Category Archives: Catholicism
From the recent interview of Cardinal George with a magazine that, for the sake of your children, shall not be linked to.
The question is raised, why doesn’t he himself clarify these things? Why is it necessary that apologists have to bear that burden of trying to put the best possible face on it? Does he not realize the consequences of some of his statements, or even some of his actions? Does he not realize the repercussions? Perhaps he doesn’t. I don’t know whether he’s conscious of all the consequences of some of the things he’s said and done that raise these doubts in people’s minds.
Courtesy of Yours Truly, the English version.
We are all sick and tired of what this man is doing, so we must say that “questions are raised”. We all know the man sows confusion on purpose, which is why he never clarifies anything. But you see, we Cardinals must pretend he isn’t a darn heretic, at least for now. It makes one vomit that everytime this joker opens his mouth we and other must run to the rescue like we are the Fire Frigade fighting a permanent Chicago Fire. He cannot fool us: of course we know he fully realises the consequences of all his statements and his actions: it is why he does all of it! But look, this is all unprintable. So let me put it to you in the form of four very rhetorical questions in rapid succession: this way, even the slower minds will understand that we really are fed up. Then let me fire another salvo by stating that perhaps he is just gaga, so we do not know whether he is conscious of the fact that he is sabotaging catholicism at every turn. We know he isn’t, of course. But truly, at this point we have no other way to try to explain to the faithful the behaviour of this clown.
From Cardinalese to proper English.
You are welcome.
I have recently published a blog post mentioning the fact that the Pontiff Emeritus has changed his mind in regards to the communion for adulterers; a matters on which, in 1972, he had spoken in favour of exploring other avenues in Kasper-style.
I have also said that it makes me shiver that in 1972 a theologian reputed “conservative” could write such astonishing rubbish.
It is certainly a very positive element, and it does the Pontiff Emeritus honour, that he has had the guts to officially change his mind in such a controversial matter; particularly considering that his old, Sixty-Eighter-ish opinion was not in the centre of the public attention, and would not have been considered his position today if it had been. Basically, the Pontiff Emeritus has directed the attention of the planet on an old, very big mistake of him few were even noticing.
Still, I can’t avoid thinking that every grandma, in 1972, could have said to the above mentioned Professor Ratzinger what he can do with all his degrees in theology. Because you see, your average grandma was, in 1972, very evidently far more advanced in Catholicism than Professor Ratzinger with all his degrees; so much so, in fact, that she would have been fully justified in slapping him in the face, like one does with a boy in need of a lesson.
It is not difficult to be on the side of orthodoxy. It is enough to want to think, in everything, like the generations of our sane Catholic past thought, and to inform oneself about the way they did. When doubt arises, one informs himself before he speaks, much less writes, much less publishes. To do anything else, or to be enamored of novelty for the sake of public recognition, or because shamefully influenced by the new times, is to be a heretic.
It is not difficult to be orthodox. Grandmas have managed to do it admirably for many generations. It boggles the mind that in this day and age this should be a feat theologians do not manage to accomplish.
Slapping in the face is vastly underrated. I am sure it paved the way to salvation for many a boy, and would do a lot of good to an awful lot of theologians.
And here is the second part of our “Remnant” voyage into the realm of papal heresies: can the church depose a heretical Pope?
“Yes, she can”, is the answer. Follow the link to learn the why and how. An entire section is dedicated to the obvious mistake of the Sedevacantist perception.
Unfortunately, the absence of a true practical application of the principle (the interesting case of Marcellinius (or Marcellinus) would probably not apply to Francis, and perhaps some will doubt it happened in the first place) makes it very difficult to discern a clear path if Francis were to “go nuclear”.
Say: who would take the initiative of starting the convocation of an ecumenical council? How many bishops would take place? With what money would the entire exercise be financed? How would one know the council is legitimate?
In practice, I think if Francis were to proclaim even formal heresy he would have perhaps one third of the bishop on his side, and probably much more than that in the West. The initiative would probably start from a dozen or two Cardinals, but then there is the problem of what would happen if Francis were to, say, depose every bishops going to a certain ecumenical or even regional council, or all the Cardinals denouncing his heresies. The bishop’s conferences faithful to him (the usual ones, which are the richest ones) would prevent every money from being used and everyone of their bishops from taking part. We would have a situation of chaos out of which only the determination of the right side would, one day, allow to get out. We would, again, have a situation in which we would have to turn to authentic beacons of Catholicism to tell us that the ecumenical council is in fact suitable for its purpose or not, the Pope validly declared heretic or not, and so on.
