Daily Archives: October 4, 2010

Federico Lombardi tries To Reinvent Catholicism

One of the countless Popes who were wrong, says Fr Lombardi.

The Vatican spokesman has an obvious desire to feel beautiful and to let all the world see that he is.

In doing so, he

1) goes against 2000 years of Catholic teaching, and
2) contributes to the nonsense about the new and “improved humanity” so typical of the “Spirit of V-II” crowd.

Father Lombardi is not very shy. He tells us what he wants. Being Italian, he must know that the word “want” is more emotionally charged in Italian than in, say, English.
In Italy it is considered rather aggressive and in real life you do not use such words among adults because of his strong content. Even in Republican times, every child is taught that “l’erba voglio non cresce nemmeno nel giardino del Re” (or: “The “I Will”-grass doesn’t even grow in the King’s garden”).

But no, Father Lombardi doesn’t care of Catholic teaching or of “I Will”-grass. He simply wants. “Beata gioventu’ “, one would say if the chap were young and naively revolutionary. But he isn’t, so one doesn’t.

We have two phenomena here: the proclamation of “Humanity2.0″, obviously improved from the 1.0 version, and the reaction with the installation of Catholicism 2.0.

“I don’t want it in any country, in any of its forms, for any person or in any circumstance”, says our chap openly insulting the million of devout Catholics, certainly more orthodox than he himself is, at a stroke. But it is not only a matter of being rude.

This is in open contrast with the Church Teaching, the equivalent of telling oneself a pacifist in relation to the doctrine of war. This is in obvious contrast with centuries of tradition not only in all (as in: all) Christian countries, but even in the Pontifical State, who had and applied the death penalty with regularity. This was also, until 2000, official rule of the Vatican City, until an obviously senile JP II (desirous to make himself beautiful, no doubt) decided to abolish it.

Still, JP II’s decision might have had (though obviously wrong, because obviously sending the wrong signal) a practical justification. The Vatican City is rather not what you’d call a hotbed of criminality and when they renounced to exercise jurisdiction in the only case where it would have found application (Ali Agca, of course) it was obvious that the rule was meant never to be applied in practice anyway.

But this with Fr. Lombardi is different. This is at variance with the teaching of the Church. Lombardi calls this “a step further”. With this mentality, priestesses are “a step further” compared to male priesthood.

This nonsense comes from the usual mentality of the Sixties, that humanity be now oh so improved. Methinks, it is the same mentality which “helped” the one or other bishop to consider depraved priests as merely having a need for psychological treatment.

Already the CCC on the matter is extremely questionable, because – even without being openly heretical – it flirts with heresy to please the crowds (in pure JP II-style, must be said). But this is truly senseless.

And the man is not even King.

The address to which to send your protest is, as usual:

clero@cclergy.va

Mundabor

On the Canonisation Of Non-Catholics

Awfully sorry, old boy.....

Mark O’Shea has an article about the canonisation of Non-Catholics, whereby a reader asks him whether the Church should not canonise C.S. Lewis (not a Catholic but a valiant fighter for Christianity throughout).

O’Shea’s answer is basically that the Church should not canonise non-Catholics because this would – irrespectively of the good life and intention of the person in question – downplay the very important difference between those who have the Truth and those who haven’t.

In my eyes, there is another important observation which should be made: in order to canonise someone, the Church needs miracles. Unless I am mistaken, She needs two of them for a non martyr and one for a martyr. Miracles show the will of God in the matter. No miracles, no will of God, no canonisation even if one went to Paradise with the limo.

Now this should introduce an important consideration: how is it that there are no miracles attributed to obviously saintly Protestants? Please let us again remember what the Church says about miracles, that they occur so that God may give us certainty that the person in question is in Heaven. Now, it would appear that God wants to give us proof that a lot of Catholics went to Heaven, but doesn’t want to give us the same guarantee about Protestants.

If he wanted, he would inspire Christians (not necessarily Catholics) to pray for a saintly person’s intercession (some Anglicans do it; Episcopalians might do it) and then He would allow miracles linked with this person to happen. And then the Episcopalians or Anglicans would be able to boast of their own great saints, of the Anglican Padre Pios so to speak and claim that evidently one way is as good to arrive at destination as the other. This just doesn’t happen and whilst I do not doubt that the Anglicans have their own catalogue of “saints”, I doubt that anyone of them would pass the standard demanded of the Catholic ones.

This doesn’t mean that many Protestant are not in Heaven of course; but it certainly means that entrance into Paradise through the window (or the back door) is something God doesn’t want to put a great stress on.

There is only one Church. It is the one of St. Francis, of St. Dominic, of St. Teresa of Avila, of St. Catherine of Sienna, of Padre Pio, of all Her great heroes.
God has shown to us that those great man to whom inexplicable events are linked are invariably Catholic. This happens for a reason and if you ask me it is nothing to do with what the Church should or should not do, because the Church doesn’t create the process.

It has to do with what God wants.

God wants you to be a Catholic.

Mundabor.

%d bloggers like this: