Daily Archives: October 21, 2012
On the newly launched website of the new building for the St. Thomas Aquinas’ Seminary, you can see the future of Catholicism in the Western world.
Whilst the Vatican II church waffles itself into irrelevance and almost extinction, the sane parts of the Church not only resist, but grow and prosper. See the video below
to see what is happening.
It is difficult, very difficult not to see that traditional Catholicism is prospering and growing, whilst the (numerically still vaster) NuChurch is dying fast, sinking into irrelevance in the process.
The site and video explain to you nothing less than the future of Catholicism: solid, determined, serious. No laughing clowns in sight, no “daring” architectures, no waffle whatever.
Rorate Caeli not only has the video, but in a truly dramatic contrast has another blog post about the slow but perceptible decline of the Church in France. Besides the sobering statistical figures, the blog post has a rather telling photo of a huge (and, if you ask me, horrible, Le Corbusier or no Le Corbusier; see photo below) Dominican seminary now housing a dozen of seminarians.
For the dozen seminarians, the sense of decay must be palpable every hour of the day.
This is how the drunkenness of Vatican II is dying: leaving a lot of (mostly ugly) concrete in empty buildings, after deserting the Western world now under a massive attack from the forces of evil; forces of evil which the church continues to cajole and try to be friends with.
The two photos shown give a very clear idea of what the future of these two opposed vision of the Church will be, and which one of the two (the traditional, of the V II one) will survive.
The bill for the madness of the past is being presented very fast, and with the almost complete extinction of those organisations which have embraced the “spirit of Vatican II”-Zeitgeist (Jesuits and Franciscans come to mind; an awful lot of scrounging nuns; and who knows how many other minor orders) more and more bills will become due in the next decade or two.
In the meantime, serious Catholicism will continue to grow, until in one generation or two it will control the field again because of the literal, physical death of the opposing camp. A much reduced Catholicism it might be, but probably a much more effective one; than the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of priests and religious we have now aren’t doing much for Catholicism other than muddle the waters, encourage sodomy or support same-sex couples, desecrate the mass, abet heresy, being openly simoniacal and hobnob with the enemy.
In their blindness, they remind me of Erich Honecker, the deluded DDR Comrade celebrating the 40th anniversary of the DDR whilst the building was squeaking in a way impossible not to notice.
Honecker’s regime did not live to see the 50th anniversary.
Whatever the challenges of the future, we can be very confident the V II madness will not live to see the 100th.
We are informed that less and less marriages are now celebrated in so-called Church of England churches. You would expect the so-called CoE would react to this by stressing with their own people the importance of marriage as a religious institution, etc.
Their reaction is a predictably secular one, predictably making of them the asses they are now considered by the country at large. The latest idea to increase the number of marriages in church is to make the ceremony look …. less like a religious ceremony. Brilliant, uh?
In future, the Anglican (to use a fashionable word here in the UK 😉 ) plebs will be able to marry to the sound of Sugababes’ “Girls” (very spiritual, they must think it) and organise some – as the “Telegraph” calls it – “Posh And Beck Style” weddings, that is: triumphs of kitsch for vulgar rich people and for those, far more numerous, who aren’t rich but manage to be vulgar without any problem.
I can’t wait for the “disco-marriage”, in which the ceremony is performed whilst the invited enjoy the dance floor; or the X-Factor marriage, taking place whilst big TV screen broadcast the transmission with the same name, thus uniting the newly wed and their friends in a fun ceremony. Cue the green metallic waistcoats of improbable morning coats, and perhaps some fresh tattoo of the bridegroom to make the entire thing more “Beck”. I mean, like, wow, OMG, innit!?
The vicar – or however he calls himself nowadays; “marriage facilitator” would be good – would probably make a short homily – chocking full with jokes; I know they are good at that; it’s the circus training – talking of how relevant the ceremony is, and how inclusive, and how everything that is fashionable and in sync with the times.
He will probably hint at the couple that he would like to perform their next marriage ceremony, too. If the Sugababes didn’t work, how about madonna’s “like a virgin?”.
Like, really, I mean, such … FUN!
Seriously, the Anglicans are decaying to the level of circus attraction.
If you are an Anglican reading this and are ashamed – as you well should – you may read my little Vademecum for those Anglicans thinking of conversion. It is clear the decision can’t be procrastinated long without total loss of face.
Surfing around in Anglican pastures I have found an interesting article from Mr. Michael Gollop, an Anglican Vicar writing on a blog called The Anglo-Catholic.
The entry is very interesting because its author seems to guide the reluctant convert (and there must be many out there, torn between the fidelity to the church of their fathers and the growing, unpleasant awareness of ……. those fathers being actually wrong all the time) toward conversion in a way which is gentle and absolutely honest at the same time.
The main arguments of the author seem to me the following:
1) so-called Anglo-Catholicism has in the past been useful to maintain at least a part of Catholic thinking within Anglicanism, but this is now not the case anymore. He quotes the prophetic words of Cardinal Newman, that “the Nation drags down its Church to its own level…” . More than 100…
View original post 554 more words
If you click here you should be directed to the March 2012 edition of the SSPX magazine for the German Speaking countries.