If push comes to shove, I think what will happen is that a number of Cardinals (a minority, for sure) would (God willing) take the initiative, with a handful of champions like Burke or Pell asking for an abiura from the Pope, and threatening with an ecumenical council to have him deposed if he does not comply. This would carry with him a number (how big?) of bishops, and would then allow to put in motion a mechanism as the one described in the article, though with how many bishops and what kind of controversy (again, if Francis says they are relieved of their office; though obviously he could not relieve them of their sacrament of holy orders) would remain to be seen.
A scenario like the one leading to the abdication of Marcellinius (with an obvious wall of bishops on the right side) is, I think, not realistic. A situation of chaos and prolonged conflict is far more likely. This scenario would, if it were to pass, certainly destroy the reputation of Francis as Pope, and burn to the ground his standing for the following generations; but it does not mean that the Pope would end up being deposed.
Nor can we say that the Holy Ghost would not fail to allow the Church to reach a speedy solution of the controversy, as the example of the Western Schism has already showed to us that the promise of protection does not extend to the absence of a very long uncertainty – at least in the mind of many, even honest Catholics – as to who is the Pope (or whether there is a Pope) in the first place.
I think, though, that the method used against John XXII (an impressive, if local, body of bishops, religious and theologians poses him in front of the choice between backpedaling and open calls of heresy) would already have a great probability of success, because a vain man like Francis would immediately know that his papacy would go down in flames for the only fact of a doctrinal rebellion against him; even if this rebellion were, for whatever reason, not to translate into his deposition.
It is, in any way, consoling to know that whatever we will face has been the subject of very long and serious debate in the past. This allows us to put the dramatic age we are living (and deserving to live) in the proper context, without panic or flights into the unreal, only apparent refuge of “siding with the Pope”.
The Pope sides with atheist journalists, perverted priests and irreligious rock stars.
If we come to a nuclear scenario, think twice before you side with him.
In the first of two blog posts dedicated to a series of beautiful articles taken from the “Remnant”, I will copy the link to four articles dedicated to the grave crisis in which Pope John XXII plunged the Church in the first part of the XIV Century.
The second blog post will be dedicated to a very actual issue: how a Pope can be deposed.
In both cases, I will add my short personal consideration.
The articles will, also, be put in a special “page” (this is how WordPress calls the fixed pages you see at the top) on my blog, in the hope that it will attract, in time, the attention of readers surfing the waves of the Internet in the search for some guidance in the present confusion.
I invite, here, to say the prayers you would think adequate for the author of the articles, Mr Chris Jackson (see below), and for those who run this beautiful site, a bastion of Catholic sanity in a world of fake “c”atholics, Pollyannas, prostitutes, and utter potheads.
The series of article you see linked below (make a tea; put on some music; make the time; you will not regret it) teaches, in my eyes, some very important lessons:
1) Under the pretence of meekness, John was a first-class bully of the most dangerous sort. I am reminded of someone here.
2) John called to an open discussion between orthodoxy and heresy. The discussion should, obviously, never have taken place in the first place. The parallel with today’s situation is striking.
3) Pope John feigned a half-hearted “neutrality”, but in the praxis he clearly pushed his own agenda. Francis does exactly the same.
4) Good Catholics who love truth expressed himself against him with such violence, that one of them was even arrested. If your heart cares, your mouth will show it. I can’t tell you what sympathy I have for those who are inflamed in their anger, because they see the Church they love attacked; or how much I despise the “nice guys” who would not be able to say anything “unkind” to the Antichrist if they had him in front of them.
Nicety is the new religion. Give me the old one.
5) Pope John XXII’s propositions were not in the least less heretical because the immediacy of the beatific vision once a soul has entered paradise had not (yet) been proclaimed dogmatically. This had not happened simply because no Pope had been such a bonehead as to put the teaching into question. To say that every Catholic truth that is not dogmatically defined can be questioned without incurring in the sanction of heresy is the sheer madness, and would simply spell the end of Catholicism. Heretical is what goes against the deposit of the faith. The issue at hand might or might not have been defined dogmatically (this will, generally, be dependent on whether controversies arose about it), but if it has been always believed by the church, to go against it is to commit heresy; which is why John XXII is considered – until his final repentance – a heretical Pope. “The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval”. This, of course, irrespective of whether the heresy is formal or material.
6) I wish I could share the enthusiasm of the author of the article for the wonderful repentance of John XXII. Whilst I do not doubt his final repentance was sincere – the imminence of death must focus the mind uncannily – I am too much of a cynical not to believe that the man backpedaled because the situation on the ground made the stake appear his most probable final destination if he had insisted, after due warning, in his heretical position. We must reflect that it is very widely believed that a Pope can be formally deposed as a heretic (there will be another post on this, also based on a beautiful “Remnant” article) and, at that point, loses all the protection accorded to him not only as Pope and bishop, but as priest, too. The stake would, at that point, have been a very probable final destination for our dear John, Humble Theologian, considering the gravity of pertinaciously spreading heresy from one’s position as Pope. Alas, Francis does not have the benefit of gentle reminders of the gravity of being a heretic, like John had. Which, if you ask me, is a great pity.
Enjoy the articles. Again, I strongly suggest that you take time to really read all of them, a task you can easily divide in different times if you so wish. The four links that follow, and the one that will be published in the following one, are among the most important ever published on these pages.
A very special “thank you” goes to reader Chris Jackson, who posted these precious sources on my comment box. He might well be the same Chris Jackson who authored the articles. In which case, my gratitude is the more increased, and I consider it a great honour to have such an erudite writer among the readers of my little, but sincere effort.
EDIT: Reblogged with exact quote and link to persuade those who do not believe unless they see a link and a direct quote.
“Am I one of these Christians of appearances? Am I alive inside, do I have a spiritual life? Do I hear the Holy Spirit, do I listen to the Holy Spirit, do I move forward, or …? But, if everything looks good, I have nothing to reproach myself about: I have a good family, people do not gossip about me, I have everything I need, I married in church …I am ‘in the grace of God’, I am alright. Appearances! Christians of appearance … they are dead! Instead [we must] seek something alive within ourselves, and with memory and vigilance, reinvigorate this so we can move forward. Convert: from appearances to reality. From being neither hot nor cold to fervour”.
Yes, you. You, the good wife, the good husband. You who marry in church, you who pray the rosary. You, Sir, are his enemy.
The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) continues to sabotage Catholicism. I begin to think his hatred for good Catholics is so strong that he cannot refrain from making snide remarks against them even if he tries to hold his tongue. This, or grappa plays a role.
Now, not even good Catholics with well-ordered lives, no mortal sin on their conscience and married in church are fine. Francis, the man who orders to give sacrilegious communion to 80% of the communicants in the slum, suggests many of those good Catholics must be “dead” inside. The concubines in the slum, the transvestite, the faggot priests – see his buddy – they are all fine.
Dead inside? If he wants to see one, the only thing this man need is a mirror.
Whatever kind of sinner you are – homosexual, concubine, thief – this Pope will like you a lot. But start to live a Catholic life, and his hatred for you will be impossible to contain.
I can’t avoid thinking this Pope has such a visceral hatred for Catholics he lashes out against them even if he knows he should be far more careful. It’s just beyond his control.
He has hated good Catholics all his life. To him, they are hypocrites. He must be so rotten inside, that he has forgotten what a sincere heart is.
But you, you be a dirty soul instead. Possibly a pervert.
He will see his own dirt in you, and will like you immediately.
… I would feel, actually, a blasphemer. This, for the simple reason that I am not God, and God already found His own Church on Christ. So no, I could never even think of something like that.
I know it's obvious. But Cardinal O'Malley did not say it, so I will have to.
Of course one could, in a joking manner, make the absurd argument. “Hey”, he might say, “these are not my rules. They are God's rules. If you don't like them, complain by him!”. Or: “hey, these are not my rules. If it depended on me, I would make chocolate a remedy against cholesterine!” Statements like this only declare, in a joking manner, that we know nothing, and are prone to sin. They are fine in the proper context.
The problem with Cardinal O'Malley, though, is that he created the wrong context, and he gave entirely the wrong perception. Firstly, by choosing to say “I would love to have women priests” he touched a taboo, making a comparison that he knew would be easily misunderstood, and which smacks of political correctness on the cheap. Secondly, he did not add the necessary caveat, adding to his words an expression like “but I would be the biggest idiot on earth only if I thought to do so, because God has already founded His own Church, which is the only one”, or “but only a cretin can think that he knows better than God, and what whatever God states cannot be improved upon, and we accept it instead of discussing it; otherwise we aren't Catholics, but heretics and idiots”.
Instead, the Cardinal chose a different, very arrogant approach. The message he sends is more like “I feel with you rabid feminists, and humanly speaking I cannot avoid thinking that you are right. Embarrassingly enough, Jesus differs. But Jesus cannot be wrong so hey, we'll have to live with this embarrassment; one we can't humanly understand or justify in any other way than by stating that it comes from Him so there must be something right in it”.
Come on, Your Grace. You can't fool us on this one.
I could now, for the edification of the Cardinal, write not one but several blog posts explaining why it is the greatest blessing that women cannot be priests. But as I am pretty sure he knows all already much better than I do – being more than a couple of springs more seasoned than I am – I will let it be for today; safe in the knowledge that the man wanted to pander to the world, hiding behind the finger of “for some reason, Jesus chose that way, so let's bear this burden with Christian resignation”.
This is not one who defends Christ. Rather, he is one who says he does not understand Christ's apparent misogyny, but he deals with it in obedience.
Not much of a Cardinal, this one.
I am asked how I reconcile my refusal of Sedevacantism with my often-repeated statement that I would recognise the See vacant if the SSPX said so. The matter seems pretty obvious to me; but hey, let's have a blog post, as it can be a useful reading to refresh a thing or two.
I do not have a crystal ball. Sedevacantism as it is peddled nowadays seems utterly absurd to me for the reasons explained in many blog posts. Still, it is obvious – and this issue has been also dealt with frequently on this blog – that Sedevacantism per se was never an absurdity, but actually a very real possibility at various times in the history of the Church.
If, for example, John XXII had dared to proclaim a wrong dogma, I cannot imagine any other solution than the See being declared vacant by at least a number of Cardinals (plus theologians, prestigious religious, & Co.) It is also obvious that theologians like St Roberto Bellarmino dealt with the issue because they considered it a possibility, not merely a pastime for rainy winter afternoons.
Unfortunately – and this has, also, been stated often on this blog – we are now in one of those times in which Sedevacantism starts to appear on the horizon as a possibility. Why is that? Because Francis is such a pothead that there is literally no limit to where his arrogance, ignorance and breathtaking faithlessness could lead him.
Can, therefore, Sedevacantism become a reality? Of course it can. This was, in theory, always the case. But this time, the possibility is far less remote than in usual times.
How can we, then, recognise when such a point has come? You, who know better than me, will certainly be able to decide for yourself. But I, who am terrified of dying and being reproached of having wanted to decide who is and is not the Vicar of Christ, will defer the matter to the superior authority of those to whom I would, when in doubt, always entrust my salvation in preference to an idiot like Francis; those I consider the purest sanctuary of Catholic orthodoxy and to whom I can, therefore, entrust a decision, and die in the fear of the Lord but able to say, on that fateful day, “confronted with unprecedented scandal, I chose the side of your most faithful allies”.
Do I need to be a theologian to make such a decision? No. What I need is to realise that now, as in other times in the past, when we seek orthodoxy we must look to Athanasius rather than Liberius; without saying that Liberius is not the Pope, as long as Athanasius thinks Liberius is; but following Athanasius rather than Liberius if the modern Athanasius (the SSPX) were to declare the See vacant, and Liberius an imposter.
The above should be sufficient to make the rather banal point. But as I am by the argument, I will say two words more.
There are many shades of gray between the white of an orthodox Pope and the black of a vacant See. A Pope can position himself at very many points in the Saint-to-Idiot scale without the See being vacant. Pope John XXII was certainly a heretic, albeit a material one. Honorius was officially condemned. Liberius was weak, at the very least, to the point of being an accomplice of the gravest heresy, and vastly below the required standard. But even a materially heretical Pope does not a vacant See make, which is why Bishop Fellay calls Francis a Modernist, but still sees in him the Pope.
