jump to navigation

A handy resource on the TLM that raises provocative questions regarding the Novus Ordo March 3, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, catachesis, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Papa, scandals, secularism, shocking, Tradition.
1 comment so far

A reader sent me a link to a very handy site that lists many of the reasons to support the Traditional Latin Mass. I would say it goes even farther than that, arguing for a return exclusively to the TLM, but having been on the receiving end of liturgical bans and persecution, I think the Church should have done with top-down impositions and abrogations of Rites of the Mass at least for the foreseeable future.  That doesn’t mean I don’t have grave concerns over the Novus Ordo. I do. We don’t assist at anything but the TLM and arrange our vacation schedules to insure that will remain the case!  But I recognize most souls bearing the name Catholic are far from being ready to accept the TLM and some sudden command from on high to restore the Traditional Mass as the only acceptable form of the Roman Rite – as unlikely as that is today –  would cause mass resentment, confusion, and chaos, of which I would hope traditional Catholics have had quite enough, already.

Having said that, there are many arguments to be made in favor of the TLM.  Some of those are positive – look how reverent the TLM is – and others are negative.  Those are ones that say “look at all these problems with the Novus Ordo, look at how it undermines faith in the Blessed Sacrament, etc.”  And that’s what the link above focuses on.

I’ll pull out a few quotes from the link and add some comments of my own below.  Just a warning, some of the below is pretty strong stuff, but I don’t think that should exclude it from consideration.  YMMV:

Vatican I in 1870 defined the Pope to be, not an absolute monarch, but the guarantor of obedience to the revealed word. The legitimacy of his power was bound up above all with his transmitting the Faith. This fidelity to the deposit of the Faith and to its transmission concerns in a quite special way the liturgy. No authority can ‘fabricate’ a liturgy.  [This point has been argued quite extensively by Michael Davies, Dr. Peter Kwazneiski, Fr. Anthony Cekada, and others.  But there are nuances to the argument. Certainly, Popes have directed changes to the Mass in the past.  But never was a new Rite created out of whole cloth until the Novus Ordo]  The Pope himself is only the humble servant of its homogenous development, its integrity, and the permanence of its identity.” The Pope, as the guardian of the Deposit of Faith, has a duty to preserve the liturgy intact and pass it on essentially unmodified to the next generation. The very authors of Vatican II, on the other hand, openly acknowledged their desire not to pass on Tradition, but to make it[As expressed by the will of the majority at VII, that’s about correct.  Until VII, the idea of the Magisterium had been to protect, uphold, propagate, and extol the Faith as they had received it.  But in the latter half of the 20th century, a radical new view became dominant, which was that the Faith as it had always been understood and practiced was badly deficient, somehow unsuited to “new times,” and that it had to change for the good of souls. I would argue that the disastrous crisis afflicting the Church since the introduction of those new ideas has conclusively demonstrated that this assumption was severely erroneous, and, far from ushering in a new springtime of growth, has led to an unprecedented to decay, destruction, and death.]

St. Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century gave as a standard for the orthodoxy of doctrine that which has been believed everywhere (ubique), always (semper), and by all (omnia). But, as Cardinal Ratzinger points out, the Council Fathers of Vatican II rejected this hallowed definition: “Vatican II’s refusal of the proposal to adopt the text of Lerins, familiar to, and, as it were, sanctified by two Church Councils, shows once more how Trent and Vatican I were left behind, how their texts were continually reinterpreted… Vatican II had a new idea of how historical identity and continuity were to be brought about.” This new idea was nothing other than to create a pseudo-tradition from the “common consciousness” of the Council Fathers……[I had not seen that quote from Pope Benedict before.  I’m quite certain he made it well before he was pontiff.  However, I have seen similar quotes.  Which point only goes to underscore that when we speak of Church leaders today (and for the past half century or more), we have to speak in terms of relatively orthodoxy, relative adherence to Tradition, etc., because it is very difficult to find any that have not made statements somewhat akin to the above.  I do not know how these men came to reconcile in their minds their sometime orthodoxy with radical views such as the above.  To me, there was a crisis of faith, more than anything else, which has kind of been my theme for the day. Men in the Church, even in the highest echelons of authority, simply lost faith that what had been handed onto them was good enough, would “work” for the world today.  There have certainly been out and out radicals, bad men acting under bad influences, who have probably acted out this revolution in an effort to reduce the Church from what She must be into something more worldly and utterly disordered from Her true purpose.  But I cannot see Pope Benedict in that light, I think he, and many others, honestly thought they were doing what was right.  Benedict visibly recoiled from his more radical younger views as he saw the destruction they wrought. But even still, the attachment to the idea that some radical change was necessary and vital remained.  I have a friend, very much traditional, who feels strongly that VII was absolutely needed because the pre-conciliar Church was cold, legalistic, and bereft of love (almost Jansenist), but that the changes went way too far.  I am much less inclined to see that, because the pre-conciliar Church was too vibrant, had too many priestly and religious vocations, and made too many converts, to be as described.]

