TFP praying outside area mills 07/26-07/27/15 July 24, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Admin, contraception, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Tradition, Virtue.
1 comment so far
Just a quick notice and request, members of Tradition, Family, and Property are going to be praying outside area mills this Sunday and Monday. I’m not sure of their schedule. I think this is the group based more or less out of Tyler. Anyway they are coming to Dallas to pray outside mills and they are looking for a place to stay Sunday and Monday night. They will stay anywhere, sleep on the floor, etc., but they have one requirement: no teenage girls. Anything else is fine. I assume relative proximity to the two remaining mills would be a plus.
If you think you have an ability to help you can contact Joanne Underwood at the Dallas CPLC.
BTW, I know some readers have issues with TFP but I do think they’ve written one of the best responses to the diabolical Obergefell decision I’ve read. It brings out a number of important points, including the fact that even the very hostile dissenting views expressed by some justices are deficient in that they ignore the natural law:
Regrettably, Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent was weak and included concessions to the homosexual movement such as: “Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us….” “Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling….” “The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.”
More importantly, Roberts’ dissent shares by omission in the majority’s implied denial of the obligation of every man, and therefore of society, to do good and to avoid evil. There is no discussion much less condemnation of the unnaturalness and intrinsic immorality of the homosexual act, which lies at the root of every same-sex “marriage.”
With the attention of America riveted on the issue, Roberts’ dissent could have been used as an ideal “teaching moment” that a moral wrong can never become a civil right, steering America’s conservative reaction onto the high ground where it belongs……..
……Of the three other dissenting opinions only that of Justice Thomas comes close to mentioning our obligations under Natural Law, but only in a fleeting manner. He quotes John Locke and Thomas Rutherforth but does not develop this line of thought. While he expounds ably our constitutional political liberty and correctly denounces the majority’s misconception of the physical liberty alluded to in the Fourteenth Amendment, he does not denounce their erroneous view of man’s moral liberty.
Both majority and dissenting opinions talk about the impact of this decision on the free exercise of religion in America. The latter show evident concern that it stands threatened, and they should be worried. Just as the homosexual movement fought for the legalization of same-sex “marriage” so that homosexuality would be accepted as normal and homosexual acts would be considered equal to the marital act, it will now push to further erode and eventually extirpate the expression of Christian morality from society.
This decision increases the country’s growing polarization. If before this decision anti-discrimination laws around the country were already being used to elevate homosexuals to a privileged class, giving rise to many incidents of egregious and unjust persecution (e.g. bakers, florists, photographers, CEOs, teachers, etc.), what will the nation witness in the decision’s wake?
………not to worry, because Synods carry very little doctrinal weight (if any), and there is precedent for synodal error in the past. I agree completely with the prediction and the lack of doctrinal authority in the Synod itself, which, like a national conference, is simply a meeting of a small sub-set of the world’s bishops and very far from an ecumenical conference. But what I am concerned about is the encyclical which will follow the Synod, and the degree to which enemies of the Faith/modernist Katholycs will use the Synod to lure still more souls into perdition. I am also concerned about the shut up and pray sentiment Father Nix seems to close his article with.
One of the surprising things I have seen among priests and the faithful under the Pontificate of Pope Francis is that certain people who used to hate the word “obedience,” maybe five years ago, now go on quoting obedience like they were St. John of the Cross!………
……..There is excitement and concern, from the left and right respectively, that the October 2015 “Synod on the Family” will change Church teaching on divorced and remarried receiving Holy Communion as well as those in homosexual unions being allowed to receive Holy Communion. You might imagine that I don’t participate in the excitement of “the left” that doctrine might change, but did you know that I don’t participate in the concern to “the right” either?……[I get what he’s trying to say, but I disagree with common attempts to portray faithful/traditional/orthodox Catholicism as being a phenomenon of the right. It is true that much of the Doctrine of the Faith is embraced by modern conservatives, but that Doctrine both long predates the liberal/conservative divide (something that did not exist until the late 17th century) and stands above political concerns. And certain aspects of the Faith are embraced by the left (though in totality, the right has adopted far more than the left, at least until very recently). But the main thing is this, which is the ultimate trick modernists have managed to fool people with: that Catholicism as always understood and practiced is now some weird phenomenon of “integrists” and “traditionalists,” creatures of the “right” who are simply manipulating the Faith in the same way that modernist sexular pagans do. There probably exist examples of people who do, in actuality, do this, but it is false to smear the entire remnant of Catholics with these labels. And having concerns over the Synod and/or Pope Francis is hardly something that puts a Catholic’s credibility or faithfulness in doubt. Anyway, moving on….]
……..However, a synod does not only not have the weight of infallibility, but there is precedent for error in a synod! This synod was the 18th century Synod of Pistoia where Jansenism was promoted. It’s crafty that Satan may be tempting the Church nowadays more towards presumption of God’s mercy, than the despair of God’s mercy within the Jansenism of the 18th century. He’s tricky with that pendulum swing! [There have been other problematic synods, as well. That is one reason why they fell out of fashion. There were synods in 18th century France that also embraced Jansenism to varying degrees, and synods before that which seemed to find much to like in other errors.]
