In Praise Of Triumphalism
The Bishop of Rome has decided to regale us with another salvo of Jesuit nonsense, and it might be appropriate to write a word or two to avoid some Catholics to be further confused by this confused and very embarrassing man.
As an orthodox Catholic, I am “triumphalist” in the sense commonly used by Protestants, Atheists and Jesuits to belittle my orthodoxy. I believe that the Church is right, and all (tutti, tous, alle, todos) who are at variance with the Church are ipso facto wrong. I believe that the Church has the fullness of the Truth, a fullness which no one else could ever have. I boast about not only the intrinsic superiority of the Church to every other group, affiliation, community or sect, but even about the unavoidable victory of this only Church over every error, every heresy, and every abomination here on earth, one day. Further, I believe that being a Catholic is a great grace, and thank God every day that He allowed me, a wretched sinner, the grace of being born in a Catholic Country, and baptised and confirmed in the One True Faith. I pray that many others who are now outside of the Only Church may become part of it, consciously during their life or through Christ's grace in the last moment before death, because – whatever bad Popes may tell you or imply to you – outside of the Church there is no salvation. If Christ reigns, the Church does. If Christ wins, the Church must perforce triumph. If Christ is the Truth, the Way and the Life, the utter superiority of the Church founded by Him to every other whatever-it-is must follow.
Why, you will ask, do I believe all this? I believe all this because I believe in the Risen Lord; a belief without which all of the above would be pure nonsense and child's tale.
Therefore, the idea of the Bishop of Rome that the – very well spread among orthodox Catholics, because the unavoidable fruit of Catholic orthodoxy – “triumphalism” of some Catholics be an indication that they do not believe in the Risen Lord is complete and utter nonsense. We are triumphalists exactly because the Risen Lord is the Guarantor of the Church's Truth and ultimate triumph.
On the contrary, those who attack Catholic triumphalism are those whose faith in the Resurrection I openly question. If one doubts the Resurrection, and only if one does, then suddenly the talk of “why do we think we have the Truth” begins to make sense. If you believe that Jesus resurrected, then you must believe that He is God, and then His Church is the Only One and the Truth of His Bride is destined to triumph. If you have doubts that Jesus resurrected, this is when you start talking like a Jesuit.
Besides, this extremely offensive bollocks comes from one who says “who am I to judge” when questioned about the sodomites in his entourage. Go figure. Must be a Jesuit.
There. It had to be said, I think.
God is punishing us with a Jesuit Pope. I pray that He may, in His own good time, take this punishment away from us.
Mundabor
Share this:
Posted on September 11, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged Jesuits, Pope Francis, Triumphalism. Bookmark the permalink. 13 Comments.
Mundabor's Blog 
Reblogged this on Catholic4Life.
Along this road, we must grow with patience and we must now, in a new way, learn what it means to renounce triumphalism.
The Council had said that triumphalism must be renounced…
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/158061?eng=y
Dear Mundabor. Repent of your arrogant attitude for the modern Popes condemn Triumphalism.
This article on “Triumphalism” is a masterpiece. As you say, “It had to be said”, and you have said it perfectly.
Amen to your post 🙂
You got to wonder how many more perjorative terms for Restorationists our Bishop of Rome has in his bag of linguistic tricks? And the second thought that enters my mind when he deploys them is this: is he trying to teach or is he just bent on insulting us?
Inquiring minds want to know!
PS That last one was a trick question. In order to teach, you first need to know.
Indeed.
The Jesuit is leading the blind.
M
Triumph
Christ not has only RISEN from death, but He has TRIUMPHED OVER DEATH. That’s why we can be proud to claim our triumphalism because we too will triumph over death (with the Lord’s help, and the intercession of our Blessed Virgin Mary, and may be some of our innombrable saints).
Radja le Magnifique
“Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat” (as I have already signed a post some months ago).
After a rather quiet spell over the weeks of August we are now back on course for more piffle from these daily homilies. It really is embarrassing nonsense from one who holds the supreme office in the Church. I dread on daily basis what he will say next. If anyone speaks to me anymore about the fruits of Vatican 2 I might not beresponsible for my actions. We are truly reaping the harvest now. Thanks, M for a great post, it just hits the nail right on the head.
Yes, the summer pause is over and Circus Francis is in town again. “Embarrassing nonsense” says it very well. By the way, not once in dozens of interventions has Francis risen over the lexical and stylistic level of a third grader, and every time he uses complex words – “Pelagian”, “triumphalist” – the world wonders what the heck he is talking about; again, this reminds me of an eight years old who wants to let you know he manages complex words, and fails.
I suspect we have to do with real lack of basic education here, and I do not mean theological depth, I mean being too much of a peasant for Beethoven.
M
http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.ie/2013/09/is-it-not-ironic-and-to-sides-to-coin.html
This comment on my blog might help. The really Triumphalistic religion is Islam.
As to the Pope, thankfully, these are comments to newspapers and NOT infallible or ex cathedra. But, many Catholics do not know the difference.
Not sure I agree.
The Pope has not made the distinction between “good” and “Bad” triumphalism, and the Mirriam-Webster only describe as “triumphalism” what you call the “good” one.
Therefore, even assuming the second use of the word is a legitimate one (a use I actually found only linked with the first) the problem remains, because Francis’ words clearly lend not one but two hands to the attacks of “triumphalism” as traditionally intended.
M
The really Triumphalistic religion is Islam.
Religion means a bond with God so we have to remember to use the qualifying “false” when writing about Mahometanism and religion
Ah, I wonder how often I have written simply “religion”, but yes, I think your reasoning is correct. I will try to keep this in mind.
M