The Church has always set forth the firm and clear principle that: “The way we worship is the way we believe.”  The doctrinal truths of the Faith are embodied in the worship we offer to God. In other words, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that teaches us our theology and not the reverse. [That’s right! And not the reverse!  Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. But since VII in particular, the argument has been made that we must shape and twist the Liturgy to bend to our beliefs, and not the other way around.  That is to say, a mechanistic and manipulative understanding of the Liturgy has become dominant, where the Liturgy is not a work primarily of God given to men to use and adore, but an entirely human construct, a work of human hands we can tinker with and manipulate according to the vagaries of the times]  The Mass comprises the Apostolic Tradition of faith and morals in its very essence. Every doctrine essential to the Faith is taught therein. Pope Leo XIII points out in Apostolicae Curae that the Church’s enemies have always understood this principle as “They knew only too well the intimate bond that unites faith with worship, the law of belief with the law of prayer, and so, under the pretext of restoring the order of the liturgy to its primitive form, they corrupted it in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators.” It is no wonder, then, that Luther coined the slogan: “Take away the Mass, destroy the Church.”

St. Alphonsus Liguori (Bishop, Doctor of the Church and Patron of Theologians) explains that “The devil has always attempted, by means of the heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the Anti-Christ, who, before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrament of the altar, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel: ‘And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice’ (Dan. 8:12).” [Scary.  I do so trust and love St. Alphonsus.]

The question then becomes: Does the New Mass teach the Catholic Faith? No, say both Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci: “It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent.”  [And another dozen or so cardinals would have signed onto the “Ottaviani Intervention” as well, had it not been prematurely leaked to the press.  So, then, at least a sizable number of the most orthodox prelates saw in the Novus Ordo a marked departure from a Liturgy that taught the Faith as it had been practiced for 16-1900 years.] Pope St. Leo the Great (Father and Doctor of the Church) instructs us: “Teach nothing new, but implant in the hearts of everyone those things which the fathers of venerable memory taught with a uniform preaching … Whence, we preach nothing except what we have received from our forefathers. In all things, therefore, both in the rule of faith in the observance of discipline, let the pattern of antiquity be observed.” How well founded, then, were the concerns expressed by Pope Pius XII shortly before the introduction of the New Mass: “I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy at Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the Faith in Her liturgy.

———-End Quote———–

Well.  Strong stuff, I know.  But simply because it says things some may find discomfiting, it should not be dismissed.  There are numerous other statements from Church Fathers and great Saints regarding the unchangeable nature of the Faith and the key repository of it, the Mass.  Yes, there have been periodic adjustments to the Mass in terms of organic growth and also some prunings from time to time by Popes in order to establish a more consistently universal Rite (for the Western Church), but, again, never has there been an entirely new rite, with new prayers, a new calendar of Saints, radically altered Scripture readings, and – this is key – changes to the sacred Canon of the Mass.  Never, until 1969, that is.

Third Secret of Fatima and the failure to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart March 2, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Christendom, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, martyrdom, Our Lady, paganism, Papa, persecution, Saints, scandals, secularism, shocking, Society, the struggle for the Church.
6 comments

Many faithful Catholics feel – for many reasons, and it’s certainly a strong point of contention – that Our Lady’s command to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart has never been properly fulfilled.  Yes, there have been consecrations, but they did not follow the formula or include all the elements Our Lady expressed at Fatima.Louis_XIV_(Mignard)

I use that comment as an introduction to another, strikingly similar situation, which is Our Lord’s communication to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque that the sovereign of France – at that time, Louis XIV – must explicitly consecrate France to His Sacred Heart and take other certain steps as evidence of that consecration (such as building a national basilica explicitly dedicated to the Sacred Heart, seeking permission for a national Feast to the Sacred Heart, etc).  Saint Margaret Mary inveighed upon her superiors in the Order of the Visitation to contact Louis XIV to inform him of this command, and the evidence strongly suggests this contact was made, repeatedly.  But Louis XIV never acted.  For whatever reason, whether want of faith, concern over the prudence of the matter, belief that the time was not yet “ripe” since the apparitions had at that point not been formally endorsed by the Church…….the consecration never occurred.  It never occurred during Louis XV’s time, either.download (8)

So, over 100 years passed, and the fearful vengeance of Our Blessed Lord then fell upon France and the monarchy in the form of the French Revolution.  The Church was persecuted as never before in a Catholic country.  Satanic acts were everywhere, the faithful suffered horribly, and the plight endured by priests and religious was unspeakable.  Our Lord had informed Saint Margaret Mary that things would not go well for France if His command was not obeyed. There was a special inference to the destruction of the monarchy, should those given such awesome power and privilege by the Hand of God would not be obedient to His demand.  And even on a strictly human level, the fact that the Faith had grown so distorted under generations of Gallicanism and the baleful influence of Jansenism, where a cold, sterile, and crushing legalism sucked the lifeblood of the Church (charity) away, without a visible commitment to re-center the Church in the living seat of Our Lord’s loving Heart, the mass practice of the Faith in France was in a perilous state, anyway.  More and more souls developed a resentment towards the hard, unyielding demands of Jansenist priests and bishops, and in their ardor, turned away from the very Church Herself.  All that was needed was a spark to start a conflagration that would threaten to consume the execlouisentire Church in France, and very nearly did.

The third heir of this command from Our Lord, King Louis XVI, was of course swept along by events.  Far from a great king, he was also far from a bad man.  Languishing in prison awaiting his inevitable execution, Louis XVI poured out his heart to Our Lord in the form of a promissory note, wherein Louis took the solemn vow to finally consecrate France to Our Lord’s Sacred Heart should he be restored as sovereign of France.  This note promised satisfaction of all Our Lord’s demands, including the formal consecration in union with bishops and Pope, the establishment of a national feast to the Sacred Heart on the First Friday after the Octave of the Blessed Sacrament, public processions imploring forgiveness of the Sacred Heart, the repudiation and removal of all the terribly repressive acts taken against the Church by the revolutionary government, annual renewal of the consecration, the construction of a basilica to the Sacred Heart, etc.  In short, every detail of Our Lord’s revelation to St. Margaret Mary was to be satisfied.