I hope I’m wrong, but I predict error coming in the October 2015 Synod of the Family, followed by Divine Intervention. This is not because I’m a Savonorola prophet of doom, but on a very natural level, because of the manifest and public, shameless teaching of the Cardinals who have been recently promoted in these matters, as reported byLife Site News: [Father then lists many statements from cardinals and bishops appointed to the Synod – by Pope Francis himself – which are highly disconcerting.]
……Let me (Fr. Nix, now) be very clear that I am obedient to Rome and the Bishops, [why feel compelled to make this statement?] but no Bishop can change the words of Jesus Christ and what He said about divorce or what the Holy Spirit has said through the Apostle Paul on acting out any sexual sin (heterosexual or homosexual.) Pray hard that I’m wrong about error coming down the pipes of this October Synod, but if I’m not, just remember that a synod can not change the words of Jesus Christ. This is not a Protestant who believes in Sola Scriptura.………. [Huh? Where did that come from? Am I wrong in detecting a bit of a slight against the Society of Saint Pius X in that statement?]
I hope I’m wrong, but if I’m right and the synod disseminates error, “the right” will frenzy on how to explain the doctrinal confusion and “the left” will frenzy on how to rejoice over the doctrinal confusion.Either approach would be both unnecessary and superfluous. As I wrote above, there is precedent in history for error to be found in a synod, and no synod can change the articulated faith and morals of Holy Mother Church, especially as found in Scripture, Councils, Creeds, Patristics and Ex-Cathedral statements. A synod is none of these. [So Father seems to be saying that we should not worry ourselves over the promotion of rank error from the highest levels of the Church, under the direct supervision of the Bishop of Rome?!?! Goodness, if this is not something to get concerned over, what is? I can tell you, having read a bit of history, that there was great consternation and “frenzy” over the outcome of the Synod of Pistoia. It was a huge international controversy. Is it “frenzy” to denounce any errors that come forth from the Synod and remind souls of Catholic Truth? Is it “frenzy” to be scandalized by error emanating from the highest echelons of the Church?]
As Padre Pio said, “Pray, Hope and Don’t worry.” God will straighten it out and we’ll all be fine. Chilax, as the niños say, even if things go down bad in October.
I wish I could be as blissfully confident as Father Nix is as to the outcome of this Synod. My concern is that souls will fall away in great numbers (and not only in the fallen West, but in places where the Faith is still relatively vigorous), either through the adoption of immoral acts “pastorally” made “moral” through a Synodal sleight of hand, or through scandal and wind up in one of the sects. Pope Francis’ popularity is plummeting, especially among conservatives. More and more Catholics are becoming even further confused and scandalized. While you and I and other souls may be blessed to stay faithful, what of those who won’t? Absolutely prayer should be the bedrock of our faith, and excessive worry is unhealthful, but when the likelihood exists that errors promoted will lead to catastrophic consequences for potentially millions of souls, I’m afraid I cannot simply “chillax.” If that makes me a bad, frenzied Catholic of the right, may God have mercy on me, but I doubt that’s the case.
I get that Father is probably trying to prevent souls being scandalized out of the Faith through his advice to calmly ignore the results of the Synod, but I think he takes his prescription a bit too far, and has fallen into common traps in slapping political labels onto what, up until recent decades, was simply Catholicism.
Well this is a most positive development. The Transalpine Redemptorists/Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer from Papa Stronsay, Scotland and Christchurch, NZ, have, under the sponsorship of Bishop Basil Meeking, DD, founded the Knights of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus. This is an organization dedicated to providing solid formation for boys and men who wish to serve Our Blessed Lord at His altar. More:
The Knights of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus is an organization which has been formed by the Congregation of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer. Its object is to provide a solid formation for boys and men who wish to serve Our Blessed Lord at His altar. It has been created in response to the need to train boys and men worthy of the duty of serving at the Traditional Rite of Holy Mass. A society called Knights of the Altar was begun under St John Bosco in 1858, and this name was used in the United States of America by a Fr Benz in 1939, who formed an Altar serving society. Our Society is largely based on the Knights of the Altar.
Medieval Knighthood, in the service of manor lords, calls forth such ideals as honour, loyalty, justice, chivalry, and respect for all. In the use of the term knight, the Altar Server is reminded of his duty to serve the Lord of lords with fidelity and honour, to treat others with respect and justice, and to live an upright personal life, defending always the rights of God and His Holy Church. In the names page and squire, the server is reminded again of the years of practice and study that went into the training of a knight and should consider with what devotion and perseverance he should attend to his own training in the service of the Altar. The chevalierwas a travelling knight, which should remind the server that he should be ever travelling toward his heavenly goal.
Purpose of the Society
(1) To form a worthy guard of honour to our Divine Eucharistic King in whose service we willingly assume the dignity and honour of becoming Knights of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus;
(2) To render faithful, reverent and edifying service to God by assisting His visible representatives, the Bishops and Priests, in offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and in all other liturgical and devotional functions;
(3) To enkindle in the hearts of the faithful whom we represent at the altar, greater piety and devotion by reverently performing the duties of our holy office and by giving good example in our daily lives;
(4) Finally, to ensure the continued and efficient function of the Knights of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus as a society by attending meetings and giving of our service to the Church.
The young men inducted into this society made the following pledge:
“We, the Knights of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, pledge allegiance to our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, to His representatives on earth, and to Mary, our Queen Immaculate, whom we will serve faithfully until we attain eternal triumph in heaven. We pledge ourselves to form a worthy guard of honour to our Divine Eucharistic King in whose service we willingly assume the dignity and honour of becoming Knights of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus; to render faithful, reverent and edifying service to God by assisting His visible representatives, the Bishops and Priests, in offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and in all other liturgical and devotional functions; to enkindle in the hearts of the faithful, whom we represent at the altar, greater piety and devotion by reverently performing the duties of our holy office and by giving good example in our daily lives.”
Pics of the solemn event:
I’m not sure how this society is intended to grow. Perhaps contact the Transalpine Redemptorists to see how this society could be expanded to your locale, and what is involved. Note that they did have a bishop emeritus mark the formal entrance of some 14 young men into this society. It seems very formal, but I have little idea of the ceremony – or the commitment – involved. Is it much beyond regular service at the altar in a traditional parish?
Perhaps a Transalpine Redemptorist would be kind enough to provide some elucidation?
Irrespective, more like this.
I have, good readers, been blessed to read several good histories on the persecution of Catholics in Mexico. Blood Drenched Altars, Mexican Martyrdom, The Power and the Glory by Graham Greene, and the writings of Gary Potter all helped shape at least a basic knowledge of the course of the terrible persecution that afflicted the Catholic Church in Mexico over the period 1815 – 1940.
However, I must say, none of these books have established so clearly the near total involvement of highly anti-Catholic radical Masons at the top of the Mexican revolutionary leadership throughout this time period, and the deliberate
intervention of the United States government in favor of these Masons, as Father Michael Kenny SJ’s book No God Next Door. From Joel R. Poinsett’s initial formation of a joint Mexican-American Supreme Masonic Council in New Orleans in 1827 – which set the course for the Mexican revolution for the next century, and thoroughly inculcated its anti-Catholic character – to Woodrow Wilson’s constant intervention in favor of the most radical, Church-hating elements in the disastrous “Tampico Affair” and other acts, this American-influenced (and at times dominated) Masonic cabal was the vital instigator of the vicious persecution of the Church and the subsequent secularization of Mexican life, which largely persists to this day.
There is far too much vital history contained in this book to cover in one post. You really need to read the book. But I can give some excerpts that will help establish the reality of American Masonic (and racist, anti-Catholic US Southerner) involvement in the savage, century-long persecution of the Church. First, I’ll establish the personage of Joel R. Poinsett: Southerner, dedicated to establishing a great southern expansion of the United States (realized after the unjust war of 1846) for the purposes of preserving the relative power of the slave states against the increasingly abolitionist North, Poinsett was appointed the first representative of the federal government to recently independent Mexico in 1825. He immediately began gathering around himself all the radical, disaffected elements he could find, men dedicated both to turning Mexico into an American-type representative democracy, and, even more, dedicated to breaking the influence of the Catholic Church over Mexican life. Thus, an early example of “nation-building” American hubris, almost two centuries before our adventures in the Middle East, attempting to impose on an unwilling and, even more, indisposed population the same kind of government that required centuries of development (and protestant/endarkenment) errors to bring to fruition in the United States.
When Poinsett was informed that Mexico was not then (nor is not now?) a suitable land for American-type democracy by Mexican leaders, he began organizing plots to overthrow that leadership and instigate an American-backed progressive revolution. His plan was to install a liberal democracy so friendly and beholden to the US for its power that it would willingly trade away most of Mexico’s land so that they might rule the rump state that remained. His actions caused great scandals, and he was subsequently recalled to the US under a dark cloud of shame, and his co-conspirators were exiled with him.
