Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, Liturgy, priests, sanctity, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
With a hat tip to reader Camper for the link, Our Lady of the Atonement parish is, effective today, no longer a part of the Archdiocese of San Antonio and is now a part of Anglican Ordinariate, as the parish clergy and laity had requested.
I don’t know what this means for Fr. Phillips reinstatement, or whether that has already occurred ( I could find no news attesting to this because I am not on Facebook!, where everything seems to be these days. See update below, Fr. Phillips is back at Atonement with faculties in the Ordinariate), but I am certain there is great rejoicing today (but in actuality, there are signs the people of Atonement have been aware of the decision for at least a few days) among those who have such a great devotion to this reverent Anglican Use (and sometime Novus Ordo Latin) parish:
Brilliant News!!! The Holy See has directed that theTexan parish of Our Lady of the Atonement in San Antonio is, with effect from today, part of the Ordinariate of the Chair of S Peter, the American Ordinariate.
‘Atonement’ was the first (in 1983) of the parishes set up to perpetuate within the Roman Unity groups adhering to their Anglican Liturgy, Spirituality, and theological tradition. It was spectacularly successful, under its dynamic and charismatic Pastor Fr Christopher Phillips.
When the Ordinariates were set up, the position of parishes adhering to the ‘Anglican Use’, but operating as units within ordinary dioceses, became anomalous. After all, the Holy See had set up the Ordinariates specifically to include such communities.
The Archbishop of San Antonio was understandably anxious to keep such a vibrant parish and its academy within his own diocese and jurisdiction. But he is an honourable man. So he made it very clear that he would ensure the continuation at the Atonement of the provisions made by the Holy See for Anglicans who had entered the Catholic Church upon a certain understanding.
But that proposed arrangement misses the point. It treats the Anglican Use as merely something provided as a condescending kindness for ex-Anglicans or their descendants. This would mean that the Use could die out when the original ‘converts’ had died, unless new converts from Anglicanism had continued to trickle in so as to keep the arrangement on a life-support machine.
That is quite simply not how things can be allowed to be in a Church which takes Mission in any way seriously. A flourishing and orthodox Christian community will inevitably attract others, particularly those from the peripheries of the Church, where people may have a residual association with Catholicism but have grown disillusioned or alienated within the ‘mainstream’ or ‘diocesan’ Church.
It is a natural suspicion that Gerhard Cardinal Mueller has been involved in this wise decision, which is good news not only for the Atonement but for all members of the three Ordinariates. It demonstrates that the See of S Peter is as committed to Pope Benedict’s bold ecumenical experiment as ever it was. We were not ‘taken up’ just so that we could be ‘dropped’!
That’s certainly an ebullient opinion from Fr. Hunwicke, who I am certain is quite pleased.
This is about the best possible outcome for the vast majority of those associated with Atonement Parish and it’s school – this is very much what those souls wanted. It also does lend some credence to notions I’ve heard bandied about that much of the furball that developed in recent months with the removal of Fr. Phillips and the allegations against Deacon Orr was ideologically motivated. As I stated all along, that is most likely the case, though difficult to prove (as such things always tend to be in a Church dominated by secular modernists).
I’m very happy for the people of Atonement and the Archdiocese of San Antonio generally. Whatever Phillips’ future status, they have one more reverent and relatively orthodox option for liturgy, catechesis, and formal schooling. San Antonio is even more of a liturgical and catechetical wasteland than Dallas, which tells local readers something, anyway. I don’t know whether it’s surprising or not that Rome made this decision, and so quickly, but it certainly appears to be the right and just one.
A Deo Gratias for Atonement parish and the good people of the Archdiocese of San Antonio. I don’t know if this move has any implications for the TLM at St. Pius X parish or the SSPX at St. Joseph chapel, but we’ll see. For now it appears the good guys won one for once, to quote some of those in the comments.
UPDATE: Via commenter RM, the following comes from Fr. Phillips’ Facebook page, announcing his return as “pastor emeritus” at Atonement:
This has been an historic day. Our Lady of the Atonement is now a parish of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter. Fr. Moore and I are incardinated as priests of the Ordinariate………
…………I return to the parish as Pastor Emeritus to carry on my regular pastoral, liturgical, and sacramental ministry, and especially what I love the most — back to my place in the school with our wonderful students.
“I am delighted with this! As I told some of our people today, “I get to continue to do all the things I love, and poor Fr. Perkins has to do all the hard stuff!”