Sadly, it was too late.  100 years to the day had been given to satisfy this “request,” and it had not occurred. On June 17, 1789, the all-powerful monarchy ruling France was terminated, forever.  Louis XVI promised to make a consecration in 1791 while imprisoned, but he had no power to put that promise into effect.  So he died, as did so many others, and the Revolution continued on its course until it consumed its own and was replaced with a tyranny – a tyranny that then not only afflicted France, but almost all of Europe, and spread France’s errors around the world.

Since that time, Saint Margaret Mary has been canonized, a national basilica to the Sacred Heart constructed, but still, there has been – to my Sacred Heart-1knowledge – no consecration.  Of course, there is no longer to perform such an act, but even the various democratic (and not) governments which have ruled France since the Revolution have not taken such an act in the name of the people.  The closest this came to occurring was when a small subset of the National Assembly informally embraced the Sacred Heart at a major pilgrimage to Paray, the location of the convent where St. Margaret Mary Alacoque lived and where her relics remain today.  That act seems to have been incomplete.

It struck me when reading about this in The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque that this failure to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart represents, in microcosm (as a quite literal type), the situation surrounding Our Lady’s command that Russian be consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart.  In both cases, in spite of continuing arguments, it seems that this direct command has not been obeyed, or not observed in all its critical details, and that the disasters promised to come in the wake of a failure to obey have indeed happened.  The Church in France, after enjoying a brief resurgence in the 1800s, is as secularized and moribund as any in the world today, especially in its institutions.  A pretty strong argument could ThirdSecretbe constructed that what happened to France is now occurring to the Church throughout the world, as the “errors of Russia” (shorthand for leftism generally) spread and even inculcate themselves in the Church, as we see the Church suffering more and more egregious persecutions and as more and more souls grow cold, disinterested, and even fall away from the Faith.  Our Lady has repeatedly warned of a diabolical disorientation in the Church’s hierarchy and grave disasters that will afflict the world if the Church does not take some great leap of Faith, if Her leadership does not turn away from worldly considerations and plainly, simply obey Her command.

The price of failure in both consecrations was prophesied to be mass suffering on a natural and supernatural level, suffering unprecedented in the life of the Church.

Such has already occurred in France. Must it occur in the world at large, as well?

Some fascinating (and frightening) details on the above:

At Rianjo, Spain in August 1931, Our Lord communicated to Sister Lucy His dissatisfaction with the Pope’s and the Catholic bishops’ failure to obey His command to consecrate Russia. He said:

Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My requests, they will follow him into misfortune. It is never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.

The reference by Jesus to the King of France’s disobedience and punishment is as follows:

On June 17, 1689 the Sacred Heart of Jesus manifested to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque His command to the King of France that the King was to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart. For 100 years to the day the Kings of France delayed, and did not obey.

So on June 17, 1789 the King of France was stripped of his legislative authority by the upstart Third Estate, and four years later the soldiers of the French Revolution executed the King of France as if he were a criminal.

In 1793 France sent its King, Louis XVI, to the guillotine. He and his predecessors had failed to obey Our Lord’s request that France be consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and thus misfortune had befallen both the King and his country.

German bishops threaten schism February 27, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Christendom, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, Papa, pr stunts, Sacraments, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, shocking, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
40 comments

I imagine most readers have already seen the report on Rorate, coming out of the German bishop’s annual conference, that they are basically threatening schism over the matter of Communion for divorced and remarried but unanulled Catholics (those who persist in a state of adultery/fornication).

It may be my hopeful side, but I see this as perhaps a tactic to try to manipulate the Synod into accepting the German position.  Post-conciliar history shows that threats of schism are extremely effective.  The Dutch bishops threatened to go into schism over Communion in the hand, and an ostensibly reluctant Pope Paul VI yielded.  There are other examples, as well.  In fact, it is reported that threats of schism rendered neuter a goodly number of attempts during the JPII/Benedict era to re-instill doctrinal discipline.

Having said that, the rhetoric below is pretty heated.  It may be just that, but, reading carefully, it is obvious the German bishops are already in schism, at least in terms of professed belief.  My Lord how they have deluded themselves in believing that permitting this mass sin and sacrilege will keep them in their billions of euros of Church tax money.  As a commenter said recently, money is the root of all evil.  Amazing:

.. Reinhard Cardinal Marx underlined in view of the family synod in autumn the bishops’ attempt to “go down new paths” and to “help that doors be opened”. In the universal church there were “certain expectations” of Germany. [for repeated manifest heresy, the systematic murder of millions, and just about every disastrous, anti-Christian philosophy to emerge in the last 500 years?] He hoped that some questions could already be tackled before the synod, Marx told journalists in Hildesheim on Tuesday [Feb 24].
The synod would have to find a text that would “further encourage” discussion and find a common position in fundamental questions. Doctrinally, one would remain within the community of the [Universal]Church, but in detailed questions of pastoral care “the synod cannot prescribe in detail what we must do in Germany”. Therefore, the bishops wanted to publish their own pastoral letter on marriage and family after the synod. It was not the duty of the bishops to wait for permissions[And Luther did not wait for approval from Rome to begin his “reforms,” either]
“We are no subsidiaries of Rome. [Wow. FU universal Church] Each conference of bishops is responsible for pastoral care in its culture, and must, as its most proper task, preach the Gospel on our own. We cannot wait for a synod to tell us how we have to shape pastoral care for marriage and family here”.  [And thus we see the grave disorder – one might even say evil – of the post-conciliar system of national episcopal conferences made manifest]
According to the German bishops’ position, the reality of life constitutes an important factor for the doctrine of the Church.[Luther said just about exactly the same, did he not?] “We also learn from life in doctrine,” underlined Cardinal Marx. Franz-Josef Bode, Bishop of Osnabrück, called in this context the synod “historically important.” According to his view the participants do not only debate questions of marriage and family, but the possibility of a paradigm shift.
The basic question was, are only Scripture or Tradition sources for theological understanding, or are [such sources] also “the reality of men and of the world.”[That question has been answered definitively over 2000 years. I would say even asking the question implies heresy, if it is not manifest evidence of such]  [Bode,] The chairman of the pastoral commission of the bishops’ conference reminded his audience of the “dialogical structure” of reality, which had already been mentioned in the pastoral constitution “Gaudium et Spes” of Vatican II, and quotes this conciliar document: “there is nothing truly human, that has no resonance in their hearts.” Thus Bode concludes: “Not only does the Christian message have to find resonance with men, but also men must find resonance with us.” Bode stated that it was important for him that the Sacrament [of the Eucharist] was not only a sign of unity, but also a means to unity, and could contribute to healing.
Cardinal Marx announced a bishops’ statement on the synod that should be published within the upcoming weeks.
I have feared for this Synod for a very long time, but now that fear is doubled.  If anything could have moved the Synod in the direction of the Germans, it would be threat of schism. So, they’ve played their ultimate trump card, and very publicly. I think that does mean they were highly concerned, even doubtful, the Ordinary Synod this fall would go in their preferred direction.  So now they openly profess to break the unity of the Church, and assert German dominance over Christ’s One Mystical Body.  Incredible.
I am out of time. I am interested (and hopeful) to see Cardinal Burke’s response to this.  We need strong leaders now more than ever.  Pray for him, that he may be that.

Coptic Christians march on White House February 27, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Christendom, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, martyrdom, persecution, scandals, secularism, Society, unadulterated evil.
3 comments

Wearing orange jump suits, a group of Coptic Christians marched on the White House calling on President Obama to protect Christians in the area.  Doing so across 1500 miles of open desert would be a neat trick, but I understand their sentiment. Unfortunately, this nation has twice decided to elect an islam-protecting narcissist as president, who has repeatedly shown his attitude towards Christians…….disdain, comes to mind.

Naturally, the mainstream media consigned this non-event to the memory hole, and the omnipresent intelligence machine probably marked every name and face for possible reprisal, later.  Non-events and unpersons, that the United States these days (and yes, I’m being negative, but I think I have every reason to be):

A group of Coptic Christians marched to the White House on Tuesday, demanding that President Obama protect Christians from the genocide that is taking place in the Middle East.

“Obama, Obama, did you see? Christian blood in the sea,” they repeated as they marched in D.C.

As U.S. allies push back against ISIS, [half-heartedly and ineffectually] the Islamist militants take every opportunity to inflict acts of barbarism across Iraq and Syria. Even in retreat, they’ve taken over small villages, kidnapping Christians, and separating the men from woman and children.

No one can be certain of their fate, [unfortunately, I think we can….]  but if recent history is any indication, the men will be paraded out, tortured and murdered. And the Christian women and children will be sold as sex slaves. [Ah, the pleasures of jihad…..murder, barbarity, theft, rapine, and endless quenching of bloodlust.  Of course islam is the “religion of peace!”]

………“These women were sobbing, saying, ‘What is our fault? Why is the West silent? Why is the Church not talking about our persecution?” Taimoorazy said.

“And they’re asking, they’re questioning the foreign policy of America and also other world powers and Europe, saying, ‘Why is it that there’s nothing; there’s no agenda.’ There’s really nothing being done to help the persecuted in the Middle East,” she said.

Without starting a debate on how broke this country is or anything else, first and foremost, little is done to protect Christians because the West’s elites have absolutely no interest in doing so.  Their multi-culti sensibilities and latent (or openly avowed) disdain for Christianity (and especially the Church) mean they have no interest in protecting Christians terrorized by muslims.  The effort against ISIS – such as it is, and it isn’t much – is about geopolitics, not saving persecuted religious minorities.  We only do that for muslims, as we did in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya.

These Christians, monophysites or not, have my prayers, and a little bit of money, but that’s probably all they can expect from us at this point.

If we Christians want to be defended – and I mean that as much in this country as any around the world – we are going to have to do the defending ourselves.

On a side note, perhaps we’ll see the first Egyptian Coptic “doctor of the Church” soon?

Sorry, it was just hanging there, waiting for me to bat it out of the park.  But instead I hit a dribbler down the third base line, but the third baseman errored out and I got on base, anyway.

US insults, mortifies other nations by naming first global envoy for sodo-agenda February 27, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, damnable blasphemy, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, shocking, sickness, Society, the enemy, unadulterated evil.
21 comments

A large part of me would still like to be a rah-rah yay America we’re always on the side of good kind of guy.  But the America I would like to root for exists only in my memory now, and it may be a false memory, at that.  As for now……..while I still love my country, I am increasingly ashamed of it.  Especially when it openly uses its enormous wealth, influence, and naked power to advance all manner of the gravest immoralities possible, from abortion to contraception to usury to defrauding workmen wages to, now, the radical sodomite agenda.

