Author Archives: Mundabor
The truth is here.
Do not insult your intelligence thinking the man “does not know”.
Of course he knows.
There, here is an alarm clock for you. Brand new. Courtesy of Mundabor.
Francis has already started to sabotage the document of the synod he himself has called, because the prelates who voted them were, unfortunately, Catholic and gave him one on the nose.
If you have a blog, please consider posting about this scandal and asking that the Relatio Synodi be translated in exactly the same languages as the other documents, and given due prominence as the official document and result of the Synod.
This man is beyond parody.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
A certain view of Pope Benedict’s resignation goes along the lines of the Pontiff Emeritus having resigned as a consequence of “pressures”, or even having been “forced” to resign. In this second case, his successor would not be the legitimate… bishop of Rome.
I do not think these theories have any solid fundament in reality. Allow me to explain why.
A Pope, like every powerful man, is under pressure all the time. Unavoidably, he – and they – will be surrounded by people having different ideas about the course he should take on this or that matter; some of them will be in good faith, and other won’t. It’s all par for the course.
What is not par for the course is a Pope that suddenly begins to do stupid things just…
View original 839 more words
One of the most disquieting demonstrations of the stupidity of our times is the explosion of “Halloween” as a party occasion in Europe.
It is obvious to every thinking mind that this development was fuelled by the party industry – pubs, restaurants, everyone who sells alcohol – in order to increase sales. This is how what used to be a rather American, rather limited to children and young people, and rather stupid phenomenon has become, in a decade or two, a big drinking feast for people of all ages, and no brains. Children saying “treat or tricks” are, evidently, not profitable enough, but the big booze is. And if you live in the United Kingdom, you will immediately realise that an awful lot of people are desperately looking for an occasion, or a social excuse, to get drunk once more. The pub owners know it very well.
“Hey, it's Halloween!” Kar-Ching!
It is perfectly useless, as things stand, to try to rivendicate an Irish origin for Halloween; or, even worse, to try to claim a Catholic origin for it (“All Hallows' Eve”).
The reality on the ground is that the Halloween you get now in Europe is an American import, the true US version full of stupidity, alcohol, and paganism; basically, an excuse to end up vomiting on the sidewalk at 1am, and a factory of lewdness, fornication, and unwanted pregnancies. Halloween is another glaring example of the stupidity of our times, in which people “believe” in a lot of stupid, childish dreams (“the end of poverty”, “world peace”, and the like), but do not believe in a very real problem that regards everyone of us: the existence of hell.
I therefore hope, as I write this (publication scheduled for late evening) that I will not have to read any sissified Catholic blogger in Patheos style, “embracing” Halloween as he explains to us how Catholic it actually is. It may well be true that the remote origin of Halloween is, if you dig deep enough, Catholic. But this does not mean that we can, therefore, “welcome” and “include” Halloween as it is! This would be nothing more than another instance of Catholic pussycat attitude, siding with the world whilst telling all of us that everything is, once again, fine for us to approve, and be a part of.
When sanity has come back to these drunken islands, and proper Catholic festivities are properly observed by properly instructed Catholics, then we will be able to be more relaxed about it.
As it is now, it is just Halloween: a pagan exercise full of superstition and drunkenness, and therefore embraced by the world. An exercise which lets an army of people enter the great Feat of All Saints as they vomit on the pavement, in what is – do I need to say it? – undoubtedly grave matter.
Screw Halloween. Boycott it and have other people boycott it. Tell your colleagues and friends you don't do Paganism, much less drunken Paganism.
Celebrate (in the proper way) All Saints instead.
The recent words of the Unholy Father concerning Evolution would, perhaps, justify some words. The problem with that is that the topic is absolutely vast, and not apt for a blog post. I will, therefore, limit myself to expressing some of my thoughts on the matter.