But Poinsett was a determined man. He gathered around himself in New Orleans the revolutionary friends he had made in Mexico, and introduced them to the Lodge. The Lodge would become the meeting place, nexus of communications, and source of diabolical inspiration for the Revolution for the next 120 years. We take up this seminal secret meeting at the Grand Lodge La Luz in New Orleans held in 1827 under Poinsett’s direction:
Poinsett and the pro-American liberal party he had organized adopted in secret session of the Grand Lodge La Luz in New Orleans, 1827, the following preamble and platform:
“Convinced that the clergy, inasmuch as it opposes colonization (of Mexico, by Americans), is a permanent obstacle to reform; that it impedes the diffusion of light, [i.e., endarkenment ideals promoted by Masonry] provokes antagonism towards foreigners (i.e., Joel R. Poinsett)….the Mexican National Rite adopts in all its parts the political plan and program of reform proposed by progressive men (i.e., Joel R. Poinsett), which should be initiated in Congress as soon as possible by the Masons who hold seats there…….because being based on the principles taught by Masonry, the Rite should redouble its efforts to make it effective in accordance with the terms in which it is conceived, namely:
1. Absolute freedom of opinion and abrogation of all laws censoring the press
2. Abolition of special privilege for the clergy…..
3. Suppression of monastic institutions and all laws recognizing the intervention of the clergy in civil business, such as the marriage contract, etc.
4. Improvement of the moral condition of the people by depriving the clergy of its monopoly on public education by increasing educational facilities and inculcating social duties by means of the foundation of…….secular educational institutions for classic literature, science, and morals” [Education was in the hands of the Church because, to that time, no other entity could be bothered to provide it. Education was free or incredibly cheap, and had been a substantial expense for the Church which operated schools, seminaries, and colleges at her own expense for the good of the people. But since those schools naturally conveyed a Catholic viewpoint and the Doctrine of the Faith, along with all the other subjects, it had to be destroyed as an obstacle to “progress.”]
So what did this lead to? With the practically communist 1917 Constitution – never voted on or approved by the people, but rammed through an unelected Congress under threat of violence – all of these anti-Church provisions and more were put in place. And it was the United States government that assured the victory of the most radical elements in the long Mexican revolution:
“Article 3 of the 1917 Mexican Constitution is the main avenue that Calles [bastard child, never baptized, likely not even qualified to hold office as the son of a foreigner, he was also a brigand, murderer, insatiable thief, and manifest failure at all he tried before he became, for his enormous hatred of the Church, a powerful figure in the Revolution] has seized for the permanent uprooting of religion from the minds and hearts of Mexico. This article abrogates the parents right to provide for the education of their offspring; and on this quite justifying basis, Calles proclaimed, and by organic law has since executed, his purpose, “to enter into and take possession of the consciences of children, of the consciences of youth,” and compel all Mexico “to belong to the revolution.”
Thus, also was finally realized in its fullness the plan of action set by Joel R. Poinsett and adopted in 1827 by the joint Mexican and American Supreme Masonic Councils in New Orleans, namely, to abolish the privileges of the clergy and all laws recognizing intervention of the clergy, and “to deprive the clergy of its monopoly on public education.”
This meant, as the context obviously shows, that the Church must be kept out of the schools, and religion out of all education, so that the State shall mould the pupils to its will. This was precisely the purpose of the Farias decrees of 1833, of the Juarez code of 1857, of the Queretaro Constitution of 1817, as of the Calles amendments of 1934 and of the high Masonic Councils before and after 1827. And all were based on the same ground, that the child belongs to the state, and that the state alone has the right to educate him, the parent not at all. [Turning parents, in effect, into slaves of the state, slaves enjoined to provide offspring that the state will then take and mold according to its will. How similar to the rhetoric of leftists of our own time (it takes a village). There is nothing new under the sun, or Son.]
……..That the child belongs to the state, and that the state has the sole right to educate him, and that all religion must be excluded from his teaching, is a primary Masonic doctrine, not only in Mexico and Latin countries, but here in the US, as well. In Spain and France and other Latin lands the first sign of Masonic dominance is the exclusion of the crucifix from the school and its replacement with anti-Christian teachings. United States Scottish Rite Masonry has always been in union with the Grant Orient and in sympathy with this policy, and all American masonry is in formal union with it now.…….
…….The Supreme Council of the Thirty Third Degree in Washington and the Imperial Council of Oregon, having resolved in 1920 that education in religionless public schools must be made compulsory, on all, both started an agitation for a law in Oregon compelling public school attendance for all children from 8 to 16. They assumed credit for its adoption in 1922 and had similar bills ready for other states……..
