Francis: “Obstinate Christians are rebels and idolators” April 25, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, different religion, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
And what makes you obstinate? Apparently, adhering to the constant belief and practice of the Faith. Put more harshly, but I think it can be fairly argued, more honestly: opposing Francis’ program to radically remake the Church is, to his mind, being sinful. But whom, precisely, is being idolatrous here? Those who cling to the very Word of Jesus Christ about something like marriage, wherein He plainly declared that having more than one living spouse at the same time (“divorce” or no) was adultery, or the new doctrine of Francis?
How similar is this “new wine” we’re being sold to the vinegar of a Robert Tilton?
The Pope’s words: “Christians who obstinately maintain ‘it’s always been done this way,’ this is the path, this is the street—they sin: the sin of divination. It’s as if they went about by guessing: ‘What has been said and what doesn’t change is what’s important; what I hear—from myself and my closed heart—more than the Word of the Lord.’ Obstinacy is also the sin of idolatry: the Christian who is obstinate sins! The sin of idolatry. ‘And what is the way, Father?’ Open the heart to the Holy Spirit, discern what is the will of God….This is the message the Church gives us today. This is what Jesus says so forcefully: ‘New wine in new wineskins.’ Habits must be renewed in the newness of the Spirit, in the surprises of God…” READ REPORT HERE
Note the language: this is what “the Church” gives us. That’s a slick bit of sleight of hand.
Note also the stark dichotomy: adhering to the constant Magisterial belief of the Church is false divination, but going around”discerning the Spirit” willy-nilly is not. How the Spirit is to be discerned from the false spirit of the world, and the wiles of satan, absent the guidance of the Doctrine of the Faith, is not mentioned, obviously, because it would obliterate the argument. One might be tempted to keep in mind the dictum that leftists always project, as in project their own psychoses, faults, and biases, onto others, especially their perceived enemies.
And once again we see Francis seemingly pitting the Holy Ghost against Himself. On its face – and let’s be truthful, this is far from the first time – he is either proclaiming that God can radically change His mind and contradict Himself – in which case He would no longer be God – or He is setting forth a dangerous new, deconstructive (but thoroughly modernist) approach to Doctrine and its definition, which posits that there basically have been no dogmatic definitions (this would be similar to the arguments of the atrocious American theologian Dr. Rick Gaillardetz (that’s just one post – search his name and find three dozen more)), so popes can simply make things up as they go along. Either will have the effect of spreading mass confusion, scandal, and defections from the Faith. This kind of stuff is the most powerful corrosive imaginable with regard to the doctrinal integrity of the Church.
The only real question that remains in my mind is, feature or bug? Not that it matters, the effect is the same.
I questioned whether to post this or not, as I am trying to avoid pounding on Francis when formal teaching is not in play, but this was so clear, so revealing, and so egregious, I thought it merited posting. It is revealing in what it says about his intent, and how he views the Doctrine of the Faith. I don’t mean to be repetitive, nor stir up scandal. I know many of us have been forced to draw difficult and uncomfortable conclusions. While I try to keep my head down regarding this pontificate as much as possible (to the extent that I read virtually zero Catholic blogs anymore), I can’t just bury my head in the sand ever deeper as this pontificate reveals itself more and more. Some things need to be examined. This is one of them.
One of the infinite number of tragedies surrounding Francis is his Trump-like tendency to cause even very small divisions in belief to stand out like mountainous divides. People of good will fall on different sides of whether, and to what extent, to point out the rank novelties and grave dangers emanating from Rome since March 2013. It’s been painful for me to endure some splits with folks over the things I say and write. I’ve got to do what I feel called to do. That’s about all I can say on that.
A bit of juxtaposition. For the second time in three years, the city government of Oklahoma City, OK – a city long dominated by a narrow cohort of white evangelical protestants – is going to permit the ultimate blasphemy against the universal Church, a black mass, on city property. OKC’s mayor, council members, and staff steadfastly maintain this is simply a First Amendment matter, that since satanists have “free speech” under our Constitution and Supreme Court rulings to blaspheme God, the city simply has no choice but to rent city property to these satanists allowing them to do so. To block them, they said, would be to invite a lawsuit OKC would lose with 100% certainty.
Meanwhile, 200 miles to the south, the City of Dallas has blocked a repeat performance of the diabolically lewd “Exxxotica Expo” at the Dallas Convention Center. Amazingly, when the producers of the Expo sued on First Amendment grounds, the City of Dallas won, at least at the district court level (no word yet on whether the Expo producers plan to appeal), but I have it on good authority the judge’s decision was worded in such a way that makes appeal quite difficult.
I would note in passing that Dallas proper is probably close to 50% nominal Catholic, with perhaps 10% actually practicing the Faith to some dimly recognizable degree. OKC’s Catholic population is far lower, less than 10% in general terms and probably in low single digits when it comes to faithful practice. However, to describe Dallas as a Catholic city would be ludicrous. Dallas has its own white protestant cohort who tend to run things their own way, even as the city has become increasingly Hispanic and Catholic.
So, on the one hand, we have a city that has permitted (and, by happily renting city property, I would say encouraged) direct assaults on the Catholic Faith and the commission of the gravest, most offensive blasphemy imaginable (and not only that, but acts constantly associated with depravity of a criminal degree in the past); and on the other you have one that was not only willing to go to court to prevent a much lower level of evil (sins directly against God in His majesty being the gravest possible), they proceeded to win.
I had no idea there was a second black mass planned in Oklahoma City, and already approved by the City, for the Feast of the Assumption August 15 2016, until about an hour ago. Even before learning this blood-boiling fact, I had already decided that Oklahoma City was, at least in its elected leadership and bureaucracy, a virulently, despicably anti-Catholic town. This latest revelation only further confirms that fact, just as it confirms that the arguments I heard all last year from OKC officials in my extensive correspondence with them in the run up to the desecration of Our Lady were as false as they were self-serving. Individuals claim First Amendment protections all the time, for all manner of nefarious activities. Cities and other government bodies, for myriad reasons, choose to oppose those claims, legally, for numerous reasons. Those bodies tend to win about as many First Amendment-related lawsuits as they win. The idea that because someone said “religious freedom” meant the city had to positively cooperate in the commission of grave moral evil was always tenuous, at best. Recent events in Dallas have proven it is verifiably false.
Which gets me to the conclusion I have been forced to reach: OKC would only roll over for these satanists, again and again, and even positively cooperate with their atrocities, out of reasons of bias, bias against Catholics. Now one could argue that bias stems from mundane worldly motives (such as, there not being many politically involved Catholics in the area, Catholics not representing a big enough voting bloc to act in favor of), but those are unlikely. City elections frequently draw only a few thousand voters and aggravating even several hundred could have a huge impact on an election. Since it is obvious even in this day and age that Catholics far outnumber satanists, even in OKC, it seems odd that a city councilman or mayor would not go to bat in favor of even 1-2% or so of their constituents. They routinely act on behalf of far, far fewer than that.
I’ll add to that reasoning my personal experience. If you know where I live and where my farm is (and all my family from), you will realize I’ve been through Oklahoma City scores of times. At least 50. We used to stop there all the time. Since I’ve become a more convicted Catholic, I’ve had some interaction with the local populace. Bear in mind, this is the city that likes to pride itself as being the brass clasp on the buckle of the Bible belt. It is evangelical central, and often aggressively so. I’ve had some encounters with the locals on religious matters, a few of them quite nasty. I’ve never felt much warmth of Christian brotherhood form the locals.
So, yeah, it’s not a lock solid proof, but I’m personally convinced the reason OKC is allowing all this to happen without even lifting a finger of opposition, nor showing even the slightest solidarity (by, say, participating in some of the protests or things to that effect) with Catholics is due to a widespread and quite deep anti-Catholic bias. We’re also safe targets, unlike muslims or even Jews. The former might kill you, while the media would go nuts should somebody draw a swastika on a synagogue.
Therefore, I’m boycotting OKC. In fact, I’m boycotting everything from Paul’s Valley to Guthrie. I’ll never stop there again. I might try to avoid stopping in the entire state when I’m passing through. It’s easy enough for me to do.
Another response: sign the TFP petition. Over 100,000 sigs so far, TFP are gunning for 200,000 and I bet they make it. Apparently even 100,000 people scandalized and broken-hearted by this horrid blasphemy aren’t enough to move the rock-hard hearts of the Oklahoma City leadership. That’s some pretty intense anti-Catholicism right there. Rather what one would expect from people who made the likes of Robert Tilton and Oral Roberts filthy rich:
No different from Kenneth Copeland, whom Francis has received and feted several times. Francis finds this kind of devilish, money-loving chicanery just fine, but traditional Catholics, well, they’re the real sinners.
Amoris Laetitia is a direct attack on the heart of the Faith April 22, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, Domestic Church, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
So says longtime reader and now blogger docmx001 below. I am forced to agree. But doc goes further, noting what propels this attack: a near-total diabolical disorientation among the top leadership of the Church, the horrific errors of which cause them to look on marriage not as a tremendous gift and blessing, but as an empty drudge to be fought through for a few years before moving on to the next one, equally pointless attempt.
It’s a perfect encapsulation of the nihilist existentialism of the left which has infected so much of the Church, especially the clergy and episcopate, and it’s a very, very bad sign for the future (my emphasis and comments):
Traditional marriage (the only kind of marriage that exists, BTW) is being trashed in a way that has that element of diabolical inversion that I speak of frequently. I see it happening on two levels here.
First, marriage is dragged down to the pit by those who want to see irregular unions normalized. And I haven’t even touched on the same-sex nonsense that is promulgated in here. [That would be, Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia]For now, I’m just talking about second “marriages”. We are told of the “grace” they contain. We are told of the “worse sin” of renouncing the union, or even, perish the thought, remaining in the union but with perfect chastity. [Which union, however, would remain disordered if conducted in a “live together” situation, due to the constant temptation such proximity would represent]
Second, while at the same time dragging down traditional marriage, they also hold it up as a nearly impossible to achieve ideal, and it’s done in a way that insults the sacrament at the same time. In calling marriage a “lifelong burden” (AL36), the mask comes off, and we see plainly that the authors are completely lost. They are trying to blame-shift the sin of Adultery onto the sacrament of Marriage itself. The sacrament is culpable, the sinner is not. Unbelievable. [One of the most penetrating comments I’ve read on this whole sorry mess. That is exactly true, it is the Sacrament – and by connection, God – that is being blamed for the difficulty here, in expecting “too much” from people, even though millions of souls have for 2000 years managed to live perfectly in accord with those expectations (while admitting that many have struggled at times, too)]
Another axiom from Chesterton comes to mind: “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”
Stay with me, because this is KEY to understanding what is really going on here, and just how much poo poo we are in. The people who wrote this garbage are so far gone, so mired in sin, so far removed from living the gospel, so far removed from even TRYING to live the gospel, that they truly think it isn’t possible. It’s just too darn difficult, so we need to slather it with “mercy” and change God’s will. [I think that’s certainly a huge part of it. But I increasingly wonder just how innocent of motive some of these men are, and how many are deliberately attacking what they know – or should know, or strongly suspect – to be the Truth due to their fealty to a different, competing “truth” – the religion of sexular leftism. Having said that, I have no doubt that many of these leaders who are seeking to remake the Church into an indifferentist, worldly religion are doing so because they are mired in grave sin themselves, and simply cannot imagine giving that sin up. We all have a tendency to project our own faults and limitations onto others, but it’s a veritable immutable characteristic of the “progressive,” where entire world-views are constructed around personal sin and the desire to pretend it isn’t. Thus, transgender bathrooms and pseudo-sodo-marriage.]