“Evolution” is used in many and confusing ways. I mention today three which, in my experience, are the most commonly found:
1. The idea that species evolve.
Today’s cat is different from the cat of many years ago. Japanese are, on average, 20 cm or more taller now than they were before WW II. The smartphone evolves into, say, the Sony Z3. The Porsche 911 evolves in the “991” iteration currently on sale. An awful lot “evolves” in life, and it is clear that this is in God’s plan. The human body himself evolves from a tiny and defenceless being into a strong being able to give and protect life, etc. This isn’t rocket science, and is nothing unorthodox. In my experience, most people who say they “believe in evolution” think of this. Asked whether they really believe that a dog evolved from a monocellular organism, they would stop and pause.
2. The theory of evolution.
This is the idea that, for some reason unknown to me, from something that is not there something should suddenly be there. Out of the simple genetical structure of the amoeba, a more complicated structure would, one day, have been born. Just so. How from nothing something can be born was never clear to me. It defies a rational, scientifical explanation. It is, in fact, unproven (which is why, 150 years after Darwin, we are still talking of “theory”). It is the idea that from nothing something is born. If cars were able to reproduce, it would be like saying that a Toyota Prius, one day, begets a Ferrari, the Ferrari a jet fighter, and the jet fighter an aircraft carrier. How can it be that out of a Prius comes a Ferrari? “Evolution”.
The logical absurdities of this are, in my book, many. Why are dogs still unable to drive a motorbike? Why have mice not evolved microweapons against cats? Why are some insect-like animals able to evolve into dogs, or apes, but the world is still full of insects that keep going into the spider’s net? Where are all the intermediate species between the dog and the very simple animal that would be his pro-pro-pro-progenitor? How could this simple progenitor create something from nothing, which is: a more complex genetic code out of thin air?
I don’t buy the theory of evolution. I am just not sold. But I would not accuse of heresy someone who would defend this strange theory, if he manages – as it is certainly possible – to make it someway compatible with Scripture.
Here I must open an aside: don’t be a Protestant (those who scream loudest about the Scripture generally come from there) and read attentively Humani Generis and Providentissimus Deus. You will find here the proper hermeneutic expressed out of many examples, and with brilliant quotations from St. Augustine.
Say, for example, that a Catholic would see in God’s Divine Intervention the progressive enrichment of the genetic code from that of the very simple animal to the dog; that would, certainly, be worthy of consideration as an exercise meant to make the theory compatible with Catholicism, as only Protestants tend to fall in the error and heresy of Literalism. Only, at that point it would not be a theory of evolution anymore; merely an explanation of the Genesis in light of the fact that God spoke, in those times, to less enlightened people in a language they could understand. Which is, before you scream, what the Church has always believed, and if you disagree the priest who cared for your conversion could have done a better job.
God’s scripture has only Truth in it. It has, because Scripture is Divinely inspired, which means that in the Scriptures that and only that went in, which God wanted to get in. Which does not mean that God would – much less: should, in order to please the Literalists – explain to simple people the immense complication of His cosmos in the Book of Genesis. The Divine Revelation is presented in the way God wanted it to be presented, and God wanted it so presented so that the Truth may be understood. Scripture is, though, still Divine, and True in its entirely. It merely is not a scientific treatise.
How can you know, then, what is what? How can you know what of the words of the Bible is divinely revealed Truth, and what is a way used by God to let your average, not-so-terribly-smart Jew get it? The Church tells you.
The Church, as the custodian of the Truth in the Scripture, will tell you in which way this or that passage must be read; and when in the exegesis a “progress” should be made, it would never be in contradiction of what was said before. It would be, rather… an evolution. Again, refer especially to Providentissimus Deus for the methods used, and learn that apparent conflicts between science and faith are not new to our age, but were very well known to the theologians of old and to the Church Fathers.
It is, for example, de fide that God created man, it is not de fide that He used clay (see Humani Generis if you have any doubt), albeit we must not rush to espouse theories that exclude the clay, which is in the Bible, unless we have a solid evidence rather than a nebulous theory. It is de fide that we are all children of Eve, it is not de fide that the world was created so and so many years ago. It is de fide that Man is the result of a willed Creation of a good Creator, instead of the result of a mad mixing of genetic codes which, miraculously, improve and expand itself from itself, creating something from nothing; & Co, & Co.
Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a philosophic position. It has been, since the XIX Century, the atheists’ Creed. It maintains that everything evolved from (ever) lower species, with no exceptions, and no God involved. Men are glorified apes, and all species are evolved from extremely primitive organisms. It is in the atheist’s view a great pity, and a merely provisional stand of things, that in 150 years and an immense amount of excavations no freaking shred of evidence has been found to prove this very extraordinary claim, and I often suspect the only ape-likes humans are the ones who believe in this outlandish idea. Similarly,the atheist believes there was never a point where God created man by giving it an immortal soul (which is what distinguishes a human from every other animal; for a Christian an hypothetically “evolved” ape, similar in all to a man but without a soul, would still be an ape), and obviously there was, for the atheist, no common descending from Adam and Eve.
This is utter blasphemy, because all these credences go against Divine Revelation. Darwinism cannot be accepted without refusing Truths of Catholicism. If you’re Catholic you reject Darwinism.
This is a panorama to the best of my knowledge. I will stand corrected and gladly modify it or rephrase it more accurately as the argument against it is taken from Church tradition and past encyclical. But do not come to me bashing a Bible, because you are not a Protestant anymore. You are a Catholic now. You must see Scripture in light of what the Church tells you, not of what you learned years ago at Sunday School.
Again, Providentissimus Deus is a wonderful document. Read it first, comment later.
Elton John, the pathetic freak show, has just stated that Francis is “his hero”; seasoning his stupid utterances with the usual bollocks about his own perverted concept of “love”. It is clear here that the pathetic freak show is referring to Francis' failed attempt to pervert Catholicism toward sexual perversion.
This will make headlines worldwide.
I wonder how many Pollyannas will start to open their big blue eyes after this. A man who is everything the Church considers scandalous and abominable praises a Pope for trying to bring the Church on his side. If this does not open Pollyanna's big eyes, what ever will?
Open your big blue eyes, Pollyanna. This is a papacy fit for atheists and perverts. By continuing in your increasingly more stubborn blindness, you are endangering your soul.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
Find below the “Prayer for all things necessary to salvation”, a prayer attributed to Pope Clement XI and released in the Year 1721.
There is longer version, with the part starting with “All that I have asked for myself”. I have not posted it here, because I do not think the added part is original. Please show me the right link if I am wrong.
Note how Pope Clemens takes care to guide the faithful, through a long-winded prayer, along a rather complete path to salvation. All with set words, to be recited without variation time after time.
“Spontaneous” prayer was, evidently, not a favourite of this Pope, as he would otherwise not have bothered with such a long exercise. On the contrary, it is clear the late Pontiff wanted to give a prayerful “path” to the faithful on which they could meditate regularly, and that they…
View original 593 more words
And it came to pass TMAHICH met, as the Vatican news agency reports, representatives of the Proddie community to which the late buddy of his, Tony Palmer, belonged before going to meet (or not, as the case may be) his Maker.
During this meeting Pope Francis made, as usual, some stunning affirmations, notable for their decidedly anti-Catholic character.
The main one: we sin when we focus on our differences.
I wish his grandmother had slapped him in the face as a child. I wish his spiritual director at the seminary had kicked his ass all day long. I wish he had become just another of the potheads leaving the priesthood in the Seventies. Alas, the second and third have not happened, and the first did not, if it really happened, had any lasting result.
The missionaries, preachers, theologians, and simple priests sinned all this time, then, by defending Catholicism against heresies. The countless martyrs who decided to suffer death or persecution in order to “focus on the differences” rather than going along with the world were, according to this nincompoop, sinning. Oh St Thomas Aquinas, you must be one of the greatest sinners of all! Oh St Thomas More and St John Fisher, what great sinners you were!
In charity, one must say that this man might be an alcoholic, but we must wait to see whether something is leaked about it. He might also, for all we know, still smoke marijuana (he already admitted he did so as a young man; another good example given to the youth. What a cool pothead our Pope is…). I am by now persuaded he is not stupid, and whilst obviously not very intelligent he seems to be rather cunning.
He must be evil, then.
He is most certainly not Catholic.
The rest of this possibly grappa-fueled or marijuana-driven speech goes along the same lines, so I will spare you the revolting details.
The devil divides us, you know; but we must be smarter and just overlook the differences. This is worse than Protestant, as you will find that even Protestants do not generally simply overlook the differences. Wrong as they are, they at least believe their wrongness is right. They do not say that they in the end just do not care. Francis, the Pope, does!
This is satanical. This is the same as saying that the specificity of Catholicism is just an obstacle to the understanding among Christians; a pastime for quibbling Theologians; an occasion of sin! It is so sad, that he can't have his sorry ass kicked all the way from the faggot-run hotel to Termini Station! It would be so good for his soul! It would be, perhaps, his only chance to redemption! Alas, as a Pope he enjoys physical inviolability. Which makes of his redemption a very arduous task.
This is an Apprentice Sorcerer who has already miserably failed his apprenticeship. Screwtape will not be happy with him at all.
This man is of the devil, and I thank God that He at least gives us the opportunity to spot it so easily, if we but stay by His teaching and the teaching of the Church. Had he been smarter in his doings, the deception would have been easier. As it is, no informed Catholic has any excuse.
There is no way you can love the Church and side with this man, knowing what he is saying.
This man is, clearly, the stuff of reprobates. Which is why they love him so much, and applaud him whilst he insults Catholics and Catholicism every day.
But you, dear read, you keep strong in the Faith of our Fathers. You know better than to follow a heretic, blaspheming, socialist, sacrilegious pothead just because he is dressed in white, and embraces wheelchairs.
If you follow Catholic priests – as I do – you might notice – as I think I do – a certain “style” of criticism, that to me seems rather uniform. The main rules I can recognise are the following:
- the civility of the criticism (excessive, if you ask me, in most cases; but then again I am not a priest) and
- the limitation of the criticism to a fact or a statement, without ever targeting the person, if the person if a fellow clergyman.
I notice this very often in the priestly blogs I follow: there is the statement of a fact, and the criticism of the fact. There is the report of a certain statement, and the refutation of that particular statement. Clergymen of this type do not attack other clergymen as people (some other clergymen, of another type, do; Cardinal Kasper comes to mind; but not the ones I am talking about).
I have read, at the time it was finally published, the full transcript of Cardinal Burke’s interview to BuzzFeed. I was in no doubt that the actual words of the interview, when they were made public, did not contain a direct criticism of the character of Francis as person, as much as a very strong criticism of a certain behaviour in a certain, particular circumstance. Which, in the case of a Pope, is a very strong criticism, but not a personal attack.
The difference between “what the Pope does is bad” and “the Pope is bad” is not a milder criticism in the second case. It is, in my view, the desire to make clear that the criticism is a factual one, not a personal one. This is, I think, always important among the right kind of clergymen; but it becomes even more important when Cardinal Kasper blathers all the time about attacks to the Pope and enemies of the Pope.
In some cultures, this difference between the person and the issue at hand is more blurred, and there is a more or less implied understanding that you criticise a man as a result of an action or a statement of his; whilst in other cultures – like the German and, I begin to think, the ecclesiastical one – the distinction between the criticism of a person and the criticism of his stance are far more marked. The Germans even have an adjective (“sachlich”), which conveys this idea of being “linked to a thing”, rather than to the person attached to it. Whilst every language has such expressions, in the case of the Germans the frequency of its use conveys to the Foreigner the particular importance attached to it. In the case of churchmen, I doubt there is an equivalent expression; but the praxis is, it seems to me, just as solidly established: he who attacks the person looks bad; the battle is always fought on things, not people.