Yes, the United States, under muslim communist god-emperor Barack Obama has announced its first international envoy for the promotion of the sodomite lifestyle, with open plans to advocate for sodomy in dozens of unwilling countries around the world (and with likely punishments to be meted out to those who resist).

The United States is naming its first international envoy for homosexual rights. This is a historic event, because no nation, even the United Nations, has ever appointed a homosexual ambassador for global homosexual rights.

Every single major news outlet in the U.S. is covering this historic event.

In a press release, the U.S. State Department said Randy Berry, an openly homosexual diplomat, will be its special envoy to promote homosexual rights. State Department Secretary John Kerry said, “We’re working to overturn laws that criminalize consensual same-sex conduct in countries around the world.” [The US is the new sodom.  I don’t think there can be any question.  From “shining city on a hill” to the filthy whore found dead in a gutter with a needle in her arm…….that’s us.]

The U.S. government’s concern is not only the more than 75 countries that criminalize homosexual activity, but also to target nations trying to resist the onslaught of homosexual groups from United States and Europe, especially because of several pro-family laws that have taken effect around the world in recent years. The Washington Post gave some examples, “Russian President Vladimir Putin signed legislation in 2013 banning ‘homosexual propaganda,’ and Nigeria banned same-sex marriage and restricted homosexual behavior, including public displays of affection between gays.”

Putin was named by The Advocate, the largest homosexual magazine in the U.S., as the most prominent opponent of the gay agenda. [Putin is no moral paragon, but on this at least, he is right]

……..The appointment of an openly homosexual diplomat as a LGBT envoy sends a message that the United States will remain on the forefront and leadership of promoting the gay agenda around the world. It shows also its determination of pushing back Russia, Nigeria and other nations.

Now the United States will make the world freer to adherents of homosexual acts and ideology and less free for Christians and others who do not accept homosexual depravity, including Russia and Nigeria that are trying to protect their children from homosexual propaganda.

Every single homosexual activist around the world is benefited by the U.S. move.

Every single practicing Christian is threatened by it…….

Thus, the view of a Brazilian evangelical, who a friend describes as “more Catholic than the bishops of that country.”  And I think it’s exactly right. It is heartbreaking to watch the country I have always loved sink rapidly into the morass of the worst possible evil.  Literally, this country has been turned upside down.  The communist-inspired left is culturally and (for the most part) politically ascendant in this nation.  How on earth did this country manage to win the Cold War but lose the peace?  I guess Catholic convert Whitaker Chambers was right to be depressed……..he thought he was on the losing side, too.

How many of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance is this government openly committed to supporting? Let’s see……sodomy, check.  Defraud workmen his wages – oh check check.  Murder?  Absolutely.  Oppressing the poor?  I think this would be a yes.

How long will God’s hand be stayed on a nation that is so openly defiant to His Law?  In point of fact…….His hand is already well in motion, and has been since this nation (at least in its governing elites) became a hideous purveyor of every moral evil possible.

 

She is the very model of the modern Catholic school product February 27, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, scandals, secularism, self-serving, shocking, sickness, Society.
12 comments

……..has no information animal but spouts gender the-o-ry.

I won’t spoil the surprise.  You have to watch and see for yourself – especially from 1:10 on – what are probably pretty close to the median views of the median graduate of the Catholic school system in North America today:

As Stacy McCain said, “You had me at pansexual.”

I swear I have seen this girl 100 times before, up close and in person.  It’s like they come out of a factory: the same shrill, smug superiority, the same aping of all the most trendy leftist shibboleths of the moment, the same superciliousness, even the same voice and the same appearance.  And always, always the stupid chants (a long time far-left tactic to prevent too much thought, and to prevent uncomfortable questions from being asked) and the omnipresent bullhorn.

As if you needed another reason to homeschool.

Catholic schools in Ontario for much of the 00’s taught a deeply disordered and highly perverse perversion indoctrination curriculum at the behest of the Ontario government.  It was briefly overturned (covered here), but is coming roaring back under the very liberal, very lesbian new premiere of Ontario.  The curriculum includes such disgusting topics as the below:

Did you know that Grade 8s will have to “demonstrate a full understanding” of terms like “two-spirited,” and the difference between “transsexual” and “transgendered”?

From “anal fluid” to the “nine genders,” it’s obvious that this curriculum is pushing a political agenda, not a scientific one.

And that’s really just the beginning.  There is a lot more below:

I’m sorry, I cannot see this as being anything but grooming and indoctrination, with a minimal goal of insuring all children grow up with a thorough acceptance of perversion as normal and fully equal in the eyes of God and everyone else to normal marital relations, and to turn as many young people as possible onto these “alternative lifestyles.”  And the best part is, YOU (in Canada) are paying for this.

Man have leftists managed to cobble together one heckuva of a social revolution machine, formed by them, administered by them, advertised in the media by them, and paid for………by you.

PS – I should have added, it seemed to me a lot of the group protesting this new sexual indoctrination curriculum were probably not Catholic. There were quite a few muslims and a good number of eastern Europeans (Russians?) in the mix.  Hard to tell, but I didn’t get the impression of a heavy Catholic presence with Rosaries, crucifixes, etc.

 

God’s Mercy is most evident in His Justice February 26, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Bible, catachesis, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Papa, persecution, scandals, secularism, SOD, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
3 comments

The Gospel for the First Monday of Lent in the Traditional Latin Mass is from Saint Matthew XXV:31-46, which is the parable of the sheep and the goats at the Last Judgment.  This parable in St. Matthew’s Gospel followed that of the servants given talents to dispose of while their master was on a journey.  Both parables make very clear that we shall be judged according to our use of the gifts God gives us and, fundamentally, on our love for each other.

Dom Prosper Gueranger has a brief exegesis on this Gospel and its relevance to Lent, wherein he touches on the subject that Our Lord, in the very act of exercising His Justice, is also exercising His Mercy, even if that true mercy is not the sentimentality and worldliness the worldlings would expect:

Our Lord there put forth every argument which love could devise, to persuade His lost sheep to return to Him; and here, on the very same day that the Church speaks to us of our God as being a gentle and compassionate Shepherd, she describes Him as an inflexible Judge. This loving Jesus, this charitable Physician of our souls, is seated on His dread tribunal, and cries out in His anger: Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire! (Matt XXV:41).  And where has the Church found this awful description? In the Gospel, that is, in the very Law of love. But if we read our passage attentively, we shall find that He who pronounces this terrible anathema is the same God, whom the prophet has been just portraying as a Shepherd full of mercy, patience, and zeal for His sheep.  Observe how He is still a Shepherd, even on His judgment seat: He separates the sheep from the goats; He sets the sheep on His right hand, and the goats on His left; the comparison of a flock is still kept up.  The Son of God will exercise His office of Shepherd even to the last day: only then, time will be at an end, and eternity will have begun; the reign of justice, too, will have succeeded the reign of mercy, for it is justice that will reward the good with the promised recompense, and that will punish impenitent sinners with eternal torments.  How can the Christian, who believes that we are all to stand before this tribunal, refuse the invitation of the Church, who now presses him to make satisfaction for his sins?  How can he hesitate to go through those easy penances, with which the Divine Mercy now deigns to be satisfied?  Truly, man is his own worst enemy, if he can disregard these words of Jesus, who now is his Savior, and then will be his Judge: “Unless ye do penance, ye shall all perish” (St. Luke XIII:3).

———-End Quote———

I found this to be the key bit: “The Son of God will exercise His office of Shepherd even to the last day……..the reign of justice, too, will have succeeded the reign of mercy, for it is justice that will reward the good with the promised recompense, and that will punish impenitent sinners with eternal torments.”

It is key, because it reveals that mercy can only be extended to the unrepentant by being unjust to the repentant.  That is to say, by extending blanket “mercy” (of a very worldly form) to those continuing unrepentant in grave sin, a grave injustice is being done to those have endured the great pain and difficulty of either eschewing, or repenting and, through Grace, overcoming, those sins.

Let alone the injury caused to God by just one sin, let alone heaping sacrilege upon sacrilege, sin upon sin, by admitting unrepentant souls guilty of grave, public sin to the Blessed Sacrament, this blind pursuit of pseudo-mercy (it won’t seem so merciful, I fear, at their judgment) is manifestly unjust to those who have always striven to observe the moral Doctrine of the Faith.

The parable of the prodigal son has been tossed around quite a bit lately, but almost every reference I have seen to it misses one incredibly key aspect, the aspect that defines the entire parable: the prodigal son was repentant!  Yes, he had sinned, but he repented, and was committed to sin no more.  So of course he received the Father’s mercy……but only AFTER he had repented, not before.  He did not say………”Father, I’ve blown my inheritance, after I declared you dead to me…….can’t I declare you double-dead and receive another chunk of inheritance, so I can fritter it away again?”  No, he said: “Father, I have sinned before you and before God. I am not worthy to be called your son.  Make me one of your servants…….”  But that repentance is inconvenient to the new sentiment masquerading as mercy, and so is forgotten.

Again, the point that must be stressed is that God is being merciful even in the execution of His Justice.  God is incapable of being unmerciful.  By sending the goats to the everlasting fire, he was giving them what they wanted, what they had spent their life pursuing – an existence without God.  He is being doubly merciful to the sheep, as they are brought to eternal bliss, yes, but also by preserving them from being scandalized at seeing the goats admitted to their presence without repentance.  In fact, you can parse this down to several other levels of mercy, but I’ll skip that for now.

God IS Mercy and God IS Love and God IS Justice……..and the 200o year development of the Doctrine of the Faith is the recognition and explication of that undeniable fact.  Anyone that cuts against that Doctrine, or undermines it, is striving to dismember God from Himself.

A fairly balanced assessment of the new Doctor of the Church February 26, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in disconcerting, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, huh?, Papa, pr stunts, religious, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church.
26 comments

I think  many were surprised when Pope Francis announced the 36th Doctor of the Church was not even a Catholic, but a member of the Armenian Orthodox Church.  I know Ann Barnhart has addressed this matter in her usual detached and understated way, but I thought Eliot Bougis’ coverage might be a bit more balanced.

What do we know of this Saint few in the Western Church had heard of before Sunday, Gregory of Narek (ca. 950-1005)?  Well, we know he was a stgregorymember of the Armenian Orthodox Church, which has oft been described as a Monophysite Church that failed to approve the Council of Chalcedon, rather like many Coptic churches.  However, the Armenians dispute this and claim to be Miaphysites, holding a nuanced position between that adopted at Chalcedon and the condemned heresy of Monophysitism. Both positions have to do with not the personage of Christ, but his nature.  Catholics believe Christ is both God and man with a divine and human nature, whereas monophysites hold that Christ may have been God and man but only had one (divine) nature.  Miaphysites occupy a position somewhat in between.  All of these discussions on the person, nature, and will of Christ can become very complex very fast and very small differences in language (including the effects of translation) can have a big impact.  If you want a strong opinion on Miaphysitism, read Barnhart’s piece.