You think I’m judging? Then try to come up with another explanation for what’s going on here. I mean, if the beautiful concept of remaining faithfully married for a lifetime is soooo hard, that it’s only an “Ideal” that is nearly impossible to achieve, just think what other wretched filth has blackened the souls of these men.
Indeed. Once one leaps into the abyss, there is no end to the darkness. Whether intentional or not – and I am dubious as to the latter – Amoris Laetitia represents a shocking, unprecedented assault on the Faith from the man most charged to protect and uphold it. It is almost unbelievable that a pope would write such things, but there it is, for all the world to see.
Docmx001 follows the above with some perceptive comments about the experience many of us have had in leaving sin behind, and how vital openness to the Truth was in whatever degree of progress we’ve managed to make in undoing much self-inflicted harm. But there are those so lost in sin, so attached to the world and its master, that it is impossible, absent a miracle of Grace, for them to even envision that it might be possible to live another way. I know at one time – thank God it was brief – I had pretty much concluded I would die in active addiction, that there was no way I could ever get clean.
When I did finally make a real break with drugs and alcohol, the amazing thing was, I wasn’t even particularly motivated to get clean. It’s not something I did, it was something that happened to me. It was Grace. Grace that stemmed from the prayers of many good people, and, I’m especially convinced, my deceased mother-in-law.
So we do have a duty to pray for these men, no matter what evil they visit upon themselves and millions of others, that Grace may convert a Schoenborn, Rodriguez-Maradiaga, Tagle, or, yes, Bergoglio from their wretched ways and bring them to the Light of Jesus Christ. I know it’s very hard to work up much charity for these men, seeing the destruction they so intentionally wreak, but I do pray for all of them and many others every day. I pray the great saintly bishops and popes of the past will, through their intercession, work a miracle of conversion that results in our poor excuses for leaders today emulating the great Saints of the past. I feel it a duty in charity, and the best recourse available to change such hardened hearts.
But one does, normally, have to have a glimmer of faith, a smidgen of belief, for this to work. Even when lost in drugs, I knew Jesus Christ was God and that I was doing wrong. With these men, it’s hard to see any openness to Grace, and God will, generally, not force himself on the totally unwilling. God does, however, in rare cases, work conversion based not on the faith of the recipient, but on the faith of those praying for them. Thus, we should never abandon all hope for these souls, even while we are dismayed and scandalized by them on an almost daily basis.
Check out Doc’s blog. It’s a good one.
Quick Hits – Boycott Target, Perverts for Equality, the Millenial Divorce Paradox
Cleaning out the inbox, a few quick hits for this Thursday arvonoon. First up, Target has decided to let mentally unstable men into women’s rest rooms at all of their stores. Time for a boycott:
The American Family Association is calling for a boycott of Target after the retail giant said it would allow men to use the women’s restrooms and dressing rooms in their stores.
On its web site this week, Target announced, “[W]e welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity. …Everyone deserves to feel like they belong.”
This means a man can simply say he “feels like a woman today” and enter the women’s restroom…even if young girls or women are already in there. [This has occurred far too many times already]
Target’s policy is exactly how sexual predators get access to their victims. And with Target publicly boasting that men can enter women’s bathrooms, where do you think predators are going to go?
Clearly, Target’s dangerous new policy poses a danger to wives and daughters. We think many customers will agree. And we think the average Target customer is willing to pledge to boycott Target stores until it makes protecting women and children a priority. Target should keep separate facilities for men and women, but for the trans community and for those who simply like using the bathroom alone, a single occupancy unisex bathroom option should be provided. [Why? This is precisely the problem. The longer we continue to reinforce these people’s grave mental problems and call them not just acceptable, but perfectly normal, the longer they will remain mired in a misery that will claim 30-40% of their lives through suicide, STD, or drug overdose. This is not charity, it is the cowardice masquerading as thoughtful concern.]
Sign the pledge to boycott Target now! Target should not allow men to enter the women’s restrooms and dressing rooms.
After you sign the pledge, contact Target and let them know you’ve signed the Pledge. Call Target Guest Relations at 1-800-440-0680.
Next up, it seems one of the major figures pushing for dramatically increasing the risk of rape of women and children through his opposition to North Carolina’s sensible public restroom policy is himself a convicted boy rapist:
In late 2015, the Washington State Human Rights Commission quietly put forward a new rule requiring all public establishments to grant locker room, shower, and bathroom access to any individual, at any time, regardless of that individual’s biological realities.
