I must stress that what is reported below is not yet substantiated. It comes from a source of unknown quality to me, a Catholic newspaper in Malaysia (but it was picked up by the German language site kath.net). I didn’t think Malaysia had much of a Catholic population, but whatevs. However, if true, it would be most disconcerting, to say the least. Abolishing the Pontifical Councils for the Laity and the Family and replacing them with a Congregation for “Pastoral Health Care” headed by arch-progressive Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, Francis’ most eager collaborator? Removing Muller at the CDF and appointing Schoenborn in his stead? Will we soon be treated to the theological orthodoxy of balloon Masses?
The report via Eponymous Flower might be speculation, but if true, it would constitute a significant advance in the entrenchment of like-minded souls in the hierarchy and the institutionalization of Francis’ progressive agenda. Perhaps something to pray over, or against:
Accordjng to a report by the Malaysian Catholic weekly “Herald” Pope Francis plans personnel changes within the Curia. This suggests that the former prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller (68) will occupy the See if Mainz long since vacated by Cardinal Karl Lehmann. In return, the Viennese Cardinal Christoph Schönborn (71) is to switch to the Vatican and take over there, the management of the CDF, the Journal reported over the weekend, citing “well-informed Vatican sources” on its website. [Schoenborn, if he was ever much good when he was involved in the drafting of the 1990s catechism, has certainly drifted left in the past decade or so. He has persecuted faithful priests and shown himself very friendly to the sodomite agenda. His views are not nearly so orthodox as those of Muller’s, which weren’t just perfect to begin with. Muller and Francis have butted heads on many issues, with Muller directly rebuking several of Francis’ more outrageous claims in the past (there are so many, I know). I would not be surprised if Muller is moved out, and soon. Whether he will be replaced by Schoenborn or someone even worse remains to be seen]There were indications that the pope also plans the appointment of Cardinal Stanislaw Rylko (71), Polish cardinal and President of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, Archbishop of Krakow. He would assume the office of the 77-year-old Stanislaw Dziwisz, who has already reached the age limit for resignation.The paper refers to a decree by the Pope, according to which the Council for the Laity and for the Family will be merged on 1 September into a new office. Its statutes were published by the Vatican in early June. According to “Herald” it will be incorporated into an office of pastoral health care. [Could a more worldly and really inappropriate name be chosen? So we’ll be treated to “pastoral health care reform?”] The new formation will receive the status of a congregation with the decision making power. As head of the new Congregation, the Honduran Cardinal Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga (73) has been selected, a close confidant of the pope and head of the Cardinal Council for a reform of the Curia.
St. Alphonsus Liguori on the Means of Perfection July 19, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, mortification, reading, Saints, sanctity, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
I have posted on this subject from St. Alphonsus before, but it’s something I for one can stand to hear over and over again. This is a particularly exhaustive instruction on practicing perfection so it goes on a bit but I think it’s one of the best I’ve ever read, so I’m going to inflict it on you:
The chief means of perfection are:
- To avoid all deliberate sin, however small. Should we, however, happen unfortunately to commit a fault, let us refrain from becoming angry and impatient with ourselves; we must, on such occasions, quietly repent of it; and while we make an act of love to Jesus Christ, and beg his help, we must promise him not to repeat the fault.
- To have an earnest desire to acquire the perfection of the Saints, and to suffer all things to please Jesus Christ; and if we have not this desire, to beseech Jesus Christ, through His bounty, to grant it us; since, as long as we do not feel a sincere desire of becoming Saints, we shall never make one step forward in the way of perfection.
- To have a firm resolution of arriving at perfection; whoever is wanting in this resolution, works but languidly, and in the occasion does not overcome his repugnances; whereas a resolute soul, by the divine aid, which never fails her, surmounts every obstacle.
- To make daily two hours’ or at least one hour’s mental prayer; and, except in case of urgent necessity, never to relinquish it for the sake of any weariness, dryness, or trouble that we may experience.
- To frequent Holy Communion several times a week [I think this one is so key], it is well to seek the counsel of our director, “in order that the practice may be carried out with greater prudence and more abundant merit.” The same rule holds good with regard to external mortifications, such as fasting, wearing the cilice, taking the discipline, and the rest; mortifications of this kind, when practiced without obedience to our spiritual director, will either destroy health or produce vainglory. Hence it is necessary to for each one to have his own director, so that all may be regulated in obedience to him.
- To pray continually, by having recourse to Jesus Christ in all our necessities, by invoking likewise the intercession of our Angel Guardian, of our Holy Patrons, and most particularly of the Mother of God through whose hands Almighty God bestows all graces upon us……Our welfare depends entirely on prayer. We must especially not pass a day without begging God to grant us the gift of perseverance in His grace; whosoever asks for this perseverance obtains it, but he that does not ask for it obtains it not, and is damned; we must pray, too, that Jesus Christ may grant us His holy love and perfect conformity with His divine will. Neither should we forget to pray for every grace through the merits of Jesus Christ. We must first make these prayers when we rise in the morning, and afterwards repeat them in our meditation, at Holy Communion, at the visit of the Blessed Sacrament, and again in the evening at the examination of conscience. We must particularly cry to God for help in the time of temptation, and more especially in temptations against purity, when we should not cease to call for succor on the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary. He that prays, conquers; he that prays not, is conquered……..
…….With respect to humility, not to pride ourselves on riches, honors……or any other natural advantage, and still less on any spiritual gift, reflecting that all are the gifts of God. To consider ourselves the worst of all, and consequently to delight in being despised by others; and not to act as some do, who declare themselves the worst of men, and at the same time wish to be treated as the best. Moreover, to receive corrections humbly, and without attempts to excuse ourselves, and this even though wrongly blamed; except when to defend ourselves would be necessary in order to prevent others being scandalized.
Much more we ought to banish all desire of appearing in public, and of being honored by the world. The maxim of St. Francis should never be out of our sight: “We are just what we are before God.” It would be still worse for a religious to covet posts of honor and superiority in his community. The true honor of a religious is to be the most humble of all; and he is the humblest of all who most joyfully embraces humiliations.
[I add one more unrelated quote because it’s provocative but not at all contrary to the Gospel……]……….St. Philip Neri says…..”whatever affection we bestow on creatures is so much taken from God.”
I’d like to add a conclusion but I’m out of time and probably won’t be back for today. Sorry.
Time to restart the men’s prayer group outside strip joints or “gay” bars? I’m feeling it.
Would You Care to Help a Good Priest on Facebook? July 19, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, priests, Revolution, the struggle for the Church, true leadership, Virtue.
I’m a bit of two minds about this post. A really good, young local priest – he’s not traditional at present, but, I believe, has aspirations or inclinations in that direction – wrote a post on Facebook about offering Mass Ad Orientem. He didn’t say he’s planning on doing so, he just asked for people’s experiences, and whether they found the Novus Ordo offered Ad Orientem meaningful. My wife brought this post to my attention. Since I refuse to have anything to do with Facebook, and won’t get sucked into having my account reactivated (and all my personal data available, again), I thought I might ask readers still on Facebook if they might charitably share their experiences.
The problem, to the extent one exists, is this: there are about 15 replies at present, and they break down about 2:1 or more against Ad Orientem rather than in favor of it. Even those who claim to have assisted at a Novus Ordo offered Ad Orientem seem to speak against it. The usual reasons are proffered: it’s rude for the priest to have his back turned to the people, versus poplum doesn’t undermine the sacredness of the Mass or diminish belief in the Real Presence (both demonstrably false), versus poplum doesn’t result in the Mass devolving into a closed-circle of entertainment, etc. The most frequently offered justification for opposing Ad Orientem is, to me, a very sad one; it comes from older people who lived through the liturgical revolution and eventually came to embrace it. They ask why the Church would now “go back in time,” which is an appalling bit self-justification and a fundamentally illogical claim.
A bit of an aside: I’ve often related that I’ve never had anyone assist at the TLM who did not come away at least somewhat impressed. That is, until a few months ago. A member of my wife’s family who had not been to a TLM since the days of the Council assisted at our local Fraternity parish and literally hated EVERY. SINGLE. ASPECT. of the Mass. I mean everything was wrong. The priest didn’t fold his hands properly. The priest didn’t cross himself enough or at the right times. She couldn’t hear the priest. Etc., etc., ad infinitum. How this woman could perfectly remember every slight detail of the Mass of Ages from 50+ years ago is beyond me.
But she said something really revealing later on. She said it had been extraordinarily difficult, back then, to accept the changes to the Liturgy, but eventually she had. She could not now countenance that those changes had been wrong, or destructive, or that she had gone along with something deficient and disordered all these years. I have to wonder whether that sentiment does not underlie some of the non-response responses asking why the Church would “go back in time.” Or, they may just be liberals.