With that background, some thoughts and questions from Mr. (Dr.?) Bougis, who doesn’t reject the elevation on the grounds of heresy, but does wonder how this can be reconciled with many troubling factors:

The AOC, the body to which Gregory belonged, has formally and persistently rejected the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, was not in communion with Rome during Gregory’s life, and highly venerates Gregory, who was (as Ann Barnhardt strongly emphasizes) a miaphysite. “The main difference,” notes the just cited AOC website, “between the Byzantine tradition, also known as Chalcedonian churches and the Armenian Church, (together with other non-Chalcedonian churches) has been on the issue of Christology, i.e., the dogma related to Christ’s Divine and Human natures.”……

……..So, a saint venerated in a fellowship that has for centuries rejected Chalcedon–a council universally binding on the Catholic Church–is considered a Doctor of the Catholic Church. Are there any other councils that one might reject while still enjoying exemplary ecclesial status–say, Trent or Vatican II[Great points. Traditionally, rejection of an ecumenical Council, especially one of the famous first four, was seen as admission of heresy and status as excommunicate.  But we all know all the old rules have been thrown out and we’re just sort of making things up as we go along]

Does this elevation not also canonize Gregory? How could it not? If he is but a provincially revered saint in an ancient but schismatic Christian communion, how can he be considered a universal Doctor? Are there any other Doctors of the Church who are not also celebrated in her liturgy as saints?* Are there any other Doctors who belonged to schismatic bodies? [Uh…….no]

………Am I the only one who thinks this cause, which had been underway for some time, was executed with such celerity in order to throw a grim but timely light on one of Pope Francis’s favorite themes, “the ecumenism of blood”? As he most recently put it: “Be they Catholic, Orthodox, Copts, Lutherans, it doesn’t matter: They’re Christian! The blood is the same: It is the blood which confesses Christ”. [I had not seen this quote before.  This is one of the most clearly problematic statements I’ve seen from Pope Francis, and seems very difficult to comprehend as other than representing a distressing indifference]

* [I’ve since learned that Gregory is in fact in the Church’s most recent martyrology, but not in the earlier edition, and is mentioned as a saint in the CCC, so this just confirms my instinct to see something beautiful here, regardless of how it might be spun for this or that ideological fetish. {Further research leaves me uncertain once more. Did Rome recognize Gregory of Narek’s sanctity as recently and suddenly as 2001/2005? What’s going on here?}]

Personally, I find this elevation at the least quite imprudent, and at worst, gravely scandalous.  This is sort of “ecumenism” by default – sure, we don’t safe_imagebelieve the same things, but we’ll just paper over the differences and pretend we do!  Then, we’ll elevate each other’s holy people to “saints!”

You know I’m a former episcopalian.  The Anglican Church has its own calendar of “saints,” and quite a calendar it is!  It includes such notable non-Anglicans as Martin Luther King and Ghandi (among many, many others, including a number of post-Reformation Catholics!). Over time, it has become an increasingly worldly list, with an always leftist drift.  Is that what we can look forward to in the steady episcopalianizing of the Catholic Church?  Will we have Saint Cesar Chavez and Saint Barack Obama one day?  How about a “Saint Mohammad?”

I know the ecumenical dimension probably was dominant in this act, but I cannot help but think an almost equally important aspect was the sowing of enormous confusion.  Can we not even trust Doctors of the Church anymore?  And is the standard not getting watered down quite a bit?  For over 1500 years, there were always recognized 8 Doctors, four Latin and four Greek.  Two more, Aquinas and Bonaventure, were added in the 16th century. Since that time, and especially since 1925, the title has proliferated and now it seems every Pope must name at least one (if not several) Doctors.  Certainly I download (3)have no problem with the likes of Teresa of Avila or Robert Bellarmine being accorded such an honor, but I do think the rapid proliferation of the awarding of this distinction is tending to water down its import.  It took 1900 years to recognize 23 Doctors, whereas 13 have been recognized in less than 100 years.  I note the only modern popes (since Pius VII) NOT to name a Doctor of the Church have been Gregory XVI and Saint Pius X – both incredibly holy men not much given to hubris.

Maybe I’m getting too crotchety.  I don’t know, what’s not to like about another Doctor of the Church?  Why do I always have to complain?  It just seems a bit too cute, a bit too……worldly?

What’s funny, is that just four years ago I read a book The Thirty Three Doctors of the Church.  Just in a few years, that book has become quite out of date.

 

Obama Administration demands Catholic charities provide abortion for immigrant children February 26, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, Immigration, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
7 comments

I am sorry to say, before getting into the latest act of barbarity enacted by Obama against the Church (and believing Christians generally – and compare this to his approach to muslims, with the kid gloves on ISIS and constant apologias and “fabric of the country” and all that – I still cannot believe that most mainstream conservative commentators view calling Obama a marxist muslim Manchurian candidate out of bounds), I should say this: do we not know how this will play out?  Even with public demonstrations of opposition and most likely court challenges, do we not know that Amchurch, and especially the charitable organizations associated with the USCCB, already cooperate with the federal agenda of evangelizing for the sexular pagan religion and already cooperate with abortion providers and distributors of contraception (including abortifacients) on a wide basis?  Is that not what the continual scandals coming out of Catholic Relief Services tell us?  Even more, have not CRS and other organs basically said they have to cooperate with the sexular pagan agenda (in the form of these wicked collaborating organizations) in order to maintain that oh-so-wonderful federal funding?

Maybe I’m getting jaded, but while I’m sure the USCCB and other Church authorities and others pray hope the courts may provide some relief, if push comes to shove, I am pretty skeptical that Catholic organs will stand on sacred Doctrine and take the admittedly huge hit of losing federal funding should it actually come to that.  I think Obama knows this, which is why he continues to press and press and press.

Anyway, the report:

The Obama administration is getting ready to issue new rules requiring charities to provide abortions to child refugees entering the US without their parents. Faith-based groups say this is a contravention of the rights of parents and a violation of the conscience rights of faith-based groups helping resettle the children.

The public has until Monday to comment on the fast-tracked new rules, which were issued on Christmas Eve.  [Obama is fast-tracking everything in his bid to “fundamentally transform” this nation into a muslim communist kleptocracy] The administration says it would be “contrary to the public interest” to wait “until a public notice and comment process is complete.” [Meaning, contrary to his political interest] The administration also asserts that no Congressional review is required and that there is no issue with federalism or any impact on families in the new guidance.

The rules require faith-based providers to make referrals for emergency contraception, partner with groups which provide abortion, or notify the federal government which would make arrangements for the abortion. If groups do not do so, they are not eligible for federal aid. Staff associated with Catholic agencies told the Friday Fax that they had conveyed their objection to the new rules to the Obama administration. They are required to comply no later than June 24, 2015.

[And that’s not all!…..] The rules also require care provider facilities to train their staff in “LGBTQI” and identifying “transgender and intersex” unaccompanied children. The rules assert that “‘Gender’ refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex,” and that “This term is not to be confused with ‘sex’ [which] refers to a person’s biological status and is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex.” [And, if that “transgender” 10 year old demands hormone treatment, under rules approved by the Obama administration recently, the aid agency would be required to provide those, too. This is beyond incredible, and, with abortion on demand for underage youth and even gender mutilation being provided gratis per the American taxpayer (my God this Obama hates this country with white hot passion), what enormous new avenues will be available to the child sex trade!  Not only will the Obama administration make it incredibly easy to sneak children into this country and allow them to stay permanently, but with no parental involvement slave traders can get them abortions when pregnant, get boys turned into more lucrative girls, etc.  Has anyone even remotely thought of the potential for the gravest evils in all this?  Or is that bug actually a feature?  How many times has Bill Clinton been to “pedophile island?”]

I hate this sick world more and more and more.  I’m sure the USCCB will go to court, and may even win.  But if they somehow don’t…….don’t you imagine a papered over face saving non-change “change” and then continuation with business as usual?

Scandal!? Vatican official intercepted orthodox book at 2014 Synod? February 26, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

The report below is getting wide coverage.  Something may come along to refute or cast doubt on it, but, then again, we have seen apologias for pretty much iron-clad events for the past two  years solid.

The book Remaining in the Faith of Christ, an anthology of contributions from relatively orthodox sources such as Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Muller, and others, which was intended to be distributed to all Synod members this past October, was apparently intercepted by Pope Francis’ hand-picked Synod administrator, Cardinal Baldisseri, who asserted that the book would “interfere” with the conduct of the Synod.

The source for the below is the generally reliable Edward Pentin.  If true, this is utterly amazing, and rather puts the lie both to the talk of “mercy” we’ve been hearing as well as the calls for “open and honest” discussion.  Apparently, “open” discussion can only be had from one side:

A Vatican department allegedly intercepted over a hundred copies of a new book written by five cardinals to prevent it being read by the majority of participants of a synod last October called by Pope Francis.

“Remaining in the Truth of Christ,” a commercially successful book reaffirming Catholic teaching on marriage and the family, was mailed to all the synod fathers in the Paul VI Hall, where the meeting was taking place.

Reliable and high level sources allege the head of secretariat of the synod of bishops, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, ordered they be intercepted because they would “interfere with the synod.”
A source told me that Baldisseri was “furious” the book had been mailed to the participants and ordered staff at the Vatican post office to ensure they did not reach the Paul VI Hall.

Those responsible for mailing the books meticulously tried to avoid interception, ensuring the copies were sent through the proper channels within the Italian and Vatican postal systems. The synod secretariat nevertheless claims they were mailed “irregularly,” without going through the Vatican post office, and so had a right to intercept them.

The book’s mailers strongly refute this, saying they were legitimately mailed. Some copies were successfully delivered…….
…….Sources say it’s not clear where the intercepted copies of the book ended up, but believe they may have been destroyed. Asked in December about the claims, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said he “knew nothing” about the allegations and said the sources did not seem to him to be “serious and objective.”

Since then the allegations have become more widely known and have been corroborated at the highest levels of the church.

My goodness.  We’ve learned a fair amount of Cardinal Baldisseri, of late, including his arguments with groups defending the family that they need to get with the modernist program.

Is this not stunningly similar to the “lost votes” scandal of Vatican II, when a progressive apparatchik deliberately misplaced the requests of many more orthodox council fathers regarding concerns over the document that became Dignitatis Humanae?  Several hundred interventions were made, but then claimed to be lost, later found, after the deadline for submittal had expired?  Am I remembering that right?

Is this not the kind of thing that occurs more when you have a predetermined outcome you’re trying to arrive at, rather than during “open and honest” discussion?  And is it not strongly indicative that maybe many Synod members, even, are not terribly well formed in the Faith, that this book would be considered dangerous enough to block?

Amazing. Just amazing.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 500 other followers