The rule, which also curbed concerned citizens’ legal ability to ask “unwelcome questions” of an individual if they felt uncomfortable, has since been attempted in various forms and fashions in cities and states across the country.
When the Charlotte, N.C. City Council passed their version of the open-facilities ordinance earlier this year, the Charlotte LGBT Chamber of Commerce led the charge to make it happen.
And leading the Charlotte LGBT Chamber of Commerce was convicted sex offender Chad Sevearance-Turner.
The Spartanburg Herald-Journal reported that Chad Sevearance-Turner had been a youth minister at a church in Gaffney, South Carolina. Sevearance-Turner was charged and convicted for “committing or attempting a lewd act upon a child under 16,” after taking advantage of a teenage church member while the child slept. [That’s what we’ve devolved to in this country – a moral climate where the perverse and sick dictate to the rest what is acceptable, and who are given the power by government to punish those who resist. Satan, and Vladimir Lenin, couldn’t be prouder.]
He recently resigned from the LGBT Chamber of Commerce after his record as a sex-offender surfaced.
Meanwhile, it seems millenials think divorce is bad, even though they are marrying less than any generation in American history. Pundits can comprehend the dichotomy, but it’s very clear to me:
Respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement that “Divorce is usually the best solution when a couple can’t seem to work out their marriage problems.” In 2002, about half of Americans disagreed. Within a decade, the share had risen to more than 60 percent. In the most recent data, younger Americans — a cohort with the lowest marriage rates on record, mind you — were especially likely to perceive divorce as an unacceptable response to marital strain.
Several hypotheses were floated to try to explain the seeming dichotomy between millenials “famous” liberalism, their low marriage rates, and their disdain for divorce.
It’s no mystery to me, and it has little to do with liberalism. Millenials are children of rampant divorce. That drives them to have a whole host of psychoses, ranging from fear of commitment (low marriage rates) to a tendency to low-rent promiscuity. But it also probably makes them find divorce abhorrent, as they have suffered its effects. That doesn’t mean they won’t divorce with abandon themselves, once they finally start getting married, if ever. Children raised in broken homes are far more likely to have unstable marriages and later divorce, for a whole host of reasons.
But hypothetically speaking, they know the devastation divorce causes children (i.e., themselves), and they have seen that many of the reasons adults offer to children to justify their divorce are hollow and self-serving. They rightly feel that there is really no justification for divorce in most cases. Too bad they are likely too emotionally scarred to have the wherewithal to put their generic belief into specific practice.
If you’ve been following the ongoing (and increasingly unhinged) leftist campaign against the state of North Carolina for having the audacity to say that men pretending to be women cannot legally use women’s restrooms, you know the SJWs (social justice warriors) have been displaying all their core characteristics to the max. Thus we have seen leftist agitators, many of them self-proclaimed feminists, jettisoning all their previous concern about protecting women from male depredation (all the while encouraging women to behave in ways that opened them up to same) and now demanding that all restrooms in the world be opened up to a tiny percentage of dreadfully mentally-ill individuals who believe they are somehow the “wrong sex.”
Since the vast majority of these trannies are males pretending to be female (and no matter how much you cut off or have added on, BOYS, you’ll never be rid of that pesky Y chromosome), what this effort has meant, in practice, is opening up women’s restrooms to mentally ill and/or predatory men. Not a very good combination. Of course, there have already been scores of incidents from around the country where this lunacy has already been enacted in law, of obviously predatory men assaulting women and even young girls in their most vulnerable moments, with the assaults ranging from actual rape to “mere” intimidation, groping, self-abuse, indecent exposure, illegal photography, etc.
Such is the insanity of our times, however, that when a state tries to protect 50+% of its citizenry from such a grave threat, the effort is labeled as being motivated by nothing but hate for transgenders – who make up perhaps 0.05 – 0.10% of the population (a few hundred thousand, at most) – and has become the latest poster child of the endless war by the sexually deranged left against everyone else.
All the more sickening, however, has been the key role corporations have played in the attempt to have this legislation overturned. Corporate pressure was the principle reason for the dramatic watering-down of similar legislation in Georgia, it might still work in North Carolina, though I am proud to see how much tar is still in those heels. To top it all is the stinking hypocrisy of these corporations, many of whom happily do business with the most thuggish, repressive regimes in the world, but who now publicly chastise and attempt to punish fellow Americans for holding beliefs different from their own (which beliefs just happened to have been shared by almost all those now doing the persecuting themselves as recently as a year or so ago):
Whether it’s Apple opening stores in Saudi Arabia or American Airlines looking to dominate the Cuban travel market, many of the companies that have threatened to cut business ties to North Carolina over its bathroom bill are eager to do business in countries with regimes far more repressive of gays (and everyone else).
PayPal’s international headquarters are located in Singapore, where sexual contact between males is punishable by up to two years in prison, and even littering can be punished by flogging. The company has a software development center in Chennai, India, where same-sex marriage is prohibited.
Matt Sharp, legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said PayPal’s actions internationally speak louder than its words at home.
“They’ve got a political agenda that they’re trying to push in the U.S. But it definitely does not line up with what their actions are saying around the world in places like Malaysia and others,” Mr. Sharp said. [Why do corporations push an overwhelmingly leftist agenda? Because personnel is policy, and most corporations are staffed, to a nearly uniform degree, by highly trained but unthinking monkeys from the same far-left universities. The left managed to co-opt corporations during the 80s and 90s through the politically correct effort, and it is now paying huge dividends. Virtually all elites, be they corporate, academic, or government, adhere to the same left-wing social views. The only difference is that some of them want lower taxes than others, and so call themselves Republicans]
Apple is among the other major corporations that have taken to the pulpit to lecture North Carolina for its sins despite doing business with anti-gay foreign regimes. CEO Tim Cook was one of several high-profile tech CEOs who signed a letter to Republican Gov. Pat McCrory calling on him to repeal the legislation……..
