Daily Archives: March 18, 2012
Reblog of the day
I don’t like talking about my blog, which is the reason why I never write blog posts like “this is my 300th post” and the like.
Still, I have been blogging for almost one year now and have, I think, learned one thing or two about what – at least in my case – goes and what not.
As I have written a couple of times in the recent past about Catholic blogging, I thought that I may write here a couple of suggestions that might be obvious to the already experienced blogger, but not so obvious to the person thinking of starting a Catholic blog for the first time.
If you were to ask me for advice about how to start a conservative Catholic blog, I would – based exclusively on my personal experience; your mileage may vary – suggest the following steps. Others will, no doubt, have different…
View original post 1,552 more words
On the Vatican-SSPX matters, I have received a long message from Catocon, he of Hocestenim (excellent blog but, unfortunately for many of you, in German).
I sometimes delete such long messages without warning, and tend to dislike them.
Not this time.
This message is so profound, and so beautiful, that I publish it here in its entirety, with many thanks to his author:
the more loyal and loving a son, the more fiercely he will protect his Mother. Those who see their Mother weakening and do nothing but talk cheaply about hermeneutics and textual criticism of some fallible council for fear of being accused of “disobedience” do not love their Mother; they love their reputations. That is the difference between many “conservatives” in “full communion” and the FSSPX.
Yes, the Fraternity is disobedient. They won’t throw away the medicine capable of healing their Mother, even if their Mother orders them to. Therefore, there will be no deal until the Church clearly acknowledges that Her body is infested by the disease of modernism and starts expelling those responsible for it instead of obstructing those trying to fight it.
One last point: The more I think about it, the more I come to believe that this has never been, at its deepest point, a question of doctrine. You can, if you wish, twist the words of the Council until the end of time, and come up with some interpretation that fits Tradition. In exactly the same way, you can do the opposite and twist those words until they become the foundation for a new Modern Church complete with a New Faith and a New Mass. But whatever the officially taught doctrines may be, the real point is, this is not about the doctrine itself, it is about the practical fruits. If the Church were flourishing, if young people were learning the New Catechism by heart, if they were defending the teachings of this Catechism with their blood and their lives, if they were filling the seminaries, if those teachings of the Council and its Magisterium were earnestly defended, if the liturgy was celebrated according to the books and with utmost care and faithfulness to the letter and spirit of the Mass, if they were striving to become saints by living a life of prayer, penance, sacrifice, if all these things were happening, no one would be talking about some inconsistencies or problems in some of the conciliar texts. We would, of course, interpret them according to traditional Magisterium, and one or two professional theologians would be discussing them furiously, but they would pose absolutely no problem. And the FSSPX would fully accept them, as even Archbishop Lefèbvre signed them in 1965, as maybe imperfect, but fully legitimate expressions of Catholicism, and reconciliation would proceed apace. But we can see the fruit of the Council, we see an enormous apostasy among clerics and laymen alike, a vast desert of agnosticism and apathy, empty seminaries, churches and confessionals, beautiful altars vandalized like false idols of a hated heathen religion, almost as if the reformers had perceived them to be such, and when we see these fruits, we know something about the tree that produced them. We know that there is something seriously wrong with this tree. That this cannot be the real tree of the Catholic Faith. And from this knowledge we can deduce that the Council, having produced these rotten fruits, cannot have been a good thing, and that its questionable teachings were in fact novelties, even poisonous novelties, and not just some unfortunate way of expressing the Faith.
We shall know them by their fruits, because words are very flexible, but works are not. They have a crystalline clarity that cannot be obfuscated. We see the rupture of the Council in every average church we attend, hear it in every sermon, smell it in most liturgies, experience it in the divorce courts and abortion mills overflowing with Catholics, and can never believe in “continuity”, even if a proper hermeneutic can be found by theological study, because the fruits tell us a different story. Unless the fruits change, there can be no acceptance for the work that produced them, and therefore no agreement. If the fruits really change, the proper interpretation of problematic passages will follow as sure as night follows day, and the Fraternity will be in full communion before you can even pronounce the words.
Nothing to add and, as the Germans say, Hut ab!
This man is good, and he clearly lost patience with being both misinterpreted in public, and mistreated from the auxiliary bishop.
On Saturday February 25th I showed up to officiate at a funeral Mass for Mrs. Loetta Johnson. The arrangements for the Mass were also not my own. I wish to clarify that Ms. Barbara Johnson (the woman who has since complained to the press), has never been a parishioner of mine. In fact I had never met her or her family until that morning.
The funeral celebration was to commence at 10:30a.m. From 9:30 to 10:20, I was assigned to hear confessions for the parish and anyone in the funeral party who would have chosen to receive the sacrament.
A few minutes before the Mass began, Ms. Johnson came into the sacristy with another woman whom she announced as her “lover”. Her revelation was completely unsolicited. As I attempted to follow Ms.Johnson, her lover stood in our narrow sacristy physically blocking my pathway to the door. I politely asked her to move and she refused.
The brazenness of the fat, ugly lesbian and her (allegedly, as she can block an entrance with her mere presence) not entirely slender “lover” is beyond contempt. But most importantly, the woman throws her lesbianism in the Father’s face.
Father Guarnizo again:
I understand and agree it is the policy of the Archdiocese to assume good faith when a Catholic presents himself for communion; like most priests I am not at all eager to withhold communion. But the ideal cannot always be achieved in life.
In the past ten days, many Catholics have referenced canon 915 in regard to this specific circumstance. There are other reasons for denying communion which neither meet the threshold of canon 915 or have any explicit connection to the discipline stated in that canon.
If a Quaker, a Lutheran or a Buddhist, desiring communion had introduced himself as such, before Mass, a priest would be obligated to withhold communion. If someone had shown up in my sacristy drunk, or high on drugs, no communion would have been possible either. If a Catholic, divorced and remarried (without an annulment) would make that known in my sacristy, they too according to Catholic doctrine, would be impeded from receiving communion. This has nothing to do with canon 915. Ms. Johnson’s circumstances are precisely one of those relations which impede her access to communion according to Catholic teaching. Ms. Johnson was a guest in our parish, not the arbiter of how sacraments are dispensed in the Catholic Church.
This man is full of common sense. If you say yourself you can’t receive, then you can’t receive, full stop.In this case, the lady had openly admitted to be in mortal sin, and to give scandal with her openly admitted perverted “relationship”. Truly, either this is the end of the discussion of we must wonder what is wrong with us.
Note Father says confession was open to the lady on the morning. I doubt in case of serious confession and sincere intent to reform her life, Father Guarnizo would have refused communion. But she didn’t, so he did. Good man.
Under these circumstances, I quietly withheld communion, so quietly that even the Eucharistic Minister standing four feet from me was not aware I had done so. (In fact Ms. Johnson promptly chose to go to the Eucharistic minister to receive communion and did so.) There was no scandal, no “public reprimand” and no small lecture as some have reported.
If there were more like Father Guarnizo and less like Bishop Knestout, the Church in the US would be in much better shape.
You read here today’s CNA article about the latest turn in the HHS mandate story.
The translation in proper English is as follows:
“Dear voters, we are more and more scared this will be the undoing of us. You see, we have tried a very strong stance at the beginning, but this wouldn’t work. Seeing we were driving against a wall at great speed, we have invented a “compromise” that wasn’t such, and have tried to sell it to the gullible; of whom we know there is a great number, because we are in office.
Unfortunately, the “compromise” tale didn’t work, and now things are getting really scary. Every week this remains at the centre of the public opinion, votes get lost. We need them, you know. And we need all Catholic votes we can get, because we are enough in trouble as it is. We thought the Catholic population would follow us after we say a couple of words about “women’s right” (it works, generally, quite well) but the bishops wouldn’t accept it and started making such a mess. Like, unfortunate, really. We tried to explain to them what Catholicism says about contraception and abortion, but those people are so stubborn, they don’t even listen to America magazine. I mean, like, really?
We have discussed about this with the Prez, and we have decided we don’t think this is going to go away, or so he read from the teleprompter. I agree with the teleprompter,erm, the Prez, though. I mean, this is going to, like, hurt.
At this point, there’s no other choice than to start preparing an orderly retreat. No rout, of course. We’ll go back in installments, and try to look as good as we can in the process. If the mess ends, we will be able to go back to normal at any time, anyway. If it doesn’t, it is better to start opening the emergency door now.
At the beginning, we’ll continue to say we’ll give contraceptives to everyone, and “women rights” will not suffer, and we want only discuss how the mandate can be improved. We’ll show ourselves ready to listen. Concerned. Paternal, even. But we’ll pave the way for those “improvement” we’ll be forced to concede anyway. As to the cows, we’ll tell them something to keep them happy. We don’t need great skills to do that. The cows are very gullible. Like, I mean, they’ve elected us, right?
So what I’ll do now is to say I want to , like, “listen more” (or some such thing; it goes down well, you know). Then I’ll wait and see, and if the mess goes on we’ll have to talk with the Prez and see what he thinks. Damn, it’s always so difficult when the teleprompter is broken, though…
I know you won’t be very pleased, my dear “wymyn”. But you see, I have my back to the wall and no intention to be shot at until November. We’ll have to make compromises. Real ones, this time.
The Prez told me the same. Like, I mean, reading from the teleprompter”.