The See is not vacant. More prosaically, a total ass is in charge. There is no saying what kind of stupid things this ass may not do. Therefore, Sedevacantism is a possibility. We, who care for our salvation, do not assume that we can decide for ourselves whether there is a Pope; rather, we defer to the best Catholic authority we can pick around to orientate ourselves; then we may not be the finest theologians, but we know enough to choose between Athanasius and Liberius, and know that a bad Pope can be extremely bad and even heretic, and still be the Pope.
That's it, really. It's not complicated. It should not have needed an extra blog post, but I thought it could be a useful reminder anyway.
Sedevacantism can, and in many cases certainly is, the product of an arrogant mentality; the behaviour, so to speak, of the one who goes away with the ball because he doesn't like how the match is going. In other cases, though, Sedevacantism is – unfortunately – espoused by sincere Catholic souls; that is, by people who, because of a warped conception of what the Earthly Jerusalem is, find no other way to keep believing in the Church than by, in short, deciding that this Church has become a huge, worldwide deception, and opening an emergency exit door for themselves in this rather childish belief that the true church be the pure and incorrupted one to which they, and very few others the world over, belong. As if Christ had allowed almost all, bar the very few smarties, to be deceived as to what the Church is.
Still, the fact remains: some of these Sedes are faithful Catholics who, whatever their errors, I believe far more pleasing to God than, say, 97% of Western Bishops. Some of them are, also, very good at explaining Catholic doctrine, and defending the Tridentine Mass. This is no surprise, as in many cases we are talking, whatever Voris & Co. May think, of very orthodox, high quality Catholics.
Should we, therefore, link to their material, may the one or other Catholic blogger
have asked ask?
I would answer that it depends on the actual situation, and of the weighing that we must make of whether the exposure to the good material is outweighed by the exposure to the bad one.
I use a case-by-case approach. I have linked to Sedevacantist sites when I thought it ethically correct to link to the source of the material of the day – a blog article, say – but I have never felt it necessary to go as far as to link to their books, or videos, or any other extensive, systematic exposure to them, even in arguments not pertaining to Sedevacantism. Say: a Sedevacantist can have the best videos about the Tridentine Mass around, but I would still not link to them.
I would, though, do it in the one case, that I thought this material the only reasonably good material available; not, of course, without a warning about the other convictions of the author.
I must say that, up to now, this has never happened, and I very much doubt that it will ever happen. It's not that we have ever needed Sedevacantists to explain to us things we did not know. The world of Traditionalism – including all Catholicism before the Council – is simply immense, and the Internet sources are becoming vaster every day, with more and more old books and other sources being made available. It's not that your reader has to watch a certain video, or read a certain article. Alternative sources are most certainly available.
In one words: if there were no Sedevacantism, there would be no occasion in which a Traditionalist Catholic blogger could not find perfectly acceptable (I do not say perfect, or even best; but perfectly acceptable) sources for the issue at hand.
Others will, of course, have different opinions. I only tell you which approach I personally consider best. In our disgraceful times, Sedevacantism can easily become a temptation for imperfectly formed Catholics, who in their desperation think they have finally found the answer to the events unfolding under their own eyes. I do not think they should be exposed to this temptation, unless there are very valid reasons for that.
Which is why on this blog you don't find link to videos of Sedevacantists – however good this videos might be – but only the occasional link concerning the issue of the day, and Even that only with a word or three of warning.
I have heard many Catholics – priest and laity – speak about spreading the “joy of Christ”, or launching easy slogans like “Jesus is Joy”. Not one of them – priest or lay – ever made to me the impression that he could ever convert anyone truly interested in his own salvation, rather than mere fun. If anyone were to embrace Catholicism based on that, let me tell you he will be bitterly disappointed.