No sooner had the Supreme Court [in 1934] ruled out the Masonic doctrine as the direct antithesis of our “fundamental theory of liberty,” that the Supreme Council of the Thirty Third Degree issued in Washington a counter pronouncement in defiance of the Supreme Court of the nation…………issuing a profession of principles which Calles and his Mexican Masons could not better:
“We are, therefore, justified in continuing to assert and maintain our belief in the value of the compulsory requirement of attendance of all children upon the public schools. We cannot at this time but insist upon the existence of the principle that the right of the child to avail himself of the educational opportunities of the public school is superior to the right of the parent or of any corporation, secular or religious, to shape in advance his intellectual allegiance and we should be alert to unite with every movement which tends to the maintenance of this right.” [It certainly seems that in this year of our Lord 2015 the Masons have essentially achieved their goal of “de-mythologizing” virtually all young people in this country and so many others – thus paving the way for our conquest by islam]
Sorry, this post is becoming longer than I planned, so I’ll cut it off there. Still later in the book, no less a personage than Theodore Roosevelt denounced the favoritism and direct aid given to the worst, most anti-Catholic revolutionaries by several American administrations, especially democrat ones. It is no accident that the Revolution in Mexico made its greatest gains, and consolidated its cruel anti-Church policies to the utmost, under the administrations of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. Father Kenny shows that it was Wilson’s repeated intervention on the side of the revolutionaries Carranza, et. al., that allowed them to triumph over the much more moderate government of Huerta, among others. Even the fruitless “punitive expedition” of Pershing against Pancho Villa could be seen as an effort to aid the by-then established radical government consolidate its power. It certainly could not be due to Villa’s attack on the US in Columbus, NM, since Wilson (and others) had looked the other way on numerous previous occasions when such depredations occurred (as in, when Calles ordered the murder of three men in Laredo, TX), and even more, allowed free passage to armed revolutionary columns through US soil, all the while seeing to it that they were well supplied in arms, ammunition, food, and money, while blockading all such vital materials to the more conservative elements.
US influence was so decisive that even the arrival of US warships in Mexican ports could instigate the fall of a government, depending on the vagaries of the political situation. Throughout Calles reign, US diplomats like the racist southerner Josephus Daniels (long-time friend of FDR since Wilson administration days and an ardent supporter of Jim Crow laws in the South) provided him with most vociferous, unequivocal support, while dismissing concerns that he was repressive or dictatorial in any way. They did this due to both a similarity of political outlook – progressives always reward and never criticize their “friends” – and because US industry with billion dollar concessions in Mexico demanded it.
Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States!
Final thought – could the current enormous influx of immigrants from Mexico, to the point where they will likely constitute a majority in most of the Southwest of the US within a few decades, be poetic justice for US treatment of Mexico for so many years? God works in mysterious ways, but never fails to punish those who attack His own.
Something to consider, anyway.
This video below from American Life League got me thinking: given the sweeping condemnations that popes and bishops in times past have issued against avowed enemies of the Church like freemasons, Nazis, and communists, when will the US bishops excommunicate all Planned Barrenhood staff, members and financial supporters? Bishop Bruskewitz did so two decades ago in Lincoln. And that wasn’t the first time Planned Barrenhood staff had been so treated.
But, then again, most of the blanket excommunications (very rightfully made) were well before the unleashing of modernist secular humanism in the Church starting in 1958. It is widely believed that the USCCB presently has a secret, unpublished policy to ostracize any member who enforces Canon 915 against a Catholic politician, for instance. I would tend to imagine there are also blanket “prohibitions” against interdicting other anti-Catholic organizations – just like Banned Parenthood.
So we have gone from a Church – or at least its human hierarchy – that took very seriously its mission to oppose evil, avoid scandal, and protect the faithful throughout almost the entirety of her long history, to where we have today an emasculated leadership who seem terrified to act, when they aren’t actively promoting things always held to be antithetical to the Faith.
What could have happened?
How often have we heard in the past 50 years that the Church must now be reasonable, that to exhort souls to follow the Faith as it was practiced for so many centuries is now unreasonable and too bizarre for the world to bear? We don’t want to be fanatical “integrists,” right?
Sorry, I’m taking off on a tangent from the video below but there is a reason why Planned Barrenhood has so much freedom to conduct its hateful, diabolical campaign. It is due to lack of resistance from the Church. And need I remind that Cardinal Cushing collaborated with Planned Barrenhood of Greater Boston to overcome Catholic legislative resistance (from lay Catholic legislators) and get contraception legalized in Massachusetts!? Very similar occurred in Connecticut and Rhode Island.
And where is the mass resistance and constant exhortations from the leadership against the latest descent into hedonist debauchery via pretended “same-sex marriage?”
Anyway, the video:
Mind you, that is public sinners: as in those who, in some way, publicly proclaim their sin, in this case, rejection of Catholic Doctrine, i.e., heresy.
A case – likely to be increasingly frequent in the near future – developed in the Diocese of Baton Rouge, LA. A man publicly known to be lost in sins of sodomy and even to have a pretended “marriage” to another man, presented for Communion. This man was publicly unrepentant of his sin. The priest, aware of this man’s condition, quite rightly protected the sanctity of the Blessed Sacrament and defended the sinner’s soul (in great charity) by refusing to allow him to blaspheme the Blessed Sacrament. The man, naturally in this day and age, complained publicly over this act of kindness (which he took to be a cruel abuse), and the bishop, equally naturally, promptly caved, issuing a scandalous apology.
Just another day in the American Catholic Church, I suppose (my emphasis and comments):
Tim Ardillo, an avowed aberrosexual “married” to another man, [public declaration of which in and of itself is grounds for excommunication and denial of the Blessed Sacrament] is claiming that he was denied Communion at the funeral of his dead mother on July 10 in St. Helena’s Church in the Diocese of Baton Rouge (Louisiana). Ardillo wanted to receive the Body of Christ in Communion, however, he was denied by Pastor Mark Beard.
The magazine The Advocate stated that the Diocese of Baton Rouge has since apologized to Ardillo for the incident, personally from the archbishop of New Orleans himself, Msgr. Gregory Aymond. [This has been widely reported, but was it confirmed?]
According to Ardillo, pastor Beard had justified his refusal by saying it was because he was “not married in church.” The presumed reason, according to the aberrosexual, was that he had previously said in the obituary for his mother he was described as being “married” to a man. [There we go, very public declaration of unrepentant grave sin. The pastor, being apparently aware of the man’s identity and status, should have, in charity, approached him before Mass and addressed the matter, making clear his intent, but perhaps that was impossible for any of a number of reasons.]
The Secretariat of Archbishop Aymond declined to comment. The apology was neither confirmed nor denied. No one from the parish wanted to take a position……..
……..What this meant in practice, at least in the Diocese of Baton Rouge, said the diocesan press officer, Donna Carville, a communion assistant (Eucharistic Minister): The diocese will not tolerate refusal of Communion to Catholics, “just because they are gay.” [This is a very dangerous and unfortunate statement. Would she say the same of some other, less culturally popular sin? Being possessed of strong attraction for people of the same sex is profoundly disordered. It may or may not be sufficient grounds for denial of the Blessed Sacrament (it depends how it is acted upon). But this was not the case here. This was the case of a man making a public declaration of grave sin! Canon Law is exceedingly clear on this point.]
It was “very surprising that Communion was denied. This does not work … We do not have people refuse communion. Who are we to judge whether they believe [the Church’s teaching on Communion] or not? This is a matter between them and God,” said Donna Carville. [Well we can certainly see the rhetoric of the current pontificate in this statement. But she’s completely, totally wrong. Once again, we don’t have to peer into anyone’s soul, the man made a public declaration of which the priest became aware. That’s perfect grounds for the priest’s action. In addition, Canon Law stipulates very clearly, contrary to this bonehead quoted below, that public sin requires public retraction and penance PRIOR to amelioration of the sin and an ability to return to the Blessed Sacrament. That is why the continued reception of grave public heretic politicians is such an enormous scandal, they have never publicly retracted their heresy.]
It should not be used to deny the Eucharist, because someone is not married in Church, seconded the canon lawyer, Roger Keeler, coordinator of the Canon Law Society of America, and a priest of the Archdiocese of Edmonton in Alberta State (Canada). “The Communion is not a weapon. It is not a reward for good behavior. It is food for tired souls,” said Keeler. [Once again, direct quotes of Pope Francis, and very damaging ones] The priest could not know the marital status of those who come forward for Communion. [WRONG. In this case, he did. And that was manifest sufficient grounds for his actions. He should be commended by all involved, starting with his bishop, but also the man who attempted to receive, piling sacrilege on top of his other sins.]
Let’s see what Canon Law really says:
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.
Of course Canon 915 is perfectly clear. “Others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin – like an open declaration of no just sodomy but pseudo-sodo-marriage – are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” That seems very clear to me, and indeed was, for about the first 1950 years of the Church’s existence. But now its a matter for apologies and groveling worries about “weaponizing” the Blessed Sacrament.
In all this mass abrogation of duty, it is the souls who ultimately pay the price. The souls of laity falling into hell like snowflakes, and the souls of bishops, too, paving the floor of hell.
Dom Prosper Gueranger spends a number of pages of his meditations on the Ninth Sunday after Pentecost in The Liturgical Year recounting the final chastisement and destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the Old Covenant. Just as Jesus Christ our Lord had prophesied, Jerusalem was completely, utterly destroyed by Roman legions under Titus Flavius Vespasianus. This was after several previous chastisements, most notably the first destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian exile.
Why was Israel, God’s original chosen people, so chastised? The Bible – and Gueranger – tells us, it was due to constant sin and rejection of the True Faith God had given Israel. Eventually Israel’s crimes became so great that God completely terminated His covenant with them and instituted the New Covenant in Himself, the Second Person of the Trinity.
But as Gueranger warns us, the same fate can befall us, and even almost the entire human element of the Church, if we are similarly unfaithful. Entire nations have been condemned by God to destruction for rejecting His Law and the practice of perversion. A grim reminder for we of the Church – and her leaders – in this time:
…[N]ever forget that the same causes which brought about the destruction of the Jews would also lead you to ruin. They fell, because of their unbelief; you, who once had no faith and yet God showed mercy to you, are now what you are by faith. Be not, therefore, high-minded with self-complacency; but remember how God, who broke off the natural branches from the glorious tree, will not spare you, if you cease to be faithful; and whilst you do well to admire His mercy, you do not wisely if you forget His inexorable justice………..
……..But the assurance of salvation, granted to the bride of the Son of God, does not extend to her children, taken either individually or collectively – that is, men or nations. On each one of us it is incumbent that we meditate on the sad fate which befell Jerusalem; as also on what happened ages before, to the ancestors of the Jewish people, viz., that scarce one of those who were living when Moses led them out of Egypt lived to enter into the promised land.
Indeed, of 600,000 adult Jewish men who left Egypt in the Exodus, precisely TWO survived to enter the promised land. Now the Exodus from Egypt and journey to the promised land of Israel is a highly significant type of our earthly journey through the dangers and temptations of the world and our hoped for entry into Heaven. While Christ’s crucifixion, death, and Resurrection has greatly changed the calculus in our favor, it hasn’t entirely altered the validity of this type. Something to be kept in mind.
As is the testimony of so very many Saints and holy people, who attest from visions or even personal experience that even the vast majority of baptized Catholics go to hell. Completely contradicting Fr. Barron and other modernist “hopes,” the constant testimony of the Saints has been that many more are lost than are saved.
The unprecedented and terrifying situation faithful souls face today, of course, is that so much of the Church herself seems to be in the very predicament Dom Prosper warns about. Unprecedented in modern times, and having only a few possible similar instances throughout its 2000 year history, this crisis leaves many souls lost and confused over where to turn, what to believe. Fortunately we do have Tradition, the Magisterium of the past, to turn to. The Church can never become something she is not, she can never validly counter her own established Sacred Doctrine, so as long as we cling to that, we can be assured of remaining faithful – in spite of what men today may say. It should be remembered that when the Jews faltered, there were faithful remnants then, too, and they were likewise chastised as not being with the times, as being unreasonably obstinate, and refusing to go along with what the great mass of people wanted. A good number of prophets were put to death for their defense of the Faith as it was.
Men cannot change what God has revealed. Men cannot pretend to take flatly contradictory “pastoral approaches” to matters in ways that obliterate settled Dogma and remain faithful. No we cannot, and do not want to, become protestant and pick and choose for ourselves what to believe and what to reject. But that is not the point. The point is to cling to that which has been clearly revealed and defined in the long course of centuries.
And that’s the very difficult part in a hierarchical Church. In those rare and terrible times when the hierarchy itself seems to be turning on the Church, it is exceedingly difficult to remain a faithful Catholic. I pray for the strength to remain so.
German Church implosion accelerates under Pope Francis July 22, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, Papa, scandals, secularism, self-serving, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
I’ve been meaning to post on this for days, but never got around to it. Rorate has a post alluding to the rapidly accelerating decline in Church membership in Germany. But Eponymous Flower had even more details days before, and it is to that post that I will mostly refer:
The German Bishops’ Conference (DBK) are in the midst of silly season this Friday and the dioceses have reported the Church statistics in 2014 and again this is explosive, because the number of leaving the Church has risen significantly again. After 178,805 people left in 2013, 217,716 people have left the church in 2014. That’s an increase of about 20 percent. Church attendance has risen with an increase of 0.1 percent to 10.9 percent. The total number of priests is 12,219 (2013 12,336)……
……..The numbers leaving the Catholic Church are still comfortably topped by the Protestant church. There 410,000 people have left.
The numbers leaving the Church in Germany are at present the highest ever. The numbers on Mass attendance are misleading, raw numbers of attendees has dropped, even if the ratio of those who remain in the Church attending Mass increased very slightly.
Meanwhile, the German Church took in $6.3 billion from the Church tax and remains the largest employer in Germany after government at all levels with 1.3 million employees. Those who refuse to pay the Church tax are automatically excommunicated in Germany, while those professing rank heresy and even apostasy are given a pass, so long as they pay that almighty tax.
According to Rorate, Mass attendance in Germany in 1990 was 22%. It has fallen by over half in one quarter century.
Msgr. Ganswein, Prefect of the Papal Household and private secretary to Pope Benedict XVI gave reasons for why the German episcopate continues to promote radical, seemingly heretical “pastoral” approaches even as souls flee the Church in unprecedented numbers:
I do not know. Maybe they give in to the Zeitgeist, perhaps they can be led by the applause of the people, which is made by the media … to be critical of the mass media, is certainly less enjoyable. A shepherd must not decide on the basis of whether the media applauds or not. The benchmark is the Gospel, the Faith, sound doctrine, Tradition.
Meanwhile, in the US, Pope Francis’ favorability rating has dropped precipitously in the past year, especially among those who identify as conservative. Overall, his favorability dropped from 75% to 59% overall, but from 72% to 45% among self-described conservatives. One wonders what the numbers would say were the survey broken down by those who assist at Mass weekly – the bare minimum to count as a Catholic, no? 71% of self-described Catholics in the survey view the Pope favorably – a stupefyingly generic term – whereas 89% did so last year. For whatever that means.
