Summorum Pontificum Under Attack?

At least, Pinocchio had the cricket...

At least, Pinocchio had the cricket…

And so it came to pass an efficient, prosperous, growing semi-traditionalist Order, the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (short: FFI), had its Tridentine Mass culled par ordre du mufti, the mufti in this case being none other than the gay-loving Bishop of Rome of ours. 

The event is – or might be; or should be – rather massive, because impinges exactly on those freedoms that Summorum Pontificum freely gives to all religious:  not only the Ecclesia Dei orders, but all of them. 

One can, therefore, wonder whether the FFI isn’t the canary in the coal mine, whose death warns us of immediate danger for the Traditional Mass.

On the matter, I have read two opposed opinions, that you can read here and here.  I add that there can be little doubt the FFI, in itself not a traditionalist order, has been factually overtaken by the Traditionalist; who, whilst obviously not “oppressing” their more progressive brother, have given a certain “tone” to the work of the order; order that, punctually, has started to expand robustly and gather friends everywhere. This is the kind of plague that generally befalls the traditionalists orders; which, in turn, lets the Bergoglios of this world look very, very bad.

In short, according to the two camps either the Bishop of Rome is merely intervening in internal squabbles, and the de facto silencing of the TLM mass is just a medicinal measure to bring harmony within the order again; or he is profiting from a convenient minority of “progressives” within the FFI to cull their Latin Mass activity and make of them a ballon d’essai or a dress rehearsal for the great attack to the Traditional Mass.

I invite you to click both links and read the arguments on both sides, arguments which would take too much time – and wasted time at that, because they are very well put – to rephrase here for you.

——————

I wasn’t there, of course, and if I was there I must have been in the bathroom. Personally, though, I think that the Rorate argument wins hands down. Not only are the positions expressed by Rorate, in my humble opinion, more logical from the point of view of an outsider; but crucially, they match with the subversive character of Bishop Francis we could observe in these short months.

Often in the past I have written that I could not see Bishop Francis going head on against the traditionalists. On one hand I considered him if not smart, at least attentive; then I thought he would have other problems to deal with; finally, it wouldn’t be smart to give the SSPX so great a gift by showing to the entire Catholic world what a joke Bergoglio is.

I must, though, here frankly admit that when I wrote that I also did not imagine a man going to such excesses of egomaniacal  conduct as to keep at his place a sodomite destroyed the world over by horrible revelations of rent boys & Co., just because he is his buddy – or, worse, because he needs Ricca’s many friends, friends as bent as Ricca is; or, worse still, because these are the friends who have allowed him to be chosen to be the Bishop of Rome, so that he now owes them -.

Every month, this man shows us that he can be even more shameless than we thought him capable of; and as a result, every month we must reassess his possible moves concerning this or that in light of the increasing more dangerous character emerging from his action. 

Bishop Bergoglio has surpassed our worst fears with beautiful regularity since the beginning of his … new appointment. How can we say he will stop in front of the Tridentine Mass? Who can say he will even wait for Pope’s Benedict’s death before officially demolishing his heritage? This is a man whose lack of the most common sense of decency extends not only to almost daily insulting his predecessor in a very thinly veiled manner, but even to defying the most elementary sense of propriety in front of the entire Catholic world by keeping a sodomite at his place, and making stupid and arrogant jokes about the non-existence of the “gay lobby” he himself had publicly mentioned.  What is such a man not capable of?

From their fruits you shall know them. Even in Collodi’s book, you never know in which problems Pinocchio can put himself into. But at least Pinocchio had the fee and the Wise Cricket. Bishop Bergoglio has Monsignor Ricca, the man (?) he absolutely clings to…

This being the situation, and with Screwtape clearly making himself very comfortable within the Vatican corridors, what could not happen? Could perhaps Francis decide – which I would think extremely stupid – that every advantage given to the SSPX is worth being suffered, if it allows him to silence all the others? Imagine his objective is simply to stop the Tridentine Mass for being celebrated, without any concern whatsoever of the huge boost in prestige and reputation – and money – this would give the SSPX?

Of course, this would be extremely stupid. Of course, this would continue the Pinocchio-isation of the Church and plunge her in a new crisis of vocation of heterosexual priests – faggots will, I am sure, run to be enrolled in the seminaries -; of course, Francis would lose the image of “great uncle” to acquire the one of “grumpy old sixty-eighter”, the vastly superior traditionalists shaming him at every occasion. But perhaps, he is not so intelligent? Perhaps, he is so full of himself that he thinks he can do nothing wrong, and does not need to follow prudent advice? Hitler and Napoleon, when they lost their head, thought they could conquer Russia. Bishop Humble, once he has seen a couple of million people in Copacabana, might well think he can conquer a small number of Traditionalists?

It is difficult to give an answer to these questions. This is like 1933. There is a new man in power, and this new man shows he is increasingly strange and unpredictable, and gives all signs to be a megalomaniac of “change”. I do not doubt he feels, like Hitler, called to be remembered in one thousand years.

On the other hand, when he was in Argentina he refused every open clash with the SSPX, who have a strong presence there. This is a powerful argument. But history teaches us that more often than not, the Pope is different from what the Cardinal used to be. This “bishop of Rome” must be the most different in a long time.

For example, there is this rumour of a great plan to be announced in Autumn, to make the Church, in a way, simpler. When I heard it I thought it had to do with the exterior appearance of the clergy (say: only Fiat or Ford cars; bishop must live in a three bedroom house; compulsory embracing of people in wheelchair whenever a camera is present; and the like), but in the light of the FFI measure the plans certainly assume a more sinister trait. Perhaps is the man trying to sweep away Summorum Pontificum in one fell swoop, counting on the choir of wannabe conservative who will suddenly discover the Holy Ghost hates Latin? 

I wish I had an aswer, but this man eludes answers. He plunged himself into a grave liturgical abuse weeks into his pontificate; he aids and abets not only homosexual clergy, but sodomites at that – don’t insult your intelligence pretending to believe the likes of Ricca are “chaste” anyway – and even dares to make a mockery of the people’s worries about the very faggots he protects.

This is the kind of man we have at the top. Again, it’s like 1933. There’s no way to know more until the true scale of this man’s delusion emerges.

Mundabor

About these ads

Posted on July 30, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.

  1. I find this man so totally despicable I can hardly stand the sight of him. I had nicknamed him Beanbag Bergoglio because I thought he would replace the Papal Throne with a beanbag since it is so retro 70s, but after seeing him place the beach ball on the altar in Rome today, I guess I need to call him Beachball Bergoglio. Can nothing be done about this charlatan??

    • Well he is the Bishop of Rome (that is, to you and me, the Pope), so I wouldn’t call him a charlatan.
      Still, I can certainly understand where you come from.
      I am trying to understand what the thing with the beach ball is supposed to mean. Probably it’s just stupid.

      M

  2. Mundabor, you have said what I’ve been thinking – or fearful of – for some time. When this man was elected, I got the sense of “anything is possible.” I feared the Traditional Latin Mass would suffer. But I did not think he would be so bold. At this point, I not only fear for Summorum Pontificum, I fear for Ecclesia Dei. I sense the SSPX might be three times as large as it is now in a very few years. I have to say, those out there trying to dismiss this case as “no big deal” are engaged in willful denial. All the signs from this Pope are distressing, and I am amazed that even purported proponents of Tradition are engaging in the most ludicrous mental gymnastics to try to pretend that none of this matters. It all matters, a great deal, and all the signs point to a vicious storm about to break over the Church. I pray I am wrong.

    I think what we have is a man who is finding his inner ideologue as the trappings of power inculcate themselves into his personality. And I think much depends on what kind of reaction develops to this FFI situation. If there is loud, boistrous opposition, I think that could – maybe – check the more radical actions from developing. But if the reaction continues to be divided, if those who should have eyes to see continue to be willfully blinded, it’s impossible to tell where this could all end. It looks more and more like Rorate was right, but also wrong. This is not 1978, This is 1965. It’s the great swan song of the modernists, and they aim to change the Church as much as they can in their few remaining years.

    Domine, miserere nobis!

    • Chamberlain was saying “no big deal” in the Spring of 1940.
      Let us prepare ourselves for some serious exercise in denial.

      I think the FFI will obey for now. If they see that Francis has a masterplan against the Traditional Mass, they will begin to trickle towards the SSPX.

      The FSSP priests must be very scared.

      The SSPX priests must be very relaxed.

      M

  3. Patrick JK Gray

    The buggering up of the Church is a great sorrow to me. (Waugh)

    I am not a sede-vacantist.* I cannot judge and pronounce the Sovereign Pontiff as a heretic. I am a mere layman and I leave that to a future, traditional Pope and his cardinals. I prefer to consider Francis as God’s Vicar on Earth, of course it his duty to condemn the filthy vice of sodomy.

    Nevertheless, despite the already vigorous efforts of the ‘conservatives’ to splash on the white-wash, his is another disgraceful Conciliar display – the whole of WYD has been awash with ‘em, it’s one as of itself. This disgraceful Pontificate is…disgraceful. The SSPX is – and, I really think has always been – our only hope in the Conciliar Revolution. While the SSPX endures, the Catholic faith untainted endures and the Mass of Ages, rather than the banal and muddled and doctrinally dubious (but, I must add, valid) Novus Ordo, endures.

    Abp. Lefebvre, ora pro nobis!

    *I would quote Bp. Tissier here:
    ”Fideliter: Yet Archbishop Lefebvre was very reserved about the situation of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

    Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: That is correct. He said more than once about these popes-about Paul VI from 1976, and about John Paul II, after the prayer meeting of religions at Assisi in 1986 – that he did not exclude the possibility that these popes were not popes, that one day the Church will have to examine their situation, that a future pope and his cardinals might have to pronounce the finding that these men had not been popes. But for himself, he preferred to consider them as popes. This supposes that he did not feel that he possessed sufficient knowledge of the pertinent facts nor the necessary power for making such a judgment. This is of critical importance to bear in mind.
    For instance, the abrupt logic of a Fr. Guérard des Lauriers led to the former conclusion: “The pope promulgated a heresy [with religious liberty], hence he is a heretic, hence he is not formally pope.” But the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre made him feel, to the contrary, that the premises of this reasoning were as shaky as the authority that formulated it, be it that of a theologian or even a bishop.”

    Fr. Morgan once said that the ‘question was one to be answered in the future by a traditional Pope’. Hence, I prefer to consider Pope Francis as the Pope, I cannot pronounce on his status, having neither the knowledge nor the authority to do so, I leave that matter for a future, traditional Pope to settle.

  4. What I do not understand is this: if the Latin Mass was never forbidden, and no one can tell a priest that they cannot say it, then why not just ignore him and keep saying it?

    Perhaps this shows my ignorance of many factors, but I really thought that the Latin Mass was never forbidden and Summorum Pontificum was just a re-hash (although much needed) of what already stood, not some new change regarding who can say the Latin Mass.

    I agree that it just seems wrong to do this in the former Pope’s face. It would be bad enough after his death, but while he is living to constantly be making these digs…it really comes across as something that is being done on purpose, and if it is, that is unkind.

    But what would happen if people just started standing up and saying, “you know what? Enough is enough. The Latin Mass was never forbidden, and we are not obliged to not say it.”

    Of course, the whole issue of obedience comes into play, and then there would be all sorts of other issues pop up, but there are situations where obedience is not required if it compromises certain things (but this is all getting in over my head).

    Any thoughts?

    • A priest must think thrice before celebrating the TLM just because he can. The old feminists in his parish would immediately complain to the bishop, who would not be slow in telling the priest how little “pastoral” he is.

      The letter of SP notwithstanding, to celebrate the TLM without the consent of the bishop it is required that the priest in question prepares himself for a removal from his place at the first fitting or unfitting occasion.

      M

    • Yes, that is true. It is a terrible mess that what should be one way is forced into anther. God bless you.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,982 other followers

%d bloggers like this: