Daily Archives: February 21, 2013
The concrete possibility that a Black Pope be elected moves me to some considerations that you may perhaps find of interest. Let us see them.
I. If such an event happens, it is extremely improbable that Turkson will be the first Black Pope. At least a couple of dozen Popes came from Africa already, from regions with mixed populations of Whites and Blacks. It does not appear realistic to think they were all white. If we have no record of the skin colour of most Popes of the first centuries it is not because they were all chosen among the Whites, but because nobody was interested in a Pope’s skin colour.
II. If you like trivia and superstitions, you might like to know in Italy (where I and many others have never read them, nor do we plan to) it is widely believed Nostradamus prophesies the end of the world during the reign of a Pope both black and choosing the name Petrus. In the second matter, perhaps I am confusing with St. Malachy, but again the element of “he has said it” remains. Cardinal Turkson if of course black, and his baptism name is Peter. I refuse to believe even one Cardinal would allow himself to lend any credence to a superstition, but if Turkson gets elected expect a lot of gloomy faces, particularly if he were to keep his baptism name as Pope…
III. Were Cardinal Turkson the chosen one, Conservative Catholics the world over would have great fun for many years. Imagine the pinko/sodo/liberal press having to attack a Pope who happens to be Black! Imagine the shock of the liberal masses at discovering Black Africans take Christianity seriously! The horror!
IV. All the daily accusations to the Church of being backward would have the rather embarrassing difficulty of explaining why this so backward organisation is so enlightened in matters of skin colour. Not an easy one, this….
We shall see. Exciting and perhaps dangerous times are upon us, and in Italy the excitement is compounded by the upcoming elections.
If you can’t wait,what you can do is pray…
Reblog of the day
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
The staunchest Catholics are critical of certain popes of the past. The Colonnas and Caetanis of the world, the greedy ones like Benedict IX, the warriors like Julius II, the scheming fornicators like Alexander VI are heavily criticised.
The staunch Catholic knows that he can do this because his faith in the Church, or the validity of the Church’s role and message, do not depend in the least on how good – or bad – the Pope is. Like something else, bad popes simply happen.
Father Lombard informed everyone today there are going to be no news in the matter of the SSPX, and the file will be transmitted to his successor.
It makes sense and in fact, a last – minute agreement wouldn’t have been smart. The SSPX priests who would have had to approve might have felt they are put under pressure (“accept this now, now! Or face tough action from the next Pope”), and the Pope himself would have exposed himself to the right remark that he acts now to escape from the unavoidable polemics following such an act.
Perhaps it is now the time to say that this almost messianic expectation of an agreement isn’t healthy. On the contrary, it creates a climate by which an agreement is seen more and more as indispensable, irrespective of its content. Besides, an agreement now might as short-lived as the rest of this papacy.
In my eyes, those who love the Society should train themselves to the exact contrary: resignation that they will die before an agreement is reached, and tranquil confidence an agreement will come when both the time and the content are right.
Fellay & Co. know what they are doing. They will not endanger the organisational autonomy of the Society or its doctrinal integrity, but will work an pray for the end of this unsavoury situation as soon as possible.
Good day! May I introduce myself? My name is Grima, Grima Wormtongue, and I am at home in most fora and blogs, particularly the conservative ones.
I feign a sincere interest for orthodoxy, and will miss no occasion to tell you how much I care.
This will allow me to express – in those conservative fora where openly progressive positions would be mercilessly attacked – an utterly heretical agenda – because between you and I, this is what I am – under the cloak of love for orthodoxy.
I am permanently “worried” of “schism” if Popes were to insist on the restoration of proper Catholicism. Actually, my presence is made most clear by the use of this very word. Whenever women priests, contraception, abortion or homosexuality are discussed, I will piously oppose any tightening of screws with my pious concern that more souls might in this way go away from the Church. You see, in this way I subtly make us – the heretics – the metre of what can or cannot be done, should or should not be said. It is great fun to observe how the conservative forum readers always take the bait, and do not even think of questioning my motives. Ah, how many times I have enjoyed this little game, coming down heavily on the defenders of Catholicism with my “worries”. I never attack them openly, you see, as this would alienate me the big troops of the orthodox; rather, I depict the tragic consequences of every attempt to return to sound Catholicism in such frightful terms, that my opponents (whom I never openly call so, but are really the enemy) look by contrast like dangerous children playing with fire.
This method of ” condemnation by contrast” I use at every occasion. My extremely pious harmlessness will let you appear violent, my ostentatious love of peace a warmonger, my insisted “pastoral concerns” an insensitive train wrecker. All the while, though, I will appear as one of yours, merely a better one. Oh, the fun I have!
If anyone were to show he can see through my little game, I would show one of my specialities, in which I have achieved a high level of proficiency: passive-aggressiveness. You should see me answering to my opponent that I am hurt, but not really offended (because he is so insensitive); I might even, in that fake-humble way of mine, forgive him and thus firmly take the moral high ground; in the worst cases I will even inform him I will pray for his intentions, which never fails to achieve some results.
Irascible people are also a favourite weapon of mine. I will provoke them in a polite, but very open manner, thus causing a tsunami of accusations to be moved against me; this is my moment, and I will instantly jump on the cross and nail myself to it, showing to all the forumists my outstretched arms and loving, if atrociously suffering, attitude.
I never attack openly. If I don’t like your arguments (which I won’t) I’ll say it is “sad” you think so. My every move will be aimed at letting you appear a bully, then since childhood I never could stand on my own, or accept a fight like all the other boys did. In time, I learned to fight with the weapons of a woman; you won’t fear my fists, but you will soon notice my nails aren’t fun, either.
This is how I fight my fight on the Internet, as sneaky and subtly as I do in life. I never manage to con the awake and alert ones, but I will manage to influence enough of the others to make it worth my while.
There are many Grima Wormtongues on the Internet. Look a bit closely and you’ll discover we are everywhere.
Next time you are on a Catholic forum or blog, say hello to Catholic Grima.