No, the Church is not a popularity contest, and being unpopular is not a sign of being a bad shepherd of the faithful. To the contrary, a truly good and Catholic shepherd would probably have much lower approval ratings, as Pope Benedict did for most of his pontificate. But our Blessed Lord told us the world would hate and persecute us, and that we would be blessed when they did so, because it meant we would be living lives contrary to the world and its master. Nevertheless, I think the visibly leftward turn of this pontificate is dismaying a good number of people.
I think the broader point is this: contrary to expectations and what certainly seems to be a deliberate plan of action, positing a very progressive/modernist view of the Faith – whether this is Francis’ intent or not, that is certainly the mass perception – with seeming attempts to gravely undermine moral doctrine held since the Church’s inception, is, once again, not convincing great numbers of souls to enter the Church and is almost certainly precipitating even greater numbers of departures. Caving on doctrine – or appearing to – only convinces people that you had nothing worthwhile to say in the first place,and confirms them in their error. We have over 50 years of clear, concrete evidence of this
phenomenon fact. Doctrinal revolution under the cover of pastoral changes will scandalize millions out of the Church but won’t bring more than a handful of wild-eyed revolutionaries in. But maybe that’s the point, after all.
Admin post – comments, ads, and thank you July 22, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, blogfoolery, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, Grace, Interior Life, sanctity, Tradition, Virtue.
OK guys I just released about 15 valid comments mostly from long-time commenters from spam block. Again I have very little control over this and it has always been a frustration, it seems every few months the spam blocker goes hyperactive and starts blocking normal comments, even those without links, for no apparent reason. I’ve complained and changed settings but it’s never really gotten better. If it happens, just try to leave another short comment and I’ll try to dig them out.
On the ads some are seeing, this is also something I have little control over, though I do have a mechanism to file a complaint if the ads are indecent/inappropriate. So if you are seeing those (I never do), you can let me know that, as well. A little info about the ad would help ID and report it. Sorry if this is a problem, I’ve only had one complaint but it would be devastating if immoral ads were running on the site.
Thank you for your patience and cooperation.
On a happier note, I have been humbled by the great outpouring of generosity in response to my request for prayers during this pregnancy. You guys have blown me away with your generosity. I am compiling a list and will pray for all of you in turn. Thank you thank you thank you for your generosity. I cannot express my gratitude sufficiently, all I can say is that I am so blessed to have such awesome readers, and to belong to the Church of Jesus Christ which prompts such incredible outpourings.
Not sure how wide a play this item has gotten, my wife found it and forwarded it to me. It’s a photo of a list of prices
a Planned Barrenhood affiliate a company closely associated with Planned Barrenhood charged for various baby parts, as of 1999. The prices here certainly seem in line with what we’ve seen revealed in recent videos, though I’m sure inflation has taken a bit of a toll.
I’m all for medical research, but who are the Dr. Frankenstein’s ghoulish enough to use aborted babies in their labs? Isn’t this the kind of monstrous utilitarian mentality warned of in so much fiction, from Shelley to Soylent Green? Or is it fiction any more? It is not unreasonable to fear that some perverse medical scientician might create babies deliberately to abort them for their value to “medical science” in order to prolong the lives of those already born (a la The Island).
Generations of leftist utilitarianism and selfish hedonism have left millions of people, probably a large majority of the population, so morally enervated as to be either too apathetic to care, or perfectly satisfied with this kind of butchery if it helps them:
It is so casually gruesome as to be beyond words like chilling and terrifying. I don’t have so much problem with an adult making a conscious decision to donate their body, post-death, to science, but this is entirely different. If a sufficient market were to exist, it is entirely possible babies are already being created deliberately to be destroyed. I’m surprised there aren’t calls to try raise up frozen embryos for such a demonic purpose – or if it isn’t already occurring on the QT.
This treatment of human beings as objects to be used rather than infinitely priceless images of God worthy of all respect and dignity in their own right is a direct consequence of centuries of endarkenment anti-Catholic rationalism and materialism. This rationalism completely forsakes Christian decency and instead posits a “might makes right” philosophy upon the world, where the strong and healthy can dictate to the sick and weak their worth. It is the direct antithesis of the Christian ethos. And it will continue to grow far, far worse without a mass cultural conversion.
I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, in a very real sense, this manner in which people feel free to use and abuse others to their own ends – be it a mom killing her child, or a government deciding caring for elderly is too expensive and killing them off, or a company purchasing frozen embryos to later harvest for parts – will eventually lead to the reinstitution of slavery. That is the inevitable end result of this use of people as objects playing out. It may take a while, but if we continue on this road, I’m convinced that it will happen, perhaps under a different name, but it will happen.
Thus, the glories of the deliberately anti-Catholic enlightenment. It’s almost like God is trying to send us a message……”this is very wrong, this is destructive, this will cause massive suffering and even civilizational death.” But very few have ears to hear anymore. May God have mercy on us.