Alas, I am not able to present only a part of it as I do not know how to cut .pdf documents, but if you slide down to page 40 there is a very interesting “special” concerning the Kirchensteuer, with a detailed instruction as to what to do and even ready declarations to give to your local priest.
Just as an aside, I notice the SSPX has prospered in Germany for decades now without one Pfennig (or Cent, as the case may be) of Kirchensteuer.
Why I do not agree with everything they write (they seem to mean the Kirchensteuer would be right if it was used correctly as everyone has the duty to contribute to the church’s maintenance; which is wrong or at least very badly expressed, as charity must not be imposed as a forced contribution, however good the intent) they provide the reader with a complete guide to the emancipation from the Kirchensteuer.
I suggest to my German readers they do proceed to the Austritt and give their donation money, if they feel this is the best use for it, in large part to the SSPX instead.
I like Bishop Williamson. I like him, so to speak, even when I do not like him. His passion and energy resonate very much with this emotional Southern European; and his beautiful, utterly politically incorrect sense of humour is a fresh breeze in a world dominated by the cowardice of pretty much every institutional outlet on the planet, perhaps a couple of Eastern European governments excepted.
It is, therefore, with sadness that I am now waiting for the official announcement of the secession/defenestration of Williamson and the extremely likely creation of a dissident group.
At the same time, one must – leaving for a moment personal sympathies aside – admit the Bishop’s positions had become rather an embarrassment for the Society herself; not so much – I hope – for the man’s singular opinions about the Holocaust (opinions to which he is perfectly entitled everywhere but in those countries tainted by PC-Neonazism; like, well, Germany) , but for his singular insistence in seeing in Rome something very similar to the “Whore of Babylon” so dear to the Protestant imagination.
I do not think, though, that this was in the end decisive in this now imminent split; if I know this kind of dynamic sufficiently well, this is rather one of those situations where differences in theology create more and more pronounced personal differences, and in the end separation becomes an outcome that cannot be pinned down to a single event, though no doubt both sides will certainly be tempted to do so (he did not take down his blog; they wanted to humiliate me; he is disobedient; they want to sell to Rome, and so on…).
What I do not think will happen is that the SSPX will get out of the story weakened or less credible. Setting aside for a moment the disagreeable taste of a split, it is probably for the best that Williamson and his followers get their own outlet: this will allow them to freely express their own opinion, whilst the SSPX will gain much credibility in presenting herself to the public exclusively with the Fellay and Schmidberger of this world rather than having to endure the ceaseless static of a group of people who have been making their own foreign policy ( and, realistically , leaking like a sieve) for a long time anyway.
I might be the eternal Pollyanna, but I think the Traditionalist front will get out stronger – provided the two organisations do not start quarrelling with each other – out of the split.
You see, traditionalism is not a cake which can only be divided in so many slices. Rather, I would compare it to a growing market, destined to expand massively in the decades to come, and able to accommodate both Williamson’s “ultras” and the in my eyes more reasonable and ultimately wiser SSPX.
If Pope Benedict’s intent in dangling the carrot of the reconciliation – save eating his word at the last moment – was to split the SSPX in the middle (as I am persuaded was his aim from day one) I think he will soon be disappointed with this outcome.
The Vatican proved untrustworthy and deceitful, giving right to Williamson who had smelled a rat from the start; and the SSPX discussed seriously with them without making any compromise, giving right to Fellay that the organisation is not compromised in her integrity just because they do not refuse to talk to Rome. But seriously, the idea that the SSPX should even refuse to talk to the Pope – even knowing beforehand he will be deceitful – sounds outlandish to me, and utterly unjustified. I think someone among those of the SSPX allowed their own zeal for purity to carry them a bit too far.
In an ideal world, the two souls of the SSPX would have found a way to coexist and pull together at the same rope. Alas, we do not live in an ideal world. Unpleasant, yes. A tragedy, certainly not. Perhaps, even an advantage in the long-term.
I am persuaded the Holy Father started the entire procedure to make a “FSSP 2.0” attempt at divide et impera, and his intentions were no better than the ones the Williamson wing of the SSPX ascribes to him. Still, he is the Pope, and you talk to the Pope when he asks to. If he proves deceitful you refuse – obviously – to obey him as the Church has no Fuehrerprinzip and the last Peter has no more right than the first Peter to be obeyed when he is just plain wrong; but to refuse to even talk to him, to write the head of the Church off even as an interlocutor, this in my eyes means to institutionalise, to cry from the roofs a total separation from the Only Church. I know this is not the intent of Williamson & Co., but I think their mistrust and anger prevents them from seeing the ultimate consequences of this stance.
As to the Pontiff, I doubt he will be satisfied with the outcome, with the SSPX largely untouched and rather more credible now, and a new organisation which, if it survives its founder, will probably prove to be solvent and combative enough to be a permanent part of the Traditionalist landscape for as long as – perhaps after the death of the founder – a milder counsel prevails.
This looks to me like a win-win scenario for the SSPX, and a lose-lose scenario for the Vatican.
Again, someone was too clever by half.