Anyway, do what you will, I don’t really think it would be helpful to critique other people’s responses, but I think it would be very helpful to provide some powerful positive arguments in favor of Ad Orientem, whether from a Novus Ordo or TLM perspective, in support of this priest. I think if he could, he would be very interested in offering Mass facing the Lord in the tabernacle. He is certainly worthy of support. He’s recently been made pastor of a very large parish that has a very sad history behind it, and he could do much good work for souls in his new position.
Thank you for your consideration. Dominus vobiscum!
Rorate ran an absolutely fascinating report the other day regarding statements Donald Trump has made concerning the Johnson Amendment, which for 62 years has severely limtited – one might even say throttled – the ability of religious institutions to endorse or condemn specific candidates by name. That’s because the Johnson Amendment holds the church or religious institution’s tax exempt status under threat for so doing.
What Trump said, is that he would seek to repeal the Johnson Amendment and permit churches and religious institutions a much freer hand in terms of what is considered acceptable political speech on their part. One can only imagine the quandary in which this would place the USCCB and many individual bishops. Coverage from Rorate (my comments):
Now, enter Donald J. Trump. To be clear, we are not, have not and will not support any candidacy, but it is important to explain where the freedom of the Catholic Church will be better protected.
Back in 1954, when future President Lyndon Johnson was still a senator, he helped pass a change to the U.S. Tax Code called the Johnson Amendment. The amendment, among other things, prevents tax-exempt institutions and churches from endorsing or opposing political candidates. [Which imposition may be speculated to stem from Johnson’s ardor at having been opposed by certain preachers in the hotly contested 1948 Senate Election in Texas, which Johnson stole from Coke Stevenson by ballot-stuffing. Typical for the despicable Johnson]
So, if Candidate A is a rabid pro-abort, and Candidate B is a man of faith, our priests, college presidents, bishops conference, etc., must stay silent, saying no more than something such as “we believe you should vote pro-life” (yes, we know, the USCCB and many “Catholic” school presidents would probably still not endorse over other issues not related to — or now, sadly, in direct opposition to the Faith — even if the law didn’t exist). [Yeah, no kidding. I imagine most at the USCCB would assume the law remain in place, to prevent their having to remain either embarrassingly silent, or endure the wrath of scandalized Catholics when the refuse to endorse the obvious pro-life/morals candidate]
Because of this law — which really does fit nicely into a land that divorced God from its governance from the beginning — we have warned our prelates and priests to start their planning for a day when they have to pay taxes in order to prevent violating their consciences. [Or maybe they’ll just go along to get along]
Then, in a remarkable but little-reported line in Donald Trump’s speech announcing Governor Mike Pence as his running mate, he made a statement to the effect that we must allow religious to speak freely in our society and in their churches — and he promised the repeal of the Johnson Amendment.
First the work was done at Trump’s request at the GOP Platform Committee meeting a few days earlier…….. [Yes, the RNC did add this repeal to the platform, for what it’s worth]
……In the speech yesterday, Trump stated: “We’re going to get rid of that horrible Johnson amendment and we’re going to let evangelicals — we’re going to let Christians and Jews and people of religion talk without being afraid to talk.”
Will Trump act on this pledge? Will he be able to get a bill repealing the Johnson Amendment through Congress? The left would lose their minds, they’ve been banking on breaking Christian adherence to doctrine through the club of threatening repeal of the tax-exempt status. This is not just a clever end-run around yet another sacred shibboleth of the left, but yet another very clever tactical ploy from Trump to undercut cultural marxism on some of its most foundational assumptions.
And, repeal of the Johnson Amendment would be a pretty big deal. Catholics could, for instance, run ads directly attacking pro-aborts and endorsing specific very pro-life/morals candidates. It would greatly remove the threat to the church tax exempt status by forcing the left to focus on first getting the Johnson Amendment reinstated, or something like it. It could have a quite positive impact on the culture.
Amazingly, Trump is the first serious candidate since ’54 to advocate for the Johnson Amendment’s repeal. I don’t think I believe that Trump is more conservative than Reagan, but that’s an interesting fact nonetheless. It’s the kind of thing that makes me reconsider whether he might be more sincere on a number of issues important to me than I have given him credit for. I’ll certainly watch with interest what he does from this point on.
We shall see how the spirit moves me.
1 comment so far
The Left is all about will to power. They don’t even make a pretense at being consistent. Thus, they don’t blink an eye when someone uses a truck to mow down dozens or an ax to wound (and possibly kill) several in Germany. There is no call for background checks on buying an ax, or waiting periods to get a semi. They start out with an ideological belief- guns are bad, icky, scary, whatever – and then act on that presupposition. It has nothing to do with logic, consistency, or reason, and cares nothing at all for sacred rights or the words of the Constitution.
In point of fact, it has far more to do with disarming the population to allow the state to gain total power over them than with any care for the good of others. Most leftists are deeply misanthropic.
And, of course, the religion of the person in question must be brushed aside and buried as quickly as possible. That’s because the ideology places members of that particular religion at the very peak of the pyramid of victimization upon which the Left has built its power in the West. This particular choice – making muslims “sainted” victims rather than the murderous exegetes they so often are – reveals, to me, the fundamental anti-Christian nature of the Left. The Left knows militant islam hates their pluralist, libertine beliefs, and would kill them or at least repress them violently given the chance. And yet even knowing this, they still elevate islam to a sacrosanct group with the greatest claims to vicitimization and the false moral authority the Left grants to those most “persecuted.” This only makes sense, if one comprehends that the ultimate enemy of Leftism is not religion (Leftism itself is a sick stand-in of religion and co-opts many elements of religion) in general but Christianity in particular. Most of the leading thinkers from which the Left draws its philosophy were virulently anti-Catholic if not anti-Christian in general (Hobbes, Locke, Voltaire, Kant, Nietzsche, Hegel, Marx, Engels, etc). Knowing that militant islam hates Christianity at least as much as they do, leftists are only too happy to cooperate with islam in the destruction of Christendom.
There are many attendant factors: self-loathing, horrible catechesis, bad example from bad Christians, daddy issues, etc., but ultimately, the Left’s cozy relationship with islam, turning it from aggressor into supposed victim, has everything to do with the pursuit of its core ideological goals. As I have said many times, eventually, most people professing leftism today will gladly don the hijab, answer the call to prayer, and freely give up the public promiscuity and perversion in which they claim to place so much truck, so long as they may be rid of that meddlesome Christian God.
I think the Left is more perceptive than it knows in this choice. Islam is veritably the anti-Christianity, or anti-Catholicism. There are certainly muslims of good will and pious devotion, but the religion in toto has always been one of violent aggression and horrifying immorality. It is a religion heavily influence by, if not directly created by, satan, or, at the very least, the very worst elements of man.
But guns are bad, so give yours up, bible-humper*:
A teenage Afghan refugee armed with an axe and knife injured four people on a train in southern Germany before being shot dead by police, officials say.
Three people were seriously hurt and one suffered minor injuries in the attack in Wuerzburg, police said.
Initial reports said up to 20 people had been injured but it was later revealed that at least 14 had been treated for shock.
The motive for the attack is not yet clear. [OH PLEASE! The motive is to kill the infidel! Muslims believe that to die while on jihad, killing “infidels,” is a ticket to their false, depraved vision of paradise!]
Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann said the attacker was a 17-year-old Afghan refugee who had been living in the nearby town of Ochsenfurt.
*- Yes I know the term is traditionally “bible-thumper,” but haters of Christianity have replaced with an even nastier version, which is the one I give above
I think I made up a word there. If heresify ain’t a word, it should be.
I was a methodist, once. My parents were split, one a methodist, the other had a high church Anglican/Episcopal background. Anglo-Catholic, really. For the first half of their marriage, they mostly went to methodist churches. Then my mom finally won that war, I guess, and they’ve been Anglican ever since.
What I remember most from my time in the methodist sect was how much I hated it, and how ugly the building was. That “church” is still around, but the original building from my time is now a mosque. They built a much fancier building in north Plano 20 years or so ago.
I severely disliked that methodist “church” because it was as clubby, clique-ish, and class-ridden as you can imagine. At least among the kids it was. Most of the kids there went to another school, so I was on the outs from the beginning. My mom really pushed me to be in the youth group, which I detested. They had a really swishy youth minister and he had some just brilliant ideas like all night stay-overs at the church building for about 80 kids aged 11-17. Which, even in the mid-80s, went about as you would expect. My best friend, now sadly a very fallen away Catholic and militant atheist (thanks Catholic schools!), and I bailed at about 4 in the morning. We walked the 2 miles home to my house in the dark (times was a bit different back then). My mom was rather surprised and displeased when she woke up and found us playing video games at about 6 in the morning.