Therefore, I am unable to see in the recent clarification of Cardinal Burke any kind of backpedaling or watering down of his criticism. Besides, the man is a legally trained mind, and for legally trained minds distinctions of this sort do matter.
On the contrary, it seems to me – and I may be wrong on this; time will tell – that with his brutal repetition of the exact content of his criticism – the exact one; without softening of any sort – the Cardinal has sent quite the contrary message. A message which I for myself read thus: “please do not describe me as the personal enemy of the Pope; but my criticism of what he does is still there, and for the sake of clarity I will repeat it word for word”.
I have just written that the way I know these things, the criticism is often followed by a “soft retractation” meant to deny the implied, but very obvious criticism. In this case, it seems to me that the Cardinal is not ready to do even that; conscious, perhaps, of the huge dismay every little apparent giving away of Catholic ground could have on countless faithful Catholics.
I am, though, simply unable to see any difference in the clarification, which has to me the very same meaning I had already understood: what the Pope is doing – a specific conduct: not intervening against heresy – harms the Church. Headline writers tend to be imprecise and untechnical, something a rigorous legal mind like Burke will not let stand without correction. Honestly, I did not even need the clarification, because I got the Cardinal the first time, and I always discount the titles.
I do not know how strong Burke and his are. I have no way to read their mind and measure their determination on a scale from one to ten. I pray that the Lord may give them, and all those willing to take this battle on their shoulders, the determination to fight, and to fight well.
I suspect, in fact, that now a very complicated and subterranean game will begin, in which both sides will alternate public interventions with a very intensive corridor work. The result of this work will, probably, only become clear in October 2015. I cannot tell you how it will end. I am fairly optimistic, but then I always am. I carry the Roman sun inside, and if at times I do not see the shadows, I still think this Roman sun is a very good help in seeing the reality around me. Yes, I have my worries for the huge battle in front of us.
But Cardinal Burke’s clarification is, as far as I am concerned, not one of them.
TMAHICH has given another example of boundless hypocrisy and utter carelessness today for what he has said yesterday.
The family is being “bastardised”, he decries. Nowadays, so much is called “family”.
Well, let me think aloud here.
The family would be less bastardised if there were no Archbishops sending their priests in the slums, allowing mass sacrilege as they permit everyone to receive communion in a context in which 80% or more of couples are not married and, therefore, presumably 80% of children are bastards.
There is, in fact, no way to bastardise the family more effectively than what Francis has done as Archbishop and is doing as Pope: allowing mass sacrilege in his own diocese, devaluing marriage as he allows concubines to receive, marrying in his capacity as Pope public concubines, allowing the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires to baptise poor children “adopted” by goddamn dykes, and in general sabotaging the very idea of family with a Synod full of heresy, blasphemy and sexual perversion.
Francis is like a Hitler complaining of Antisemitism. With the important difference that Hitler at least did not have the stunning hypocrisy of decrying what he himself promoted day in and day out.
Francis is here, clearly, trying to remake a virginity by appearing a defender of the family. He is in fact, and remains, its worst enemy. He is merely being his Modernist self, and throwing some pigeon feed to the Pollyannas so that they may now storm the comment boxes of blogs and fora singing the praise of Francis The Defender Of Family.
The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History has opened his mouth again, and again he has given us a demonstration of his breathtakingly double-tongued persona.
Don’t believe one word of what he says. Francis may not be, technically at least, a bastard; but his Catholicism is not even recognisable as bastardised.
It is just not there.
Just as a way of I do not want to say “preparation for the worse”, but rather “exploration of our past”, I would be very grateful for credible sources and links concerning what exactly happened during (not after) the Pontificates of Popes like Liberius, Honorius, Formosus, or John XXII.
Let me explain: though we all know that Liberius lost face and Honorius was declared heretic in the end, and after their death, that Formosus was also rather spectacularly condemned after death, and that John XXII renounced to his error the day before he died, I am rather curious to know more about the day-to-day dealing of the clergy and the the faithful when these Popes were still alive and in power.
Take John XXII.
Chappy goes around saying that there is no beatific Vision before the Universal Judgment. He says he is minded to proclaim this as dogma. His attempt is thwarted (methinks, some Dominican managed to let the stake appear to him a very real possibility; but that’s just me…) and he renounces to the proclamation of the dogma; but at this point, the world still has a Pope who is as officially heretical as can be; a formal heretic so attached to his error as to continue to defend it for almost the rest of his life in front of the brutal opposition of his own Church; one whose theology denies all the edifice of the Communion of saints, make a good part of the Mass senseless, et cetera, and still keeps saying he is right and Church Tradition and Mass are wrong.
How did the bishops deal with him? Did they deny him obedience in everything? Or only in that which pertained directly to his heretical thinking? If he issued encyclical letters, what value did they have? I know that the Sea was not declared vacant in the proper sense (say: with the large majority of Cardinals and Bishops declaring the Sea empty for manifest and persistent heresy; this is, in my understanding, the concept that St. Robert Bellarmine developed later), but do we know of bishops and cardinals who simply declared that they would deny obedience to such a Pope, without denying that he is Pope? What happens of the cardinals and bishops appointed by a Pope in manifest heresy? What of his letters, bulls, etc? What of his administrative orders, disciplinary measures,and such? They may be changed, of course. But were they valid?
It’s even more complicated for Formosus; because whilst we – AFAIK – know that many of his administrative acts were declared at least formally invalid after his death – I have little doubt many will have been validated by his successor anyway – there is a thick fog as to what happened whilst Formosus was alive and in charge. Formosus remained Pope for around five years. This is a long, long time for the wrong kind of Pope. But then again it would appear the Sea was not declared vacant: not during his Pontificate, and not even retroactively after his condemnation in the famous “Cadaver Synod”. May his acts have been annulled, this does not make a Pontificate null. Nor does it answer the question whether his acts were obeyed at the time they were issued.
If Francis throws himself and the Church (or better: those member of her who will be reckless enough to follow him) in the abyss of blasphemy and heresy, it will be very important to have clear historical coordinates about what exactly happened in the past in at least comparable circumstances.
Ideally, from places like the SSPX a clear guidance should come before hand: how to behave in scenarios a, b, or c; what conditions must exactly be fulfilled for the Sea to be declared vacant; in which ways the SSPX would examine the matter and make it public, etc.
Mind, not only I do not think in the least that the Sedevacantist position is justified as I write this. I do not even think that Francis will ever be so stupid as to push things in that direction, because as I have already written it seems to me that when he had to show if he has the balls to plunge the Church into chaos he showed no balls whatsoever, but abundant Jesuitism instead.
But it is true that we are at the brink of a precipice, irrespective of how optimistic we may be concerning vast sectors of the Church ever falling into it.
I am grateful for usable historical material.
What times are we living in.
Ah? Uh? No?
I wish I could find an old post about the Church teaching in dealing with bad laws.
The gist of it was that first one tries everything he can to avoid the laws becoming such in the first place; if this fails, then one tries everything he can to have them repealed; if even this fails, then one tries to have them destroyed one piece at a time. But to destroy the law a piece at a time will always, for the sound Catholic, be the better choice than an unreal battle to have the law repealed, when it is just not realistic to obtain the optimal result.
Example: abortion. Catholic teaching in the matter is simple and clear: First, savage battle to avoid abortion legislation. If this partout fails, savage battle to have it repealed. If this partout fails, “salami tactics” (this is a nice German expression) which means: the targeted result is pursued, and hopefully obtained, one slice at a time. In this case this means proposing and having passed everything from higher medical standards for abortion mills, to the shortening of the periods in which abortion is legal, to the obligation to have a scanned image obtained, to longer waiting times, etc.
The thinking behind this is the solid common sense that is behind sound Catholic minds: if I can’t save – for now – one million aborted babies, I will try to save at least one hundred thousand of them. The first step will then, hopefully, lead to the second, and the third.
In this example, and in many others to which the same principle may be applied, you do not renounce to a positive intermediate result in the name of an end result that cannot, for the moment at least, be achieved at all. You do not renounce to a law shortening the time in which it is legal to abort because “this would mean to be accomplices of abortion”. What you do is: uphold Church teaching in all things (you will always be vociferous against abortion tout court; because what is impossible in this generation may be possible in the next, or the following one, and because the Church’s stance against abortion is the Truth of Christ), and take every slice of the salami you can.
Is it possible to have partial legislation against abortion? Well: go for it, for heaven’s sake! Do not condemn babies to die because the law is not beautiful enough for you! When babies are dying you save as many as you can, you do not sacrifice them to your beautiful, but unreachable ideals!
This is what the Church has always done in her dealing with secular powers, at least until Vatican II: the entire Catholic Truth, whenever I can; as much of it as I can, always. Therefore, in certain Countries She managed to be State Religion; but in those Country where she could not manage to do so (say: USA, United Kingdom), she tried to obtain as much freedom of religion for Catholics as possible. She did not say “I am not interested in freedom of speech, or of cult, for English Catholics! Either you make of Catholicism the State Religion or I am very happy to retreat in the Catacombs!”
You do not allow a secular State to push Catholics in the catacombs just because you cannot be the Religion of State. You do not allow the Church to be pushed underground just because the ideal of a Catholic state cannot be realised. You may feel more beautiful in the catacombs, but countless souls will be lost – seen from an earthly perspective – because of your quest for purity. There is no doubt that the Church in the catacombs was purer than the Church out of it. But the aim of the Church is to spread all over the world, not to stay beautiful in the catacombs.
When Constantine allowed freedom of cult to Christians, they did not refuse it because Constantine himself wasn’t even baptised. When Paul went all over the Mediterranean to gain converts to Christianity, he did not demand the demise of the Roman Empire as a precondition. When countless missionaries converted local kings and local warlords to Christianity, you can bet your hat that in many cases the thus converted King kept having a number of concubines around him. Those missionaries certainly knew it very well. They took one slice at a time. In the case of the king’s conversion, they got to pretty much the entire salami, but again if they had asked an exemplary life of him, in many cases not one slice would have been obtained.
Dreaming is one thing, doing is another. Keep dreaming if you want to. This blog is for those who prefer reality.
Does this mean that the Church must capitulate to (oh, that word) “gradualism”? Certainly not! Not, at least, if it is meant – as it was meant at the synod – compromising with the Truth.
On one hand, to uphold the Catholic teaching in its entirety is not only advisable, but absolutely mandatory. On the other hand, to have this Catholic teaching reintroduced in phases – as long as it cannot be done in one go – is the only viable way, and it is the way the Church has always chosen. Do you think Cardinal Consalvi would say to Napoleon “either you make of us the State Religion again, or we don’t care if you kill every Catholic in France”? No. Do you think he demanded from Napoleon that he starts living an exemplary Christian life? Come on. What the man instead did was to lead Napoleon to the recognition of the advantages for him in having this Church as the State religion again. I am sure he did not expect a mystical Napoleon after that. But I am rather sure he was pretty pleased with what he had accomplished anyway. By the by: Napoleon ended up dying in his bed, a Catholic, with the comfort of the Sacraments.
I could go on until tomorrow, but you get the drift.
Why do I write all this? Because this applies to our age exactly as well as to all ages before, and after it.
I get positively scared when I read commenters stating that I should not support Pell, because Pell would not pass the SSPX-Test. No he wouldn’t. Nor would Piacenza, or Mueller, or even Burke! They wouldn’t, because they are, all of them, polluted by V II, the one more and the other less. But for heaven’s sake, to discuss the merits of Mueller’s orthodoxy when Satan himself is launching all his armoured divisions against the Church seems criminally negligent to me.