“As of today we return to being the parish family we have always been, but poised for even greater adventures. I am grateful for our years in the Archdiocese of San Antonio — it was the soil in which we grew and flourished. But I am now looking forward to new relationships in the Ordinariate, and to serving God under a new bishop, His Excellency, the Most Reverend Steven Lopes
Well it appears this ugly saga is behind Atonement, and good for them. With more coming out now, including what I am told privately is a dismissal of the allegations against Deacon Orr that surfaced earlier this month, it seems almost certain that what transpired in the removal of Fr. Phillips was the playing out of an ugly ideological agenda trying to keep a vibrant parish and its unusually valuable property from “leaving” the control of the Archdiocese, and in the process breaking the parish of most everything that made it unique. Of course, as the progressive modernists holding the reins of power in most dioceses are extremely adept at manipulating the system to their advantage, proving that is all but impossible, but the strange turn of events in public really speaks for itself.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Ecumenism, error, General Catholic, manhood, priests, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
While largely unknown today, many consider Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton as the greatest theologian the United States has ever produced. In the mid-20th century, he was a huge figure within the American Church, editing the premiere theological journal of the country and doing battle with the forces of modernism which were already becoming more and more bold in their efforts to redefine the Faith according to the “synthesis of all heresies” which they held.
Some of Fenton’s most pointed battles were against Fr. John Courtney Murray, SJ, a favorite of the Kennedy clan and the man who many consider to be the father of the Church’s post-conciliar ecumenical ethos. Murray was especially influential in developing the Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae, which discusses matters such as religious liberty and the necessity of the Church for salvation in truly unprecedented ways. Unfortunately for the Church and millions of souls, while many observers felt that Fenton had clearly defeated Murray in their numerous theological engagements in the Catholic press, it was Murray whose influence was far more decisive at Vatican II. Once the Council turned decisively towards revolutionary sentiments in the first session, casting aside the years of previous work in the various schema that had been produced before the Council, and which had been championed by Cardinal Ottaviani and his staff of peritus (including Msgr. Fenton), Fenton’s influence on the Council waned as dramatically as did that of the deliberately publicly humiliated Ottaviani.
At any rate, the principle point of disagreement between Fenton and Murray, among others, was on the necessity of the Church for salvation and the paramount need for souls to be within that Church. This spilled over into a closely related point: whether the American form of government with its “freedom of religion” (really, formally enshrined agnosticism as the state religion) was ideal, suitable, or even permissible for Catholics to support. Murray’s vision was much more Americanist in nature, not quite indifferentism but certainly close to what has become the reality in the post-conciliar Church.
In contrast, what we read below is fully in line with the Doctrine of the Faith as handed down through the ages, and fitted for the understanding of contemporary man. I pray that one day the Church return not only to a full appreciation of Fenton’s work, but also to its implementation in a general reinstitution of classical scholastic theology. The following excerpts come from The Church of Christ: A Collection of Essays by Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, pp. 299-301. I add my own comments:
The anti-Catholic agitators are continually charging that Catholics are striving to do away with freedom of religion in the United States. [As for me, guilty as charged.] In answering these men, some of our less skillful apologists [what a nice dig at Murray!] become so confused that they actually give the impression that Catholics are completely and absolutely satisfied with the situation here in the United States today, that we believe it to be the best that many of our fellow citizens should remain as they are, apart from Our Lord, from His Church, and from His true religion. Unmindful of the constant and devoutly sincere prayer of the Church that all of those who wander apart from ecclesiastical union and fellowship with Christ should be brought by God’s Grace into that fellowship, [A prayer repeated at every Good Friday in the TLM, but one which the vast majority of Catholics today have probably never heard] these writers describe as ultimately good and satisfactory a situation in which the nation itself takes no more cognizance of the true religion than it does of false systems of worship…….
……….We would by denying the force of that missionary charity within the Church, or misjudging the nature of the Church itself, were we in any way to give the impression that we do not care whether our fellow Americans enter the true Church or not. The true religion is the great good which we desire for our fellow citizens and for our country. The true Church, outside of which there is no salvation, is likewise a great and necessary good we seek for the men and the nation we love in the affection of charity.
………..The Vatican Council’s [That would be Vatican I] first dogmatic constitution, Dei Filius…..declares that “If anyone should say that the faithful and those who have never arrived at the only true faith are in a like situation, so that Catholics can have a legitimate reason for withholding their assent from and doubting, until they shall have completed the scientific proof of the credibility and the truth of their own faith, that faith which they have already received under the Church’s Magisterium, let him be anathema.” [Wow, a council that levels anathemas. Wonders never cease.] The third chapter of this constitution declares that “those who have received the faith under the Church’s Magisterium can never have any legitimate cause for changing that faith or doubting it.” [Et tu, Francesco?]
