Law. Thus let the Christian understand that it matters not whether he keeps it or not; yea, he may do what is forbidden and leave undone what is commanded, for neither is a sin.” [Counseling avoidance of virtue and welcoming of sin? – Believe me, it gets much, much worse]

“To the gallows with Moses.”

“I will not have Moses with his Law, for he is the enemy of the Lord Christ….we must put away thoughts and disputes about the Law, whenever the conscience becomes terrified and fells God’s anger against sin. Instead of that, it will be better to sing, to eat, to drink, to sleep, to be merry in spite of the devil.” [Luther constantly conflated the pangs of his conscience with the promptings of the devil. In fact, as we shall see later, Luther was very aware that he was doing satan’s work and did so without compunction]

“Poor soul, you have temptations, they must be overcome. When the devil comes to tempt and harass you with thoughts of the kind you allude to, have recourse at once to conversation, drink more freely, be jocose and playful and even indulge some sin in hatred of the evil spirit………If the “devil” [by which he really means his conscience] says to you,’Will you not stop drinking, answer him: I will drink all the more because you forbid it; I will drink great draughts in the name and to the honor of Jesus Christ.’ Imitate me.  I never drink so well, I never eat so much, I never enjoy myself so well at table as when vexing the “devil” who is prepared to mock and harass me. Oh, that I could paint sin in a fair light, so as to mock the devil and make him see that I acknowledge no sin and am not conscious of having committed any!  I tell you, we must put all the Ten Commandments, with which the “devil” tempts and plagues us so greatly, out of sight and out of mind.  If the devil upbraids us with our sins and declares us to be deserving of death and Hell, then we must say: ‘I confess that I have merited death and hell,’ but what then?  Are you for that reason to be damned eternally?……..” [Quite possibly, yes, if you do not repent and confess your sins]

“How often,” Luther said, “have I taken with my “wife” [a rebel nun who, like Luther, violated her sacred vows and simulated marriage outside the Church] those liberties which nature permits, merely in order to get rid of Satan’s temptations [that’s a pretty cold commentary on his concubine].  Yet all to no purpose, for he refused to depart; for Satan, as the author of death, has depraved our nature to such an extent that we will not admit any consolation. [I did not know satan had such power over us, at least those of us who do not give ourselves over to him. I would say, once again, Luther is speaking of his own conscience, his own guardian angel, calling him back to sanity and repentance] Hence I advise everyone who is able to drive away these Satanic thoughts by diverting his mind to do so, for instance, by thinking of a pretty girl, of money-making, or of drink, or, in fine, by means of some other vivid emotion.”

“Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but “believe” more boldly still……We must sin as long as we are what we are…..sin shall not drag us away from Him even should we commit fornication, or murder, thousands and thousands of times a day provided we only believe.”  We must take Luther’s words to mean, as they manifestly indicate, a recommendation, an exhortation and an injunction to mutiny, rebellion, and disobedience to the Supreme Lawgiver, who directed all to observe and not disrespect His Commandments.

Luther counsels that sin is better than good works – “The way to Heaven is narrow; if you wish to pas through it, throw away your good works. Those pious souls, who do good to gain the Kingdom of Heaven, not only will never succeed, but they must even be reckoned among the impious; and it is more important to guard them against good works than against sin.” Thus good works, the practice of piety, and the observance of the divine Commandments – the only way, according to Jesus Christ, which leads to eternal life – are in his estimation troublesome superfluities, of which Christian liberty must rid us. Rather, according to this false teacher, they are invincible obstacles to salvation if one places the least reliance upon them. “Faith alone,” said he, “is necessary for justification: nothing else is commanded or forbidden.” [but remember, it’s a false conception of faith]

Luther knew that his doctrine had led to collapse of morals among protestants and that sin, crime, social upheaval, and moral degradation had spread like wildfire in the wake of his teachings.  He admitted this plainly, that is counsel to sin had been taken up, and that indeed it was primarily the license his false religion gave that was its prime selling point: “Since the downfall of Popery and the cessation of excommunications and spiritual penalties, the people have learned to despise the word of God. They care no longer for the churches; they have ceased to fear and honor God………I would wish, if it were possible, to leave these men without preacher and pastor and let them live like swine. [such noble concern for souls]  There is no longer any fear or love of God among them. After throwing off the yoke of the Pope, everyone wishes to live as he pleases.” [Isn’t that exactly what you counseled them to do?]

So notorious was the debauchery of the followers of Luther that it became a common saying when persons proposed to engage in drunkenness and revelry: “We will spend the day like Lutherans.”

The new Gospel did not make Luther himself better.  He said: “I confess…….that I am more negligent than I was under the Pope and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel as was formerly seen among monks and priests.” “If God,” he says, “had not closed my eyes, and if I had foreseen these scandals, I would never have begun to teach the Gospel.”[Luther was horribly inconsistent – he counseled men to sin but then lamented its effects.  Basically he wanted everyone to follow him, to be proved to be always right and greater than the pope, for himself to be able to sin freely, but for everyone else to remain as holy or better than they were as Catholics.  An impossible double standard.]

Finally, Luther had frequent encounters with satan, which he freely admitted, and he found that satan very much approved of his new doctrine, and somehow did not find that troubling –

Faith and good works are the only terms on which men can purchase happiness here and hereafter; every other scheme is a deceit of Lucifer to draw souls away from the love and service of God.

This statement is not made without foundation. Read Luther’s work against “The Mass and the Ordination of Priests (Erl. 31, 311 ff.) where he tells of his famous disputation with the “father of lies” who accosted him at “midnight” and spoke to him with “a deep, powerful voice,” causing “the sweat to break forth” from his brow and his “heart to tremble and palpitate.” In that celebrated conference, of which he was an unexceptionable witness and about which he never entertained the slightest doubt, he says plainly and unmistakingly that “the devil spoke against the Mass, and Mary and the Saints” and that, moreover, Satan gave him “the most unqualified approval of his doctrine on justification by faith alone.”  Who now, we ask in all sincerity, can be found, except those appallingly blind to truth, to accept such a man, approved by the enemy of souls, as a spiritual teacher and entrust to his guidance their eternal welfare? [And who sold his false religion by creating a giant strawman of the Catholic Faith, so that his twisted notions would make some sense by comparison]

———End Quote———

I would just add in conclusion – this is the man the horrid conciliar father Yves Congar knelt before in fealty, and wished to erect a statue to his wonderful works within St. Peter’s.  This is the man Francis of Rome has repeatedly lionized.  This is the man, and the tens of thousands of sects he has fathered, the ecumaniacs can’t wait to suborn Catholic Truth for in order to flatter.  This is the man the revolutionaries within the Church have constantly lionized and sought to emulate in every possible way, probably because they are as lost in their own sins as he was, for the past several decades.  The smoke of satan has entered the Church, indeed – and the man who made that statement did as much or more than anyone to allow those filthy sulfurous fumes to enter.

Before reading this book, I knew Luther was incredibly bad, that he wrought endless destruction of souls (and the material world), that he was the ultimate author of most everything wrong in the world today economically, socially, intellectually, philosophically, and morally, but I still did not know the depths of his depravity.  He was quite literally, and happily, the spawn of satan.  He is a tremendous warning to me of what unyielding pride and self-pity must lead to.  The thing is, he knew better, he constantly kept at least a shred of his Catholic conscience, which he drowned in drink, gluttony, prurient lusts, and every other means he could think of.  But still, he knew, he knew what he was doing, and sought company in eternal perdition for himself by trying to convince as many others as possible to join him.

Well that’s all I’m going to have time for today.  Hope to post tomorrow on the hole the Texas bishops, and possibly even the USCCB, have dug for themselves in that Texas Right to Life mess.  Such a tragedy, once again the bishops allow themselves to become the political pawns of paid bureaucrats in this nightmare bureaucracy they have unnecessarily set up, and which Pope Leo XIII explicitly warned against.

*- Even Luther’s understanding of faith was corrupt. He substituted “fiduciary faith” – a false confidence that one is saved by Christ’s merits in spite of all sin and lack of virtue –  for the dogmatic faith in the saving Doctrine of Jesus Christ of the Church.