That, and getting the crud bullied out of me on various field trips is about all I remember of that place. Good times.
Anyway, this sect is being riven by the same cultural forces tearing most protestant sects apart, and which Francis, in his, ahem, wisdom, has seen fit to unleash on the Church. A sub-body of methodists has determined to follow the episcopalians into division and dissolution, having “elected” (how democratic!) an open lesbian to play at being a bishop:
The Western district of the Methodist church has elected an openly gay bishop despite the denomination’s ban on same-sex relationships.
The Rev. Karen Oliveto was elected late Friday night at a meeting in Scottsdale, Arizona, of the church’s Western Jurisdiction. Oliveto is pastor of Glide Memorial United Methodist Church in San Francisco. She is the first openly gay bishop in the 12.7 million-member denomination.
The United Methodist Church is deeply divided over LGBT rights. Church law says same-gender relationships are “incompatible with Christian teaching.” But several regional districts are openly defying the prohibition by appointing gay clergy and allowing same-sex weddings in churches.
Now, as far as I’m concerned, I don’t really care about this, save for how this instance illustrates two things. The first is the folly of ecumenism with protestants, whose beliefs are so varied and contradictory that any illusion of progress with one sect invariably means a setback with another. That clearly demonstrates why the inevitable path of the “ecumenical movement” is towards the watering down of sacred Doctrine until it means absolutely nothing. It also clearly proves that the traditional Catholic approach to the protestants was to aim at their conversion to the Church Jesus Christ founded is not only doctrinally sound and in accord with the tradition handed down to us, it is also the only program that makes sense from a rational standpoint. All else is just whistling in the wind.
The second illustration is the warning this provides to the Catholic Church under Francis, demonstrating clearly that the sexular pagan left is never satisfied with half-measures and will continue pushing until all Christian groups are either fully co-opted into the hellish man-made “paradise” (dystopia, really) they constantly push towards or are completely destroyed/neutered. That is to say, opposition is the only option, cooperation only hastens the destruction. The Church also knew this for centuries, before she was struck by her own revolution/coup from within and became all too friendly with the liberal zeitgeist.
But, being long time readers of this blog, you knew that already.
St. John Vianney on the great evil of Blasphemy July 18, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Domestic Church, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, mortification, priests, Saints, sanctity, Tradition, Virtue.
Actually, the sermon St. John Vianney gave on blasphemy as recorded in The Sermons of the Cure of Ars is about 8000 words long – a tad bit long for this ol’ boy to type out. So, I excerpted the bit that is most relevant to me, having to do with damning things in the name of God.
My dad, God love him, imparted many really good things to me. I feel blessed to have him as a father. But one bad thing he gave me at a very young age is a habit of cussing. And not just your average run of the mill cussing, my dad crawled his way up oil industry ladder from standing up to his ankles in benzene cleaning the inside of tanks (although benzene is supposed to be a severe carcinogen, he’s almost 80 and still has never gotten cancer) to working the gas fields of the Texas/Oklahoma Panhandle to finally being a an upper middle or lower upper manager at what was then a mid-major and is now a part of BP. Before that, he was a farm boy with a father, grandfather and aunt – aunt! – that would cuss a blue streak.
That is to say, I inadvertently absorbed all manner of horrific phrases, some of which even sailors and roustabouts have never heard before. I was so bad as a kid one of my best friend’s moms almost banned me from their house for my vulgar tongue.
I say all the above as context to let you know that I really appreciated St. John Vianney’s catechesis here. Generally I’ve overcome this habit, especially when I’m on my good behavior, but when I’m very hot and tired and the @#$%^&!! bolt won’t come unstuck, some tragic things still fly out of my mouth, or, more frequently, still bounce around the inside of my empty noggin without ever coming out.
I also bring it up because blasphemy is actually growing steadily worse in the world, with all manner of evils being attributed to God, or falsely called “godly” goods. Like the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the idea that God created sodomite relationships (even pretending to be married) as something holy and reminiscent of our Creator’s love for us.
Taking up St. John Vianney on pp. 96-8:
It is a horrible blasphemy to damn something in the name of God.
This sin of blasphemy is so great and so hideous in the eyes of God that it draws down all sorts of evils upon the world. The Jews had such a horror of blasphemies that when they heard anyone blaspheming, they rent their garments…….The holy man Job had such fear that his children had blasphemed that he offered sacrifices to God in case they had……….St. Augustine says that those who blaspheme Jesus Christ in Heaven are more cruel than those who crucified Him on earth. [I thank God that blaspheming the Holy Name of Jesus Christ is NOT one of those things I heard growing up. Even though rough around the edges, my forebears had enough propriety to know that some things just aren’t said] The bad thief blasphemed Jesus Christ when He was on the Cross, saying: “If Thou be Christ, save Thyself and us.” The prophet Nathan said to King David: “Because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee shall surely die.” God tells us that whoever blasphemes the Name of the Lord shall die. We read in Holy Scripture that the people brought a man to Moses who had blasphemed. Moses consulted the Lord, Who told him that he must have the man brought to a field and put to death by stoning.
We can say that blasphemy is truly the language of hell. St. Louis, King of France, had such a horror of this sin that he ordained that all blasphemers should be branded on the forehead. An important person from Paris, who had blasphemed, was brought to the King and several people interceded for him, but the King said that he would die himself in order to wipe out this dreadful sin, and he ordered that the man should be punished. The tongues of those who were wicked enough to commit this crime were cut out by order of the Emperor Justin. During the reign of Robert, the kingdom of France was overwhelmed by all kinds of evils, and God revealed to a Saint that while the blasphemies continued, the chastisements would, too. A law was enacted which condemned all those who blasphemed to have their tongues pierced with a red-hot iron for the first offense, and ordered that on the second offense they should be executed. [Naturally, this seems a bit extreme today, but while some may find this kind of treatment unnaturally cruel, it does underscore the total horror Catholics had for blasphemy in the great Age of Faith. Our callousness towards this and so many other (all?) sins reveals the coldness of faith in these our times, even if we might feel that maiming someone for life for uttering a single blasphemy is perhaps an excess of zeal against mercy]
Be warned, my dear brethren, that if blasphemy reigns in your homes, all therein will perish. St. Augustine tells us that blasphemy is an even greater sin than perjury because, as he says, by perjury we take the name of God in witness of something that is false, whereas in blasphemy we are saying something false of God. What a crime this is!………
……..We blaspheme when we perform actions which are directly opposed to the goodness of God – as when we despair of our salvation and yet are not willing to take the necessary steps to obtain it; as when we are angered because others receive more graces than we do. Take great care never to allow yourselves to fall into these kinds of sins because they are so very horrible!
———- End Quote———-
I believe you can safely color me convinced. Get that poker heated up.
Francis – A Wake-Up Call for Neo-Catholics July 18, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, error, Francis, General Catholic, Restoration, Revolution, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
Will they roll over and hit the snooze button yet again, as they have for 50 years?
The Remnant – part of the what some call the “papal criticism ‘industry’” (hmmph – I still haven’t seen one red cent) – has long argued that the pontificate of Francis, far from being a huge or novel deviation from the past 50 years, is in fact the apotheosis of 50+ years of error, abuse, heresy, and revolution in the Church. This is pretty much the standard Traditional critique – which I share. Pope Francis didn’t fall from the sky to work a revolution on the Church – he is the product of that revolution. A revolution which his immediate predecessors both opposed and advanced to varying degrees.
Under Benedict, it was possible for a new Catholic such as myself to pretend the Revolution was winding down and the Restoration, if not exactly well underway, at least inevitable. What a difference a few years makes. But it is not so much the experience of the past few years that makes me realize that any Restoration remains a very long ways off. It is my increasing understanding of just how far the mainstream Church of today is from its pre-conciliar existence that forces this realization upon me.
And that’s sort of the point of the video below, and the traditional-“neo-Catholic” divide. Catholics with an enormous affinity for the pre-conciliar practice of the Faith have long maintained that the “neo-Catholic” pretense that the Council and the ancient practice of the Faith could be easily reconciled was simply untenable. “Neo-Catholics” derided the traditional critique as no different from the modernist “rupture” as they sought an ever-elusive (one might even say increasingly elusive) “hermeneutic of continuity.”