………The thesis that the state or the civil society is objectively obligated to worship God according to the Rite of the Catholic religion thus stems basically from a realization of the fact that the debt of religion is a real obligation incumbent upon every human being and every social unit, and from a recognition of the truth that there is only one objectively acceptable religious worship, that which is paid to God within the framework of Our Lord’s Mystical Body. This thesis is likewise in line with the fundamental principle of Catholic missiology, the truth that God wills that all men should enter His one true Church. Thus it refuses to see as genuinely and ultimately desirable and good a situation in which some men, even though through no fault of their own, are not citizens of God’s supernatural kingdom on earth.
Let me know if the excerpts don’t quite form a cohesive whole. I’m out of time and really wanted to get this post out but may have taken out a bit much “meat.”
The practical implementation of Dignatitis Humanae and the cult of false ecumenism it has engendered (for the only true ecumenism, contra the previous pontiff, is what he called “the discredited ecumenism of return” to the faith) is probably the second greatest wound to the Church unleashed in the decades since Vatican II, after Sacrosanctum Concilium. The latter attempts to rip out her heart, the former, her mind. No wonder the Church’s missionary efforts have totally collapsed in the years since. They were intended to. The revolutionaries – whether they intended to be or not – could not have chosen their targets better. It is a bitter shame better men like Fenton did not succeed, but I have to accept that God allowed all this to come to pass, for some reason.
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, different religion, disaster, Ecumenism, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
I really meant to post this on the weekend, or at least on Monday, but events conspired to prevent me from doing either.
Starting Friday night, I began to see videos on Youtube from the Fatima Center highlighting an upcoming atrocity in Rome – the opening of St. Peter’s for Anglican “Evensong” prayers on Monday, March 13 – the fourth anniversary of the election – God knows why – of Bergoglio to the papacy. Fatima Center did a really good job highlighting why this event was so novel, so egregious, and then took steps to mobilize the faithful in resistance.
Unfortunately, the Vatican kept this event intentionally buried, never publicizing it on any of their PR arms (newspaper, radio, website, etc). It had to be found on the website of the tiny Anglican community in Rome. Thus, it was found out late, when there was very little time to mobilize opposition, which I am quite certain was why it was so little publicized. Nevertheless, efforts were made to stop the event, which did, however, go on.
Two videos below, one explaining the event and how it ties in with the overhaul of ecumania occurring under the pontificate of Francis – especially in this both great and dark anniversary year of 2017 – and the other featuring Chris Ferrara, who explains its dark significance. Of course, Anglicans lack valid orders and thus any liturgical simulation they perform anywhere, but especially in St. Peter’s, amounts to sacrilege. Allowing sacrilege within the very Basilica of St. Peter is simply breathtaking in its blasphemy. Ferrara explains how the cult of ecumenism is ultimately behind this latest abomination.
Sorry I did not get this coverage out before the event took place, but I haven’t seen this covered in many other places, so I thought it deserved a post, regardless:
Now Ferrara’s commentary:
And, as usual, so far as I am aware, no cardinals or bishops publicly condemned this ecumenical confab before it occurred. I am aware of few priests who did. I’m sure more will as they become aware of it, but both the indifference and information security on this were really tight.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, Francis, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, unbelievable BS.
I really like this video from Michael Matt. It makes a very good corollary to the two videos in the post below. Sort of like diagnosis, and treatment plan.
I should never like to give the impression that I am hopeless or despondent over the state of the Church. Much aggrieved, certainly, outraged, definitely, but not hopeless. I do know God will prevail in the end, and that all of this somehow ties in with a plan of Providence that may well forever elude human understanding. I also know that situations, even extremely dire ones, can sometimes turn on a dime, that what appears a hopelessly lost cause can rapidly transform into unbelievable triumph.
So I really like the last several minutes of the video below, and the exhortation to fight. I agree with Matt that I don’t know how to “define” Francis. I have read and seen some of the same things he has: that Francis is antipope, that Benedict’s abdication was null because it was made under duress, that Francis is the false prophet, that the Chair of Peter has been vacant since ’63, or ’58, or whenever. And while some of these arguments may have more merit than others, I have not – I cannot – fully embrace any of them because I. Just. Don’t. Know. Francis was elected. He sits in Rome. He is viewed by all the world as the pope. He exercises petrine powers. But he also attacks the Faith in ways never before seen, at least not from this most holy office. So what is he? I don’t know. Scary. Terrifying. A destroyer. A fool. A knave. a weak, flawed, failing man. All of the above.
All I know for certain is that he is wrong; dangerously, destructively, wrong. And I know he must be opposed. I have known that for a long time. I also know he – and more importantly the cardinals and bishops who surround his office and who can either put his policy wholly into effect, or block and undermine it – must be prayed for with passionate intensity. I have been doing that, too, for a long time.
As to whether “neo-Catholics” are “getting it,” I really have no idea. I don’t have the time to read their thoughts much anymore. I’m willing to take Matt’s analysis at face value, but I also know a lifetime of intellectual habit and deeply held belief – the pope must never be questioned or doubted, ever – is not an easy thing to overcome. So we shall see. As to whether there are portents to a mass resistance to Francis’ pontificate and the forces that elected, we shall have to wait for the future to see that, too. I a way, I pray that is correct, but what will that mean? Schism? Or simply a formal recognition of the schism that has existed for 60 or more years, ever since the modernist forces that badly influenced, if not hijacked, a council, first started to reveal themselves en masse?
It’s all a bit much for me to figure out. I shall be content to continue to do my part in bringing awareness, as Matt says, to how extremely radical and unprecedented this pontificate is. All else I leave in the hands of Almighty God, whose Will shall eventually triumph.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Latin Mass, Revolution, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership.
While much of what the priest in the sermons below presents is somewhat old news to any who have been following developments in this pontificate with any closeness, it is still extremely handy to have it all gone over in detail and explained just exactly how pernicious, destructive, and even blasphemous Francis’ efforts to wholly remake (as in destroy) the moral edifice of the Church are.
It is also very edifying to know there are priests out there – I certainly won’t ID him, but non-SSPX, traditional priests – who are calling a spade a spade and demonstrating clearly that, given the choice between “the pope and Jesus Christ,” this priest, at least, intends to side firmly with Jesus Christ.
There is much good formation here. Both sermons are well worth your time and constitute elements of a 6 part sermon that has all been uploaded to the Sensus Fidelium channel on Youtube.
Sermon one reviews the travesty that is Amoris Laetitia, and the clear “interpretations” Francis has given to bishops in Argentina, Malta, and other locales, which clearly demonstrate the revolutionary intent of this unprecedented encyclical. There are many clear judgments and hard-hitting phrases that we most certainly need to be hearing from our priests:
The second sermon deals with the reaction to Amoris Laetitia in the form of the dubia submitted by 4 cardinals asking very pointed and clear questions of Francis. As is already widely known, Francis has chosen to simply ignore this dubia. One hopes eventually the cardinals will then take the issue to the next level, which is to publicly examine Francis’ works in the light of Tradition, but we shall have to see:
I disagree slightly with this excellent priest in one area, that is in referring to this as a “real Henry VIII moment in the Church.” Elsewhere, he says more correctly, to my mind, that the Church has never, ever, in her entire recorded history had a pontiff make such direct, destructive attacks on the Doctrine of the Faith.
We are in a completely unprecedented situation. This post-modernist crisis is the worst the Church has ever seen for the completeness of the embrace of error and the tiny scope of the remnant faithful, but Francis has taken it to an entirely new and different level.
But while Henry VIII was certainly a lout, a glutton, a destroyer of religion, and a persecutor of the Church, he was, after all, a layman. He started the process of destruction of the Faith in one country and was rightly excommunicated for his crimes, but what we have in Francis is something entirely different. Here it is an attack from within, from the highest office in the Church, the man given such enormous torrents of Grace to correspond faithfully to the tenets of his office and the Doctrine of the Faith that his heart must be as hard as diamond to be executing the plan he is so obviously carrying out. Not only is the scope of destruction Francis can achieve infinitely larger than anything Henry VIII could have done, but after decades of neglect and collapse the forces of orthodoxy and resistance are so much smaller than they have been at probably any other time in the history of the Church.
To me, Francis’ destructive potential is greater than Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, Zwinglii, and all the rest combined, because he presents himself as not only within the House of God but as its head! Catholics will for decades to come be fighting off arguments from protestants, atheists, etc., based on the errors that Francis has introduced. Even worse is the aid, comfort, and intellectual armament being conferred on those modernists within the Church. Now we shall be forever quoting pope against pope in trying to defend the Faith.
And we haven’t even begun to see this play out. Francis will be gone in a few years, more than likely, but what will follow in his wake? Even if that next pope is not as radical as Francis, will he roll back any of the revolutionary changes already under way? Or will he allow them to persist and continue to rot the Church from within, as the appeasement of the use of contraception did to the Church during the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc?
The only way forward for the Church, then, is for some future pope to deliberately refute the errors abounding today and anathematize the current resident of the
Vatican Doma Sancta Martha. We have got to pray that such a future pope, with enough backbone and love of Christ to do so, emerges.
On a lighter note, is not this priest a most effective, practiced speaker? Few other priests use so much inflection, emotion, and vary their meter as much as this one does.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, scandals, sexual depravity, shocking, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
As I posted in January, popular pastor Fr. Christopher Phillips was removed by Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Siller rather suddenly and to the great shock and dismay of the people of the Anglican use Atonement Parish in San Antonio. Many could not fathom why the Archdiocese would take this action. There has been some speculation that it could have been due to Atonement seeking to join the Ordinariate and therefore a turf war over ownership of the really fabulous physical plant of the parish began. Having said that, and having heard very impassioned (and detailed) complaints against a certain Deacon James Orr from current and former parishioners of Atonement going back some time, I have wondered, largely to myself, whether or not an abuse allegation was not somehow involved.