I can't hear anymore how, in a society focused of fun and self-satisfaction, Catholicism is presented as a dispenser of the same stupid surrogates of happiness most people are already actively looking for outside of it. In this “joy” thing there is – there must be, in these stupid times of ours – an implicit promise of something for nothing. This becomes very evident in the words of The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH, if you are new to this blog), who always talks of Christ as if He were simply giving to us, and never asking of us; but it is also rather transparent in your typical Novus-Ordo “homily for all the family”, in which sin or punishment are never mentioned lest it should cloud the sunny Sunday morning of the pewsitters, in which everyone drives home to his Sunday lunch feeling so astonishingly good.
Well, I beg to disagree.
I think that in this day and age, every unqualified talk of “joy” smacks so much of Disneyland, that it should be carefully avoided unless it is put in the proper context. A world that does not fear hell will never put joy in the context of Salvation. Rather, it will put it in the context of quality of life. A big, big mistake, because a properly formed Catholic conscience will give one fears, and pangs of remorse, utterly unknown to, say, the rosewater mainstream, “I think I believe in God”-Anglican. This ex-Anglican convert will also discover that many things he thoughts harmless aren't harmless at all, and he is not allowed to skip Mass. Not even then, when he goes around “spreading the joy of Christ” instead.
This “joy” thing is, in the present world, nothing more than deception. It is marketing under false pretences. It encourages a wrong thinking that infects even those who should know better, and who profit from it to willfully ignore their own grave sinfulness because hey, they “spread the joy”.
If you ask me, every discussion about Catholicism, and every attempt at conversion, must begin with hell. Hell, and nothing else, is the reason why we are Catholics, then if there were no hell I would enthusiastically chase skirt for all I'm worth, and every consideration about what Catholicism says of it would be a gentle suggestion – but hey, God is luv, right? – at best.
My reason for being Catholic is hell, not joy. My fear of hell, not this promised Disneyland of the nuCatholics, is why I remain Catholic. The harshest truths on the planet are the very foundation of the only true religion of the planet. Christ died for me on the Cross, so I can go on doing what I please, because Cool Bearded Guy takes care of me anyway. You can't even begin to talk about Catholicism without mentioning those harsh truths; because if the world is the merry-go-round with guaranteed happy ending peddled by Francis and by all those modern apostles of joy, there is no reason whatever to go through life full of “Catholic guilt” (also called sanity, and fear of the Lord) and encumbered with all those prohibitions to do, and obligations to do, that are everywhere in the life of a Catholic.
Forget the talk of the “Joy of Christ”, at least until the planet has forgotten what it really means.
Focus on the Wrath of Christ instead.
It may be less pleasant, but it is far more salutary.
I seem to understand, from blog posts I read around, that the problem of Traditionalists harshly criticising the Pope would be that they bring other Catholics outside of the Church.
With all due respect: poppycock.
I know of many blogs and Internet outlets which, whilst rightfully harsh with the old Sixty-Eighter now in charge, uphold the Catholic faith at every step, and encourage all those confused by TMAHICH to do the same.
Where do the doubts and confusion of the faithful come from? From the fear of seeing the faith of their grandmother being declared passé, and the secular mentality raised to the rank of New And Improved Catholicism, with papal approval.
How must these people react when they start surfing the Internet, and finally find outspoken Traditionalist blogs? I know the effect they had on me: immense relief, and encouragement to learn more about Catholicism.
Titius or Caius have been told by grandma that Catholicism is a monolith, a huge block of granite. Even when they lapsed, more or less openly, they still knew the monolith was there. Now Francis is declaring the monolith outmoded, and he offers excrements instead, saying that in the Age of Mercy the monolith is brown, and smells of sheep. Titius and Caius start browsing the Internet, and … there is it, the good old monolith! A huge block of granite, to which all the Traditionalist bloggers point and say: “look at it! An idiot is trying to scratch it with a fork! How do you think it is going to end?”
If the reader does not feel a huge sense of relief and consolation in finding his grandmother's monolith again, it means that he never cared for it much. On the contrary, for many the fear of the loss of the “old religion” will be a powerful motivation, once the monolith has been found again, to really start to like it.
Who would, then, be pushed away from Catholicism because of people criticising Francis? Those, evidently, who never liked the monolith in the first place. Those who are looking for an excuse to ditch the Church. Those for whom the monolith was immer too hard, and prefer Francis' soft excrements instead. Those for whom no truth can ever be allowed to be hard… to them.
No. Don't tell me that we do any damage. Francis does the damage. We merely try to minimise it as much as we can.
We introduce the huge block of granite to the confused faithful, and explain to them its beauty and its purpose; why it has to be hard, and why it will always be hard. But we try to make our best to let them grow in their appreciation of the huge monolith, so that those going around peddling excrements may not confuse them, and lead them astray.
Are we harsh in doing this? 'Course we are! Excrements stink mightily, too! Half words do not serve anyone in this situation. We are in a red alert, we can't pretend there's no need to sound all the alarm bells!
But that a disgraceful Pope should behave like no other Pope in History, and those who upheld the truths of our forefathers should be considered, they and not him, the danger for the Church, this truly is beyond the pale.
In an incredible turn of events, Pope Francis makes headlines for saying something Catholic. He is – and at this point it is certainly a relief – against euthanasia.
One cannot escape the suspicion that Francis is giving something to eat to his Catholic pigeons, as he must do every now and then if he wants to keep some shred of credibility among them. His choice of words is also not particularly strong, nor is there any mention of punishment. The statement that euthanasia is a sin against God is also a bit strange, seen that actually every sin is.
But this is not the real issue here. The real issue here is: who is he to judge? What if the person who commits suicides, or aborts, “seeks the Lord” and all that rubbish? Who is Francis to judge? Should he not “walk with” the person about to dispose himself, and meet her, say, outside of the room where she is going to get the lethal injection?
When one as a Pope is so evidently wrong in fundamentals, he will never be right in particulars. Once the very premises of his “thinking” are wrong, every thought loses credibility. His own stupidity is so vast in scope, that it will speak against him whatever he says.
One day, even the liberals who idolise him will be forced to say to him: “who are you to judge?”.
Then, the fun will begin in earnest.
An Italian Canonist has presented a petition to ask the Cardinal to examine whether Francis is not in manifest heresy and, in case, decide whether he should be deposed.
The text of the petition, in English, is here.
The petition merits to be read with attention before forming a beginning of an opinion, much less writing any comment.
It is not for me to say whether the path envisaged by the petitioner is one that most sound theologians would consider applicable in theory, or whether Francis’ antics – material heresy, certainly; formal heresy, I would say for now certainly not – would justify his deposition (ex nunc or ex tunc) from a suitable number of Cardinals. I have often stated, and repeat today, than in this matter I will refer to the opinion of those who know much more than myself about it, and whose judgment in this matter I trust implicitly: the Society of St. Pius X, the strongest and truest bastion of Catholic orthodoxy. My take is, therefore, that if the SSPX declares the See vacant, or the Pope in any way whatsoever legitimately deprived of his office, I will follow their position; but until that moment, I will consider that a disgraceful Pope is in power, albeit I will – cela va sans dire – refuse obedience to him in every matter in which the higher loyalty to Christ is at stake.
The reason why I have posted this petition is that this is, literally, a glimpse into the future; at least for the case that Francis decides to go bonkers next October, and choose the open confrontation.
Whilst it does not seem to me that the way suggested by the petitioner is necessarily the way to go – again, I refer here to the authority of those I trust -, there can be no doubt that this is the kind of situation we will have starting from October 2015, if Francis pushes the nuclear button.
When even Jesuits consider the question whether the Pope is a heretic a fully legitimate one, it is clear Francis is sailing very close to the wind.
Unless the Lord graces us with a sudden demise or resignation of that pitiful individual, we are in for some interesting times indeed.
Beautiful article on Life Site News about the thoughts of a former lesbian concerning what is happening right now among the shepherds.
The article is interesting in more ways than one. Below, my own remarks.
“It’s like if one day I think my car should become a boat and I plunge it into a river thinking this is totally passible. But General Motors begs to differ. If I toss aside GM’s plan for the car and drive into the river, the car will sink and I will drown. God created us. He knows and tells us the way he made us to be.
Already with this observation – an observation born from painful years of sexual perversion; so she must know something of it – Robin Teresa Beck, the former lesbian, shows she is miles ahead not only of the progressive heretics, but of all those “sensitive” priests who buy into the “born that way” mantra.
Born that way, my foot. God doesn’t do perversion. By definition, perversion is what goes away from the direction established by God.
“I think because I was so broken and so totally sickened by my sin that for me it was like: ‘I’m never going back there”.