We run the risk of having the Church as we know it – and be it in the largely defective V II version – wiped out of a good part of the West. We run the risk of a confusion of faithful, of a spiritual chaos like the planet has never, ever seen. Forgive me if I do not have any time for your complaints against Cardinal Pell!
The same applies, of course, to other matters, like freedom of speech. As I write this, freedom of speech is the only thing that keeps Christianity, in many Western Countries, away from the catacombs. It leaves me breathless that to defend freedom of speech would be something bad, because it does not correspond to some Catholic dream certainly not realisable in our generation, and probably not even in the next one.
At times I think that in some Catholics a mentality takes over, that in Italian is called “tanto peggio, tanto meglio” or “the worse, the better”. As if it were a matter of no importance whether in the West Christianity can reach everyone or not, or whether the West keeps as much as it can of Christian mentality and civilisation; as if it were irrelevant whether the Bride of Christ is raped by a gang of thugs and carried on the street, bleeding copiously, by a drunken mob, or is as strong and vigorous as can reasonably be hoped in the present, sad, circumstances.
“But Mundabor! It is good if the Bride of Christ is raped by a gang of thugs and carried on the street bleeding! Don’t you know that she will not die anyway?”
“But Mundabor! It is good if Christianity disappears from all over the West and is reduced to the catacombs: just think of how beautiful the fifteen of us will feel once we are there!”.
Please let us not joke here. Lives are at stake. Souls are at stake. The Christian West is at stake.
Thank God every day instead,and pray Him every night, for the likes of Mueller, Pell, or Burke. Pray that God send us many more of them, and be they of the V II garden variety, provided they are willing to fight against the extreme Francis variety. Pray FIRST that they may find the strenght to lead us in battle against the extremely strong army of Satan that is forming its ranks as we speak. And pray SECOND that when the battle at hand is won, a new awareness may be created about the real root and first cause of all this mess: Vatican II.
We are about to be invaded by the Wehrmacht, and we should discuss about the credentials of the only generals we found – and lucky to get them – ready to lead our army?
Don’t make me laugh.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
Lord, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph?
How long shall they utter and speak hard things? and all the workers of iniquity boast themselves?
They break in pieces thy people, O Lord, and afflict thine heritage.
They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless.
Yet they say, The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it.
Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise?
He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?
He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?
The recurring 40th anniversary of Roe vs Wade is a good way to say a word or two about the pendulum which seems to swing across societal…
View original 597 more words
There is an article on that pit of iniquity called New York Times that, for once, deals with the events of the last weeks in a half balanced way.
Forget the man’s rubbish about “the gays” (he writes for the NYT after all, “where sodomy and lesbianism are embraced and proposed”), and focus on the main points of Mr Douthat’s article:
1. The Pope was the instigator of the attempt at the Church’s sacramental life
2. He has failed to see it executed.
3. The Bishops (at large) did not follow him, because they never could.
4. Were it to happen as the Pope desires, a situation of – proclaimed or de facto – schism or vacant see would kick in as the bishops who still are Catholic refuse to share responsibility with those who aren’t. Pat Buchanan made a similar point last week. They are clearly both right.
It does not take a genius to get all these points, but it is notable that a Mr Douthat – a mainstream journalist writing for an atrociously secular and anti-Christian publication – gets them. It means that in the next 12 months more and more people, even not interested in the ways and life of the Church, will get one thing clear: that whatever their personal errors and warped way of seeing life, they can’t just demand that the Church converts to them. She will not, because she is the Church.
An outsider like Douthat sees, though, very clearly what many of our own Pollyannas still do not want to see: this Pope has already led the Church on the brink of the abyss, and there is no guarantee he will not decide to jump into it, carrying with him as many as he can.
In Catholic language – which Mr Douthat does not use – it means that this Pope is the enemy of Catholicism, and a threat to the Church the like of which has not been seen since John XXII.
Even the parts of the secular world with a functioning brain begin to understand the stakes of this tragic game.
It is astonishing – and inexcusable – that so many parts of the Catholics still do not.