…….But, as Mr. Sharp points out, that has not stopped Apple from opening stores in Saudi Arabia, where gay people are regularly executed in public and cross-dressing is also a criminal offense. Pro-gay and trans advocacy are illegal, as is every religion except Islam.
……..Corporate America is only as tolerant as it can afford to be without losing money. All this talk about “corporate values” is blather. If those “values” interfere with the company making money, the company will drop them.
Perhaps there is a lesson there for us few left who retain some degree of sanity. I know it gets exhausting to boycott this company or that because they are involved in immoral activities, if we boycotted every organization that is involved in some immoral activity we’d have to live in a cave, but there are leaders who can be chosen to make an example of, by refusing to do business with them because of their strident support for immorality. Like Apple.
But then, I haven’t been an Apple guy for a long time. I outgrew that after college. Not that Google is any better. I do sicken of Apple’s constant, reflexive, and hypocritical leftist agitating, however.
I pray to God people, especially women, could learn the object lesson of this latest shift in the great aggrieved class pyramid. 170 million odd American women have been demoted on this pyramid yet again, replaced on a higher step by 200,000 men who pretend to be women. Virtually every aggrieved gets demoted by the latest preferred group from time to time. And yet women, as a group, continue to lean left and endorse much of this cultural suicide pact called leftism. Present company excepted, of course.
The point being, it’s a fools game, and the benefits you think you are getting from being near the top today may not only evaporate tomorrow, but you may well be hoisted on your own social justice petard.
Well, eventually all this will come to an end, once islam overruns the remains of the comatose West. That is, barring some radical and completely unforeseeable change of heart.
Enjoy your time in the Camp of the Saints while it lasts.
Francis, asked about “new concrete possibilities” for Church Doctrine, answers “Yes. Period.” April 18, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, disaster, episcopate, Francis, horror, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
Hilary White has gone apoplectic over this, and I can see why. Francis was directly asked a very specific question by American Church-insider blogger Francis Rocca regarding change to what Rocca calls the “discipline” (it’s not mere discipline, it’s solemn Doctrine, but we can see how the constant apologists will be framing this matter, redefining Doctrine down to discipline) in the matters of morality touched on by Amoris Laetitia, and especially as it relates to those persisting in adulterous “unions.” The answer was very clear and to the point, but I’ll let you decide for yourself:
Today on the plane press conference on the way back to Rome from Greece, Pope Francis was asked a very direct question about the exhortation*:
Some maintain that nothing has changed with respect to the discipline that governs the access to the Sacraments for the divorced and remarried, and that the law and the pastoral practice and obviously the doctrine remains the same; others maintain instead that much has changed and that there are many new openings and possibilities. The question is for one person, a Catholic, that wants to know: Are there new concrete possibilities, that did not exist before the publication of the Exhortation or not.
His answer, though it went on longer, contained a straightforward affirmation:
“I can say yes.” (“Posso dire di sì“)
And that “yes” was immediately followed with a “punto,” meaning “period.” As in yes, period, or yes, damnit, I’m the Bishop of Rome, and I can do whatever I want.
Intent is the key to everything in the moral sphere. Asked directly if he intended to change Church “discipline” – and again, this is not a matter of discipline, but touches on a command straight from Our Blessed Lord’s own mouth – Francis did not equivocate. “New concrete possibilities” has been, for 50 years now, post-conciliar Church-speak for radical change. You can draw your own conclusions.
Now I kind of doubt Francis or the Vatican will issue clear commands to admit manifest adulterers to the Blessed Sacrament. He and his allies may be that bold, but I imagine they’ll just let events play out as they know they will – it will be the national conferences that will issue “guidelines” demanding/recommending/permitting the divorced and remarried (without annulments) to the Blessed Sacrament. Very soon this “permission” will become de rigeuer, and essentially mandatory, like Communion in the hand, god-awful protestant hymns, and barring Latin from the Mass. And I strongly doubt it will stop there. It is an open question whether the Ecclesia Dei communities will long be permitted to refuse such “service” to demanding customers.
It’s late and I’ve got to go, but I wonder if this rare moment of candor will finally convince some folks that the occasional orthodox bones they are thrown do not represent the “real” Francis of their surely well-meaning longings? I tend to doubt it, very little seems able to penetrate the bastions of the papologists, but it might move a few. Not that I rejoice in that. This whole business is as sorry as it is sad.
PS – This has been reported and translated by many and this is not a translation issue.
A few more thoughts on Amoris Laetitia April 15, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, shocking, Society, the struggle for the Church.
A rare late Friday afternoon blog post for you. I haven’t thought this post through very well, I only have a few minutes……we’ll see what emerges.
I saw some commentary on the post to the effect that we shouldn’t panic, the Church still stands, a pope cannot destroy the Church, etc. I do not panic for the Church. I panic for the millions of souls who will, with absolute certainty, fall into error and lose their faith. I panic over the irreparable (in human terms) harm being done to the Church and souls. I have great fear over the future, and further chaos. I fear the gathering darkness, and just how brutal the Church’s passion must be. Since the Church is our Lord’s Body on earth, we can discern her passion will be every bit as terrible as His.