Now, something has emerged regarding retired Deacon James Orr that could have been the instigation behind the San Antonio Archdiocese’s intervention at Atonement Parish. I have heard very troubling reports from family and others who have been a part of Atonement in the past regarding this deacon’s behavior around pre-teen and teenage boys. When I queried someone involved in the parish back in January, who seemed to have some first hand knowledge of the removal of Fr. Phillips, whether this matter of Deacon Orr could have played a part in the situation, this individual rather bluntly derided the idea.
But then there’s this:
I have strong indications from a confidential source who works in the Archdiocese that this may not be the only abuse complaint made against Deacon Orr. Others, of a more recent nature, may be forthcoming.
This puts a very different spin on the dismissal of Fr. Phillips. I feel more confident in coming forward with what I have heard for years, from people I know extremely well and explicitly trust, which is that Deacon Orr routinely had inappropriate relationships with young boys at the parish, involving, at the least, what some parents viewed as encouragement of alienation from their family and subsequent provision of financial support on the part of the Deacon when these boys had a final falling out with their parents and moved out of the family home. Some of these relationships were short, others have persisted for years. Some very pointed complaints regarding Deacon Orr’s activities have been made to Father Phillips , again, going back years. I was certainly not a party to any of those conversations, but I know at least some people associated with Atonement felt that Phillips failed to adequately address these concerns and may have even given the impression of dismissing them. Through it all, Phillips steadfastly defended this deacon.
This is the situation as I understand it, as has been related to me numerous times from multiple, independent sources.
I should stress that most people at Atonement have a great love for Father Phillips and continue to support him. But I would be remiss in not bringing up the very serious and mutually substantiating concerns of a minority whose complaints generally centered around Deacon Orr.
I do not know the specifics of the allegation made in February of this year. From what I understand, none of the inappropriate behavior of which I have been aware (as I describe above) ever degenerated to the level of actual physical abuse. I would like to caution everyone not to engage in either excessive demonization of Deacon Orr nor excessive defenses of Fr. Phillips in attacking those who have felt they have had very legitimate concerns for years, and whose concerns now seem to be amply justified.
We’ll have to see how this shakes out, but I was always a little suspicious that the Archdiocese of San Antonio would make a naked power play for several million dollars worth of real estate without some serious complaint behind them to back them up. This appears to be it. That doesn’t mean an ideology is not being served. That may well be the case, but it could be there were situations ongoing that had to be addressed. It’s difficult to say at this point.
PS – Some will say that the Archdiocese moved against Phillips in January, before this allegation was formally made in February. But I would be a hefty sum the Archdiocese knew of the coming allegation before it was officially made, and that may explain the timing.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, different religion, Endless Corruption, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
I saw the following excerpt of a lengthy interview Archbishop Lori gave to the Catholic Register recently on the subject of the new presidency and the prospects it brings to the Church, and in addition to being generally disappointed with the bishop’s general view of much of the Trump agenda he was queried about, I was very surprised by this particular excerpt:
What is your assessment of the president’s proposal to eliminate the Johnson Amendment?
That’s, of course, a very complex question. We would certainly want to see, more specifically, what the president might have in mind. As a general rule, it is not a good idea for churches to engage in partisan politics. I believe that, generally, that proves to be a great distraction from our central task and mission, which is to preach the Gospel. Furthermore, I think it would have a tendency to unnecessarily divide our congregations.
I would recognize that the Johnson Amendment is lived out fairly unevenly, across religious lines, but in general, I think we would eye the adjustment of this amendment warily. I think that’s the best adverb I can give you. We are looking at this carefully and warily.
The Johnson Amendment, for those who don’t know, was something created by the corrupt, racist Lyndon Johnson in 1954 and tacked onto a defense appropriations bill to punish the churches who had opposed his 1952 candidacy to the US Senate from Texas. Johnson only won by literally manufacturing votes in magical ballot boxes, but he had faced criticism from various churches for some of his stands and he did not want to have to deal with that again. So, he created an amendment that churches that endorse or oppose specific candidates would lose their precious tax-exempt status. The amendment was shockingly non-controversial at the time, but it has had enormous ramifications.
Now why would the bishops not favor being freed from this restriction on their ability to speak freely and endorse the most moral, most worthy candidates, and oppose those who are unworthy? There are two reasons, really – money, and ideology.
Regarding the money, the USCCB – and Lori was speaking in at least a semi-official capacity for the USCCB in this interview – is wholly dependent on federal funding for almost all of their activities, activities which have come to be thoroughly politicized by this very same funding. Something like 90% of Catholic Charities and 92% of Catholic Relief Services funding comes directly from US taxpayers. One could imagine that, if freed of the Johnson Amendment the bishops would be placed in a very difficult position, not wanting to anger either party by openly opposing some or many (or all) of their candidates. Such politicking could place their precious, precious billions at risk. Can’t have that.
In addition, one can easily forecast how divided and lukewarm the bishops would be in determining which candidates to endorse or oppose.
Think how many very difficult, uncomfortable stands out milquetoast bishops would have to take should the Johnson Amendment be repealed. The house divided they worry about is their own conference’s alienation from faithful souls. Either way they went, they’d be angering a large proportion of their sharply divided flock, but in most of these cases, there is a clear, Catholic moral imperative to support one candidate and oppose another. Right now, they have the perfect excuse not to speak out much more forcefully against pro-abort, pro-contraception, pro-perversion, etc., candidates. They simply can’t speak out for fear of losing that “holy” tax exempt status. It’s great cover.
But it’s also a huge shirking of duty and conduct unworthy of a shepherd of souls. In fact, much of the division among those in this country who apply the name Catholic to themselves stems precisely from the bishop’s unwillingness to take clear stands on moral issues, and, more importantly, impose ecclesiastical penalties against politicians and others of notoriety who advocate for positions contrary to the Doctrine of the Faith. How many pro-abort politicians have been denied Communion, for instance? How many have been condemned by name? How many morally worthless, mealy-mouthed “voting guides” have been trotted out over the years, always containing just enough morally ambiguous language to give a shade of cover for those who want to vote for politicians who advance morally reprehensible positions?
Overall, this commentary reveals the moral corruption at the heart of the USCCB and most national episcopal conferences. Not only do they try to enforce a rigid conformity, blocking individual ordinary’s ability to speak out by imposing penalties against those who do, they also reveal a bureaucratic contractor more concerned with getting paid than saving souls. Repealing the Johnson Amendment would allow the Church and the protestant sects and others to have a stronger impact on the electoral landscape than they’ve had in decades, and thus materially improve the moral condition of this nation. In point of fact, one can trace the steady decline in morals in this country almost in a direct line back to 1954 – that is to say, the silencing of the churches played a significant role in the subsequent moral collapse of this nation.
But perhaps many of our shepherds today consider that much more of a feature, than a bug. Whatever keeps the gravy train rolling……is that their primary concern? And how many of them favor the Church to be a mute, subservient, loyal and dutiful NGO-type contractor to the government, rather than the radically countercultural Body of Christ and vehicle of salvation she is intended by our Lord to be?
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church.
In posting this video, The Remnant asks why St. Augustine called the Cross “satan’s trap?”
Strange question, isn’t it? How could the Cross, the very vehicle of our salvation, be a “trap” for faithful souls?
Watch the video, and see if you can figure it out:
From the standpoint of this very good sermon, the “trap” was satan’s belief that he could undo this Messiah by having him killed. Satan was unable to determine that Christ was truly God, and so erred in believing engineering the most horrific, shameful death possible would destroy all the good this Messiah was intending to accomplish.
But I think the analogy works on another level, too. How else can the Cross possibly be a trap? We have no need but to look at the present Bishop of Rome, and, shuddering, find the reason.
The Cross also becomes a trap when people reduce the act of salvation to it, and it alone. When protestants, and their unimaginative emulators in the Church, proclaim that one is saved, wholly and entirely, by Christ’s salvific Sacrifice, independent of one’s actions, this is a terrible error that has led countless millions of souls to their eternal doom.
Personified in the totally novel, made in America phrase (invented in the late 19th century) “once saved always saved,” this pernicious error has grown and multiplied until it has come to dominate most sects and made very deep inroads into the Church herself. This is the opposite error of Pelagianism, which posits that it is possible to earn salvation entirely by one’s own efforts at virtue, independent of God’s Grace flowing through that one-time but constantly re-presented Sacrifice.
Salvation through a one time proclamation that Christ is one’s “personal Lord and Savior” is refuted numerous times in Scripture, most notably I Cor xv:31, Heb iii:13 and especially Mt xxv:31-46, but the supposedly “scriptural” protestants have twisted it to their own destruction, as St. Peter warned they would.
Of course, Catholics know the truth, that we are saved through Christ’s Sacrifice, yes, but also by cooperation with Grace through the good works we do and the sins we avoid. Christ tells us repeatedly through Scripture that we establish the fact of our existence in the state of Grace through good works, and that those works are necessary for our salvation. Christ’s Sacrifice offers us the potential for salvation, which was all but impossible before, but does not guarantee it based on a silly one time altar call. Such an American concept, anyway, that salvation is like placing an order in a drive thru.
It is terrifying to contemplate that the man elected to the Chair of Peter so openly seems to hold protestant beliefs as much superior to the Sacred Doctrine of the Faith. Francis has heaped praise on the sects and feted numerous sect leaders, and seems to never tire of heaping scorn and derision on faithful Catholics. It is the inversion of the Truth and the damage being done to souls is incalculable by human means.
Our Lady, however, revealed the answer, at least figuratively, at Fatima, when she showed Lucia, Jacinta, and Francisco the souls falling into hell like snowflakes.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, disaster, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, horror, paganism, Revolution, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, the enemy, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
And, beyond that, features himself in what is an obviously perverse and blasphemous work of “art.” Paglia is one of several well known extreme modernist bishops from the Italian episcopate that have experienced a rapid rise during Francis’ pontificate. Particularly shocking is the fact that this same archbishop who seems to tip his hand quite obviously regarding his own proclivities and, quite probably, extracurricular activities, has been made the president of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family and the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life. These appointments are part of a clear trend under the current Bishop of Rome to grant cover and partronage to the sodomite underworld prevalent in the clery, as Francis’ recent rollbacks of penalties put into place for priest sex abuse have helped underscore.
Many wondered how Francis would deal with this lavendar mafia. Little did they know the several-hundred page dossier on pervert priests compiled under Benedict would be used by Francis as recommendations for promotions and advancement. Of course, given the tight correlation between sodomy and hatred for the constant belief and practice of the Faith, it is probable that much of Francis’ most fervent support within the episcopate comes from those lost in this reprobate lifestyle. In spite of the fact that this archbishop and his painting were very controversial within Italy, Francis has still seen fit to give him two plum and highly influential assignments, both centering on what appears to all the world to be an attempt to undermine and ultimately destroy the moral edifice of the Faith:
The archbishop now at the helm of the Pontifical Academy for Life paid a homosexual artist to paint a blasphemous homoerotic mural in his cathedral church in 2007. The mural includes an image of the archbishop himself.
The archbishop, Vincenzo Paglia, was also recently appointed by Pope Francis as president of the Pontifical Pope John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family.
The massive mural still covers the opposite side of the facade of the cathedral church of the Diocese of Terni-Narni-Amelia. It depicts Jesus carrying nets to heaven filled with naked and semi-nude homosexuals, transsexuals, prostitutes, and drug dealers, jumbled together in erotic interactions.
Included in one of the nets is Paglia, the then diocesan bishop. The image of the Savior is painted with the face of a local male hairdresser, and his private parts can be seen through his translucent garb.According to the artist, a homosexual Argentinean named Ricardo Cinalli who is known for his paintings of male bodies, Bishop Paglia selected him out of a list of ten internationally-known artists specifically for the task of painting the inner wall of the facade. Bishop Paglia, along with one Fr. Fabio Leonardis, oversaw every detail of Cinalli’s work, according to Cinalli, who approvingly notes that Paglia never asked him if he believed in the Christian doctrine of salvation.
“Working with him was humanly and professionally fantastic,” Cinalli told the Italian newspaper La Repubblica in March of last year. “Never, in four months, during which we saw each other almost three times each week, did Paglia ever ask me if I believed in salvation. He never placed me in an uncomfortable position.” [Of course not! We wouldn’t want to disrupt all that pleasant “accompaniment” and “welcoming” with any talk of such a minor and trivial subject as the state of one’s eternal soul!]
“There was no detail that was done freely, at random,” added Cinalli. “Everything was analyzed. Everything was discussed. They never allowed me to work on my own.” [Ergo, Paglia endorsed every portion of the monstrosity, which you can view below]
Cinalli admits to La Repubblica that the naked people in the nets are meant to be “erotic,” although Bishop Paglia drew the line when Cinalli proposed to show people actually copulating.“In this case, there was not – in this sense – a sexual intention, but erotic, yes,” said Cinalli. “I think that the erotic aspect is the most notable among the people inside the nets.” He later added, “The one thing that they didn’t permit me to insert was the copulation of two people within this net where everything is permitted.” [In a sane Church, this artist would never have been considered. This is the reduction of the Church to mere platform for the advancing of worldly left-wing ideals and, more importantly, the personal vanity of an unworthy prelate.]
The reason he wasn’t allowed to be so explicit, says Cinalli, is that his painting had already done enough to demonstrate the notion that man has “freedom” in this life and even in the next, apparently to engage in whatever sexual behavior he deems appropriate. “The bishop and Fr. Leonardis . . . told me that they didn’t think it was necessary to arrive at that extreme to demonstrate the freedom that man, in reality, has in this world and in the next.” [Orwellian. Slavery is freedom. God condones sodomy, prostitution, and drug use in “heaven.” Please. All this does is reveal to total immorality of Paglia, the priests involved, and the artist. It says nothing to anyone about God, sin, redemption, the human condition, etc.]
The article then goes on to note how Paglia has moved to undermine the Doctrine of the Faith on numerous occasions since his pontifical appointments, including this:
In July of 2016, still under the direction of Paglia, the Pontifical Council for the Family issued a new sex-ed program that includes lascivious and pornographic images so disturbing that one psychologist suggested that the archbishop be evaluated by a review board in accordance with norms of the Dallas Charter, which are meant to protect children from sexual abuse.
The images in question, which, quite frankly, are of an amateur level of quality and boringly progressive in their message. I wish these geriatric progressive perverts would understand just how tired and predictable their attempts at shocking have become (beware these images contain nudity and are, as stated above, obviously intended to be erotic:
Paglia circled. The image is obviously intended to leave vague whether it be Christ or some male love uplifting the bishop
Yes there are drug dealers and prostitutes and people obviously getting it on if out and out penetration is not show. SOOOO appropriate for a church and children. Consider how diligent a man who has no problem bombarding children with homo-erotic art every day in what should be the sanctuary of the Lord is going to be about protecting children’s innocence generally, or from predatory priests in particular.
And yet Francis has seen fit to install this man over pontifical departments dedicated to upholding the family and the sanctity of life.
Outrage doesn’t begin to describe it.
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, damnable blasphemy, disaster, family, Francis, General Catholic, manhood, priests, Sacraments, scandals, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
Hopefully folks aren’t getting sick of sermons from this priest, but these two in particular are excellent in the age of a pope who is literally antithetical to the Faith and where so much error is being promoted by the vast majority of priests and bishops. In point of fact, as I discussed with a priest last night, so many of even well-intentioned young priests have never been formed in the true Doctrine of the Faith on this and many allied topics. Centuries of moral theological development were deliberately suppressed in order to help “sing” this new church into being. These sermons go a long way to correcting this very common deficiency.
What is going on between the pope and the four cardinals who issued the Dubia against Amoris Laetitia? How have we come to this awful pass. Largely, through deliberate obfuscation or frustration of Sacred Doctrine and the centuries-long practice of the Faith. This occurred as a result of the horrific sundering of the Church from her historical and doctrinal mores at and after Vatican II. But what specifically is going on? Father provides much needed background and catechesis in the sermons below.
The first sermon is on marriage. It covers, very briefly and at a high level, common misconceptions regarding marriage contract, the ends of marriage, annulments, the very narrow grounds on which they can be granted, separation and the circumstances under which it may legitimately occur, so-called divorce, the debts due to spouses, etc. Father notes that even among many traditional Catholics there is a sometimes a stubborn unwillingness to accept elements of the Church’s Doctrine on marriage, even where it is known.
If you don’t have 40 minutes to invest in the entire sermon, there is a fine summation from 33:00 – 38:00:
The next sermon is on penance. We all know, Confession is the great ignored, belittled, and forgotten Sacrament of the post-conciliar age. The vast majority of parishes, if they have Confession at all, have a paltry 30-60 minutes a week. But as Father notes, this is only the beginning of the problems of Confession. Many priests, and almost all faithful, do not know what true contrition for sin means, or what lack of true contrition means for those who repeatedly go to the confessional every week or month with exactly the same sins to confess. Even more, there are those who fail to remove the near occasion of sin for their primary vice – such as smart phones in the pockets of those with a porn/self-abuse addiction.
In fact, confessors that wrongly grant absolution for sins such as adultery – say, in the case of a couple of one of these patented “complex situations” where people with previous marriages go ahead and civilly attempt a remarriage – bring damnation down upon themselves when there is no purpose of amendment and the soul in question intends to continue their adulterous relationship including the marital act. This has obvious consequences for the Church today, where supposed “processes of accompaniment” are to be exercised for souls who persist in adulterous unions to receive the Blessed Sacrament even though they have not stopped their adulterous acts and have made no valid confession:
In fact, as Father notes, these priests who basically solicit penitents to continue in adulterous unions with ongoing amoral and illicit commission of the marital act are committing an actual crime against Canon Law, called solicitation. Thus Francis’ Amoris Laetitia and the interpretations of it he has approved through direct, personal intervention, institutionalize actual canon law crimes in addition to having the potential – indeed, the near certainty – of leading numerous souls of both priests and laity to hell. I don’t know what could be more diabolical than that, especially given the office from which these notions stem.
This second sermon does not have a brief summation at the end, but it is entirely worth your time.