Another enlightening, profound phrase. Consciousness of sin allowed her to discovered who she really is, and go back to sanity, forever. A person sunk in perversion will always find ways to justify himself, and blame the planet. The discovery of faith enlightens one’s consciousness, and allows one to see clearly. I wonder how many priests would have the gut to say to their more or less unrepentant sheep with the same issue: “I think when your faith blossoms you will be so broken and totally sickened by your sin that you will say: ‘I’m never going back there’ “.
I don’t care if Pope Francis gets in the chair and proclaims homosexual behavior is no longer a sin — which of course he can’t do — but if he did, I would be like: ‘No, I’m sorry. It is a sin.’ I don’t care who tries to tell me otherwise. I am just resolute on that.”
We have it here once again, and very explicitly: another sound Catholic afraid that the Pope might, in a way or another, try to change the perception of church teaching. The Pope is rapidly becoming the number one menace to Catholicism. Everyone with a sound brain and an alert mind understands this. The perception of Pope Francis as the Attila of Catholicism (at least, if he dared to) will soon be mainstream.
This article was “liked” 6,500 times on Facebook.
“Priests need to stop people-pleasing. They need to speak the truth in love.
Please, dear priests, stop being fags. Start being men instead. You have the job of saving souls, not pleasing people.
This woman thinks better than, very probably, 90% of the Western bishops. Her voice needs to be heard.
The “hospital” is there to heal the sick, not to give them drugs until they go to hell.
… there appears to me to be a paradigm growing regarding Summorum Pontificum/Universae Ecclesiae and the TLM, that while it may be permitted by bishops/powers that be/Pope for a priest “raised,” if you will, in the Novus Ordo environment, to offer the TLM on occasion, it most certainly will not be permitted for such priests to offer the TLM exclusively.
This interesting reflections appeared on the always interesting “Blog for Dallas Area Catholics”.
On personal reflection, it seems to me that this cannot be a uniform key of reading the events. I say this because of the following reflections:
1. To my knowledge, the FFI offered many Masses in the Novus Ordo before the Great Persecution started. They were, though, becoming increasingly more critical of V II. There is also, from what I have read around, an interesting episode of the FFI allowing the Tridentine Mass in a church of theirs, just metres past the boundary of the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Bergoglio; a move evidently aimed at making the Traditional Latin Mass as convenient as possible to the faithful of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires, then led by Archbishop Pothead himself.
2. Father Rodriguez was, as far as I know, already in disgrace by his own bishop because of his energetic defence of marriage against the tide of sexual perversion currently sweeping the West. It is difficult for me not to imagine that this is what made him a privileged target of his bishop’s attentions, and caused his transfer to a remote parish in the first place.
3. Bishop Lovieres Plano, another victim of this Pontiff, and Bishop Oliveri of Albenga-Imperia, possibly the next one, also had most certainly most masses in their dioceses celebrated in the Novus Ordo. In these cases, though, they both run extremely successful seminaries, which were certainly a Catholic menace for the likes of Bergoglio.
It seems to me that there is no single common denominator behind these episodes of persecution of good Catholic priest, other than this: that their being good Catholic priests is seen as a nuisance, a menace or an open challenge to the Church of Nice. The ways in which this can happen are multiform, but they can all traced back to one common denominator: Catholicism taken seriously.
If we want to understand what is happening, we must see the events in the right perspective: whilst the usual “feel-good” V II mentality was always an obstacle to sound Catholicism, Francis is, with his secular Neo-Paganism, its sworn enemy. He will, therefore, attack sound Catholicism whenever he thinks he can do so safely, perhaps abandoning caution when – as in the case of the FFI – personal animosity add to the already evident motive of attacking sound Catholics.
This cascades, then, in a sort of open season on orthodox priests. Cardinal Dolan can get rid of Father Wright under Francis in a way that would not have been possible under Benedict. The climate has changed. The bishops read the new temperature, and act accordingly.
Father Rodriguez is, no doubt, not the last to be targeted. Excuses and pretexts of various kind will never be in any shortage, and there will never be any shortage of dumbos ready to believe whatever accusation is merely hinted to.
This is the way of this pontificate. There will be no scarcity of bishops adopting the same methods.