I have considered whether my initial post on this matter was scandalous or over the top. I did get some guidance that I might pull back my strong hints regarding Francis’ lack of faithfulness to the belief and practice of the Church.
But considering the matter more coolly, now that the initial shock and anger have subsided, I would have a hard time issuing a retraction. Subsequent analysis, contra the claims of Cardinal Burke, has indicated that Amoris Laetitia (the “Joy of Sex?”) constitutes a clear addition to the Church’s Magisterium*. Yet it contains scores of statements which are scandalous, dangerous, possessed of a grave tendency to spread error and undermine the Faith, or out and out erroneous. Millions have already concluded that the Church has somehow changed her Doctrine on solemn matters such as the reception of the Blessed Sacrament by those persisting in openly adulterous unions.
This document represents not only a radical departure from the Church’s perennial belief and practice on numerous moral matters, it contains not only grave misrepresentations (to the point of prevarication) of previous magisterial statements, but it, to me, represents a direct assault on some of the most critical moral doctrines of the Faith. Declaring pseudo-sodo-marriage to be out of bounds while gravely wounding marriage by helping to normalize divorce, remarriage, and de-sacralizing the Blessed Sacrament is not just unwise, it self-contradictory. How did we get to the point where the culture is so insane that most Catholics now believe that marriage between two people of the same sex is not only possible, it is full equivalent to true marriage and should be recognized as such by law? Precisely through the mass normalization of divorce, remarriage, abuse of the Blessed Sacrament (and the self-denial of the torrents of Grace that should flow from it), etc. It is contradictory to gravely weaken the Church’s condemnation of fornication, while at the same time declare abortion to be impermissible.
That is to say, what we are confronted with in Amoris Laetitia is very different from, say, Honorius signing a document endorsing Arianism at the point of a sword. This is a concerted, deliberate, pre-meditated act. What is more, it touches not on just one point of Doctrine but many of them.
The solemn Doctrine of the Faith is a tightly woven cohesive whole. One thread cannot be pulled without unraveling the entirety. The protestant revolutionaries proved this irrefutably with the founding of their false sects. Many started with just one particular point of deviation (such as the rejection of indulgences), but in virtually no time that “one thing” expanded into a radically different, and implacably hostile, set of beliefs. If this course of synodal- and, it must be said, papal-induced chaos continues for even a few years, there will be nothing left.
Taken as a whole, I am forced to conclude that, from an earthly perspective, Francis lacks the Faith. However, I also believe that he remains the Bishop of Rome seated in the Chair of Peter and head of the universal Church. I do not know how to reconcile these beliefs. I can only conclude that this is a mystery far beyond me, a mystery which may well continue to torment the Church for decades should he be followed by like-minded individuals as the Church continues her inevitable passion. I am not saying, even remotely, that the Church has fallen, that Christ’s promise is false. I am not saying that the heretical sects are somehow right. I am not saying that the Church is reduced to an invisible element.
I am only saying that based on all the mass of evidence we have before us (and it is copious), Francis holds views which cannot be reconciled with the perennial belief and practice of the Church. Since holding those beliefs in their entirety has always been taken to be the sine qua non of being Catholic, the conclusion is inescapable.
I know Jesus Christ will prevail in the end. I strongly suspect all these events are being directed by His positive will. I have not the faintest doubt that Christ will come in glory, the dead will rise, and there will be a final judgment of the good and evil. I pray I have the faith to stand fast in these difficult times, but nothing any pope says or does is going to cause me to fall away. Nor should you. But I’m not going to bury my head in the sand, pretend this is not huge significant, or go along as if nothing has happened. Something has happened, and we all have to come to terms with it while striving with all our might to remain faithful.
I strongly feel what we are seeing now from many quarters, seeking to explain away this exhortation or diminish its significance, is an exact replay of how the modernists were able to remake the Church in the wake of Vatican II. If you wondered how people raised in the Faith with the Mass of Ages to sustain them could meekly accept, with precious little opposition, the radical changes foisted on the Church, look around you. In fact, the process never stopped, but today the similarities are too striking to ignore.
I hope and pray I may be some tiny bit of assistance to you all in that effort. But if you’re looking for apologias for this pontificate, you’re probably going to be better off visiting other sites.
*- I have seen Cardinal Burke’s claim that Amoris Laetitia is not a magisterial document. I believe the case Cardinal Burke puts forth is flawed. As other sites have noted, declaring Amoris Laetitia to be non-magisterial would be to throw out numerous other similar apostolic exhortations of the post-conciliar period, such as Familiaris Consortio, generally seen as being a much more orthodox document. But perhaps throwing out all these apostolic exhortations from the post-conciliar period, novel as they are in consisting of “conclusions” ostensibly drawn from a meeting of a limited sub-set of bishops (I say ostensibly, as it is very apparent this pope had a conclusion in mind from well before the idea of a series of synods was even floated), might not be such a bad thing? Perhaps Cardinal Burke is on to something, after all? Or perhaps the argument could be framed that any document, from whatever source, that contradicts the Faith is immediately inadmissible? But how to reconcile this with the magisterial definition of the Office of the Papacy that has emerged, particularly over the past 150 years?
I am not the one to answer these questions. I have a feeling, however, that should the Church and this earth survive for another few hundred years, future saintly theologians will be struggling with these questions, and might arrive at surprising conclusions.
Enough! Have a blessed weekend.
A perfect lamentation for our time from Dom Gueranger April 15, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Liturgical Year, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, The End, Tradition, Virtue.
A perfect lamentation for our time in the long history of the Church from The Liturgical Year of Dom Prosper Gueranger. This comes from the reading from the Friday of the Third Week of Easter, which just happens to be today! Go figure. Pretty strong stuff below, but so very apropos for the mounting nightmare surrounding episcopal authority:
How much they are to be pitied, O Church, who do not know thee!…..how much they are to be pitied who once knew thee, and afterwards in their pride and ingratitude, denied thee! And yet no one ever fell into such misery, unless he first voluntarily shut his eyes against the light that was within him. [This is truly key, and must never be forgotten. There is always a positive act of the will in the descent into error] How much they are to be pitied who know thee, and still live enjoying what thou givest thy children, and who yet take side with thine enemies in insulting and betraying thee! They are men whose character is shallowness of mind; they speak their opinions as though they were oracles; they have contracted the flippant effrontery of our age; and to hear them speak of thee, one would suppose that they look on thee as a human institution, which they may approve or blame according to their own humor. [AHEM! I can’t possible imagine just who such a condemnation might apply to in the Church today!]
Instead of revering whatsoever thou hast taught regarding thyself and thy rights, instead of revering what thou hast ordained, regulated, and practiced; these “Catholics,” whose sympathies are all with thine enemies, would have thee conform thy teachings to the so-called progress of the times. The whole world is given to thee as thine inheritance; and yet those insolent children would have thee be content with what they think proper to assign to thee. Thou, the Mother of mankind, must be under their wise care! It is from them that thou must henceforth learn how best to fulfill thy mission! Godless men, adorers of what they called the rights of man, dared, a century back, to expel thee from political life, which up till then thou hadst kept in harmony with its Divine Master. These men have left disciples who would have thee withdraw from everything that regards the outward world, and look on as a mere stranger. Thou must no longer exercise the rights given thee by the Son of God over both soul and body; this royalty of thine is out of date, and thou must be satisfied to enjoy the liberty which, in virtue of the law of Progress, is granted alike to error and to truth. The wise and powerful ones of this world have dethroned thy Spouse after two thousand year’s reign; and instead of resenting such a project with holy indignation, as tending to the destruction of the last bulwark of Christendom, there are many among us who approve of it, and this on principles which are, it is true, in favor with rationalistic politicians and leaders, but which are formally condemned by thy teachings, thy acts, nay, by thy very existence. How short-sighted are such Catholics as these, who hope to make thee acceptable to the world by giving thee the semblance of a human institution! The world is too shrewd; it knows thee to be essentially supernatural, and this is what it can never tolerate.
And so the effort to make the Church acceptable to the world by raping her of her sacred beliefs and cherished practices (a rape all the more horrific as it constitutes incest, a rape committed by son against mother) is doomed to failure, as the world, informed as it is to such a very great extent by satan, knows that the Church is the supernatural entity of God and so can only be destroyed, not transformed into some acceptable human institution. Not that there is ever a want of people to make the attempt.
We can see in the above, however, that the modernist-progressive effort to bring the Church low has been around for 150 years and more, and has always been working against a concerted plan. The bastions served incredibly well for a over a century against this particular threat, till they were pulled down by the defenders themselves, who had absorbed far too much of the lying propaganda they had heard blasted over the Church’s walls. 50 years ago, all those intricate defenses pious minds and the work of Grace could produce were destro50 years ago, all those intricate defenses pious minds and the work of Grace could produce were destroyed, and the Church was left nearly defenseless against her constant enemies of the world, the flesh, and the devil. Even worse, whole generations of men were ordained priests thoroughly infected with diabolical error, and they have now risen to the highest levels of authority. I don’t despair for the Church – She is the Body of Christ, completely indestructible and beyond taint in her mystical element – but I do have enormous fears for the souls of millions who will fall into error and even damnation as the shadow of the diabolical spreads ever deeper into the Church.
That’s why I’ve been praying with such fervor these past 20 months or more, but I fear the Church has entered Her passion and what must come will come. That makes prayer and penance all the more necessary, that we may have the Grace to remain faithful in the terrible days already well underway.
God bless you. I pray for you all.
There are a lot of local wags and cultural observers who have noted for decades that there are many influential elements in Dallas who would really, really like to see this city be another Los Angeles. I think Cactus Pryor and Becky Patterson Crouch both noted this, and I’ve heard it many other places besides.
In that spirit, perhaps, it’s not terribly surprising that several years ago the Diocese of Dallas started a “ministry conference” that emulated the infamous religious education conferences sponsored by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles every year. Heretofore, this conference had been run formally in conjunction with the still somewhat orthodox University of Dallas and also in conjunction with the Diocese of Fort Worth, but this year the conference was renamed just the Dallas Ministry Conference (instead of the UD ministry conference), and perhaps more significantly, the Diocese of Fort Worth also terminated their association with this annual event. Of the two separations, the latter is probably more telling.
Folks I know in the Diocese of Fort Worth, who would be well placed to know, have long had problems with the Dallas Ministry Conference. Every year, apparently, it was something of a fight to get good speakers/lecturers brought in, and keep bad ones out. As an example, the very problematic – I would say heretical – Fr. Ron Rolheiser spoke at the conference in 2011. And this year, the arch-liberal Archbishop Blase Cupich has been brought in to give the keynote speech. I’m not certain whether it was the Cupich invite, or just general frustration (again, as I have been told) that caused Fort Worth to back out of their monetary support for the conference, but I doubt it helped. It’s a bit telling, perhaps, that Fort Worth Bishop Michael Olson, who was previously rector of the Dallas seminary, would make this decision, however. One can imagine the tenor of the discussion which may have preceded this decision.
Another factor concerning the Dallas Ministry Conference is that it has become very much an insider event. The large minority, if not clear majority, of attendees are either employed as teachers/catechists at regional parishes, or individuals who have significant volunteer roles involving same. That is to say, this is essentially a glitzy teacher’s conference for the schools of the Diocese of Dallas. That’s being a bit reductive, but is another complaint regarding the conference from diocesan insiders themselves. Many people attend simply because their parish, under diocesan impetus, buys a block of tickets, and then hands the tickets out to teachers and catechists. They get in free, and are supposedly receiving solid formation at diocesan expense. While the quality of speakers varies wildly, one thing is certain: the orthodox Faith of the Ages is rarely taught in its completeness or with the clarity and force it both deserves and requires. This is a conference mired in the post-conciliar ethos, with all that entails, little of it, from my perspective, good. Thus, the big grey machine just keeps stammering along, its motion propelled less by its own energy but more by the momentum it inherited from the “bad old Church.” Events like this are inherently problematic from my point of view, being, by their nature, “of the bureaucracy, by the bureaucracy, and for the bureaucracy.”
I don’t think I need to go on at length regarding the myriad problems of inviting a man like Blase Cupich to keynote a conference on religious education. He is the darling of the most progressive, I would even say left-wing, elements in the Church. He has already given scandal on numerous occasions, belittling if not directly contradicting Church Doctrine on subjects ranging from the sanctity of the Blessed Sacrament to the sanctity of marriage. His presence gravely undermines whatever good more orthodox conference speakers – almost entirely lay people whose moral authority is thus greatly limited – manage to communicate. I don’t know if there will be any pre-review or approval of his intended speech text, but I think it poses a threat to communicate beliefs potentially hazardous to many if not all listeners. Faith comes by hearing (Rom x:17), but so does error and beliefs tending towards loss of faith. I fear what this speech portends, since it seems part of a series of decisions by Bishop Farrell of late that indicate a turn towards the progressive.
It seems an eon ago since Bishop Farrell, in conjunction with then Bishop Kevin Vann, issued their strong pastoral document in the run-up to the 2008 election making it clear that Catholics could never, under any circumstances, vote for a pro-abort politician. Now, instead of that, we get massive overreactions to legitimate firearms legislation and blanket bans on firearms possession in diocesan facilities. Interesting, as they say. Revealing? I think so. Bishop Farrell has long had the reputation of being very attuned to internal Church politics and he can easily see which way the wind is blowing.
And so can Bishop Olson. Just sayin’.
On a personal note, starting a new job has of course been a very busy time. Things are starting to settle just a bit, so I hope to do a post or two every day or so at least for a while. Some days there will be none. It won’t be like it was for the foreseeable future. I’ll do what I can. Thank you for your patience.
Is Francis Catholic? April 9, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, pr stunts, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
To ask…….to be forced to ask……the question is to answer it. I know I have missed a great deal in the past several weeks, including Francis’ frankly embarrassing statements linking the Brussels jihadi attacks to “arms manufacturers” – when all the bombs were homemade! – and while I’ve very little time right now, I could not let this latest assault on the Church of Jesus Christ, our Holy Faith, go by without saying something.
But what is there to say at this point? How many examples must there be? This latest document is far from the first time that Francis has undermined, belittled, weakened, or attacked the Faith. The evidence is overwhelming, He is the most heterodox pope of at least the last 900 years, if not ever. One can argue the degree to which this new apostolic exhortation constitutes formal teaching of error, but the direction of this pontificate is clear: the longer it goes on, the bolder Francis becomes in the errors he proclaims and the degree of formality with which they are proclaimed. I don’t propose any course of action aside from prayer (as there have already been scores of interventions with Francis imploring him to stop, from elements in the Church of far higher authority than lowly lay people), but I tremble for the future. Just this week I had the experience of trying to convince a protestant of what the Church actually believes, a man well disposed to the Church but now hopelessly confused as to what the Church believes. Naturally, most of his confusion comes directly from the man who should be the most trustworthy in the entire world when it comes to matters of faith. Instead, we have a leader who appears, by all evidence, far more attached to leftist secularism than he is to the Faith. Given the enormous Grace associated with his supremely important office, that attachment must be mighty strong. Other men have been moved by that Grace of office to a more orthodox approach, but, in spite of all the prayers offered, Francis has seemed to only redouble his preconceived notion.
As I said, I haven’t much time, and this is not a sede vacantist screed, but I think all we can do at this point is to try limit the damage this man is doing as much as possible and beg God to have mercy on His Church. I really have strived to ignore Francis as much as possible these past several weeks and I can say the break was really pleasant. But unfortunately, I don’t think we can just bury our heads in the sand and ignore this disaster forever. We just have to do what we can to keep our faith as whole as possible, reach as many souls as possible with the real beliefs of the Church, and beg God to forgive the collective sins of the Church and free us from this man as soon as possible. I note that even some of the unyielding apologists have started to budge a bit as a result of this latest affront, so perhaps God will bring some good out of this by breaking the spell of papalotry and the cult of the most recent Council.
In the meantime, may God have mercy on us all, and sustain us through this terrible time of trial.