For ~45 years, and especially under Popes JPII and Benedict, the illusion of reconciliation between the Council and the Magisterium of the Ages could somewhat plausibly be maintained. That’s not to say that analysis was right, but that it was a bit more plausible than it is now. But after several years of Francis, after the modernists have held the whip hand for even a few more years, after battles long thought won and issues long thought settled have suddenly resurfaced as pressing issues of the day, every single one of them pointing back to the “sainted,” the “holy,” council, the “new Pentecost,” the “founding of a new church”………it seems some folks are starting to get that Francis is promoting extremely dangerous errors. Whether that leads to a broader recognition of the nature of the Revolution against the Church/crisis in the Faith, but we’ll see:
Of course, some of these folks quoted in the video have been more willing to engage in papal criticism (and criticism of VII) than others. At present, most of the major (American) slavish papal apologists are still just that. There does seem to be a growing opposition to some of the more egregious abuses of this pontificate, but it remains small and generally traditionalist or tradition-friendly in nature. Few of the “mainstream” conservatives have yet ceased pretending Francis is thoroughly orthodox if perhaps a wee bit misunderstood.
Do you think there could be an “upside” to this pontificate in the form of many more souls coming around to the realization that the problem isn’t limited to one man or one group of error-holding, faithless prelates, but is instead one that it is systemic in the post-conciliar ethos? That is to say, the Church cannot be restored or “fixed,” until the “problem” of the Council is addressed. The Remnant has long seemed to hope Francis might win more souls over to this appreciation. They may be onto something, but then again I am also hinging my retirement on winning Powerball tomorrow!
……..so much so, that an alternative title for this post might be “Why Your Correspondent Is a Sucker.”
I know my coverage of this matter may seem a bit non sequitur, but Turkey is a key muslim state. It is one of the few states with the potential power to counterbalance the extremes of Sunnism (Saudi Arabia) and Shiaism (Iran) in the muslim world. A nominally secular Turkey is, to me, far preferential to an extremist, militant Iran or the jihad-exporting Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia. The nightmare is a Turkey that becomes Wahhabist and then you have a practical new Caliphate stretching from the Bosporus to the Arabian Sea – just like in the bad old days, facing a decadent, faithless, and fractious West.
As such, I was probably a little too willing to believe that the secular/military reaction to Turkish President Erdogan’s rapid islamification of Turkey had finally come.
In reality, it looks like what we’ve been treated to is either one of the most inept, half-hearted coups in recent history, or a false flag operation designed to destroy the remnants of opposition that remain in Turkey, especially the military and judiciary. Erdogan has waged war on both institutions for years, gradually neutering the two bodies always seen (and with much reason) as the ultimate guardians of the Kemalist secular state.
I’ve mentioned a few times that I knew, quite well, a former Major General in the Royal Thai Army. She served from the early 70s to 2011. Anyone who knows the political history of Thailand post-1970 knows that she had much involvement in coups, which she had. Supatra always related that there are two absolutely key factors in a successful coup:
- Kill the son of a, uh, gun (president, king, general, dictator, whoever is the target of the overthrow). Think Diem in 1963, or Allende in 1973.
- Gain total control over communications, especially telecommunications/internet and broadcast media.
Neither occurred in the Turkey “coup.” In fact, there were not even serious attempts at this, and the government continued to function, and seemingly direct events, throughout this stage-acted “coup.”
Supposedly, a “special forces team” was sent to nab Erdogan, but “missed by minutes.” Of course, it is the government reporting this, so I am quite skeptical. What is passing strange is that the very heavy F-16 presence overflying Istanbul and Ankara (but not dropping any ordinance) apparently not only saw Erdogan’s very showy flight into Istanbul’s airport, they escorted it in! In any normal coup, if the president had really been able to flee, he would never make himself such a juicy, easy target for any manner of threats – fighters, AAA, shoulder fired missiles, etc.
Bridges and airports count for very little in the initial stages of a coup, yet these were the first targets of the supposed Turkish coup leaders. The Turkish coup never even bothered to shut down state-run TV stations and made almost no attempt to shut down internal telecommunications and social media (while shutting down external, foreign access!), while they shut down opposition TV and radio!
A few other signs the coup was really intended to provide a pretext for Erdogan to crush what opposition remains and gain total control over the military:
- Mass arrests started even while the coup was supposedly still ongoing. To date, 8000 officers in the Turkish military have been arrested
- Large amounts of pre-prepared propaganda suddenly appeared on the streets of Istanbul/Ankara after Erdogan called on his followers to take to the streets. We are supposed to believe that thousands of professional signs and posters were printed in the space of an hour or less
- There appears to have been close coordination with mosques, Erdogan’s core base support, in broadcasting “calls to prayer” from loudspeakers within minutes of the coup’s initiation, demanding good muslims take to the streets to oppose the “coup”
Other signs this was a “theater play,” or a “tragic comedy” in the words of some opposition politicians:
- No government officials, bureaucratic officials, Members or Parliament or the President were taken hostage during the coup attempt and were able to freely continue their duties while the military attempted to take over bridges and airports. [This is most damning. It indicates either the total ineptness, or the falsity, of this supposed coup. Given Erdogan’s past penchant for false flag, I know where my money is]
- The statement read on TRT [Turkish state television, which then resumed normal broadcast, hostile towards the coup]was completely anonymous and gave no names, with no details emerging in regards to the Peace at Home Council
- The Government did not declare martial law and a curfew. [to the contrary, they encouraged people to take to the streets. Amazingly, for a coup with supposedly thousands of armed soldiers running around, only a few dozen were killed]
- The coup attempt was largely confined to metropolitan areas and soldiers were told to hold key bridges ‘until further orders’, which never came.
- The privates and corporals holding bridges and airports were not aware of their involvement in the coup attempt and no senior ranking soldiers were seen during the events.
- Only 16 soldiers were sent to take over the Presidential Complexin Ankara, which is the largest palace in the world, only to be immediately overpowered by police forces.
- The whole coup appeared to have been organised on WhatsApp
- Media outlets such as CNN Türk, Doğan Holdingwere taken over by the military but were still allowed to continue their operations.
- TRTwas able to resume normal broadcast as soon as the junta statement had been read.
- Armed soldiers were consistently overpowered by and surrendered to groups of protestors, many of which were armed only with knives or bats.
- Electricity cuts in several provinces where no military action was taken, followed by calls from Mosques for people to take to the streets.
- The coup attempt was launched at prime time when everyone would become aware of the events, rather than at a more inconspicuous time in the early morning.
The sheer number of these arrests made at such a such a speed could only be done so if the “Turkish government had all those lists ready”, as suggested byJohannes Hahn, European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, on 18 July 2016. Hahn also claimed that because these lists were already available immediately after the coup, the “event was prepared” and the lists were to be used “at a certain stage”.
Far from weakening Erdogan, this “coup,” then, is actually intended to secure him in power for life, and make the islamization of the Turkish government/state inevitable.
And if a few thousand have to die to complete your play, well, omelettes don’t get made without breaking a few eggs, do they?
Military Coup Underway in Turkey July 15, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Ecumenism, non squitur, persecution, secularism, Society, Victory.
This is Turkey’s best and final hope to avoid falling under a very long-term islamist government. The Turkish military has always been regarded as the ultimate guardians of the secular state created by Kemal Ataturk in 1923. Under the 10+ year government of Recip Erdogan, however, he has pushed the nation further and further away from its secular founding. Many have been surprised that the military has not acted to date. Now, I’m not normally in favor of a secular state, but when the choice is secularism, or militant islam, secularism is probably – Turkish style, which, historically, was not terribly radical – the better option.
It will be interesting to see how this develops. At this point, and given that Erdogan was on the cusp of making the Hagia Sophia a mosque again (an eternal affront to Christendom, as it was for 1000 years one of Christianity’s grandest structures), I see this as a positive good and hope it succeeds. An islamist Turkey within Europe and possessed of 100 million souls and a powerful, very well-trained military would be a frightening prospect, virtually another or even worse Iran.
It’s a shame Greece and Bulgaria totally botched their golden opportunity to drive the Ottomans from Europe in 1913 and reclaim Constantinople for Christendom due to stupid infighting. Now the fate of Turkey seems to depend on the still un-islamified portions of the military. I have to wonder if the plans to transition the Hagia Sophia back to a full-time mosque did not energize the coup leaders to act. The Hagia Sophia as a museum has long been seen as a powerful symbol of a secular Turkey. It would be quite prophetic if it was the pending islamization of a great Christian church that precipitated this reaction.
There are some reports of gunfire in Constantinople, with many videos of aircraft flying over in full burner, an interesting show of force. It may be a long night in Istanbul, but the coup leaders are claiming to have already deposed Erdogan and are consolidating power.
We shall see.
Watch this F-16 zoom down a hillside: