Dream Popes
Dream Pope: “Pastor Angelicus”, 1939-1958.
The Pope has, so to speak, just about finished to resign, and already you read on the Press the most unbelievably uninformed articles and commentaries. My favourite up to now is the one of the perverts calling themselves “Catholics” who see in Pope Benedict’s resignation a hope for a Pope who will “embrace” their lifestyle. They dream (or blather about to make themselves important; fags & co. are always primadonnas) of a Pope starting a III Vatican Council to tell them they are spot on on pretty much everything, and the Church has been so naughty from Jesus down.
I am certainly very scared of the possibility of a mickey mouse Cardinal like Schoenborn becoming Pope (don’t bet your pint), but these people really don’t know what they are thinking. They don’t know what they’re writing, either (“ecumenicalism”. I kid you not), but they manage to be angered at the Church’s insistence on “purity”.
The pope should, therefore, embrace filth. Keep dreaming.
So these people can’t write and can’t think, but I am sure they know a lot of things we can’t even imagine, so they must think they are fine on the “knowledge” issue.
Sorry, no link. They’d feel important at counting your clicks.
Well, then, dreaming for dreaming, let us see what I would want my dream Pope to do….
He would declare the V II experiment officially failed; announce a re-writing of all V II documents, which (the old ones) are with immediate effect not to be used for pastoral purposes anymore; announce a gradual demolition of all V II innovations, from the Novus Ordo (obviously) to the bishops’ conferences, from the altar girls to the parish councils (or how on earth are called), from communion in the hand and/or standing to the V II-induced revisions of the rules of religious orders. Then I would very much like for him to proceed to a purge of Stalinian proportions among the Cardinal first, followed by the archbishops and bishops, all given the strictest warnings that thy are responsible for the behaviour of their priests, and slacking will be punished without fail or delay.
All the clergy (priests, bishops, cardinals, deacons; not Hans Kueng, though, because he will be already defrocked) would obviously have to take the Oath of Allegiance, which for the Cardinals and most important Archbishops would be recorded and put on the Vatican channel o YouTube, so that the faithful can think “look, let me see how my Bishop gives the Oath”. Obviously, Cardinal Archbishop Fellay would proudly have his own oath online too. The priests and other bishops would of course have it put on the parish/diocesan website, because it should not be said my dream Pope isn’t very modern and, well, aggiornato.
What next? Well, stupid names should be rethought. For example, “Holy Inquisition” would be a brilliant name for the most important department, now led from Cardinal Fellay (first case: Father Mueller, the former Archbishop); “confession” sounds so much better than “reconciliation”, and “last rites” is actually far more appropriate than the way they call it now, and distribute around like M&Ms (how is that? Has to do with anointing…).
I am sure one can think of many other useful measures, but my ideal Pope would have a slogan he applies to all of them: WDPPD? This means “What did Pope Pacelli do?”. Did he want altar rails? Altar rails it is! Was he in favour of Capital punishment? Bring it on! Did he want three hours of fasting before communion? Three hours for us, please!
A capital chap, my ideal Pope.
Not sure the above mentioned fags would like him much, though.
Mundabor
Share this:
Posted on February 12, 2013, in Catholicism and tagged Conservative Catholic, conservative catholicism, Pope Benedict's resignation, Pope Pius XII "Pastor Angelicus". Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.
Mundabor's Blog 
all good thoughts. here’s another to add to the list: a pope who takes the sacrament of marriage seriously and puts an end to handing out marriage annulments like candy on Halloween. people who have no idea of our faith always referred to annulments as “Catholic divorce”, which quite rightly, the Church always corrected them on. sadly though, a modern Catholic annulment has become EXACTLY that. these tribunals are leading people into hell by the bucket-load and destroying families on earth in the process.
Excellently said, arwiv, and (unless I am mistaken) welcome to the blog!
I think the problem you refer to is more serious in the US than elsewhere, though. I know from the personal experience of an acquaintance of mine in Italy, for example, the matter is taken rather seriously. I also have the pleasure to report of priests – alway sin Italy – who have refused to baptise children whose parents were clearly not committed to raise them at least halfway decently in the Faith.
M
Mundabor,
utterly unrealistic, though beautiful, unless there is some kind of stealth traditionalist among the Cardinals who gets elected by deceiving the other Cardinals about his true allegiance… (or the Cardinals are impersonated by priests of the FSSPX, in which case we might be looking at a Pope Fellay….)
The best we can realistically hope for is someone like the current Pope, who was at least friendly to some liturgical improvements within the Novus Ordo. Most Cardinals are, in fact, less “conservative” than Benedict and many are rather like Schönborn.
In a comment you write: “I also have the pleasure to report of priests – alway sin Italy – who have refused to baptise children whose parents were clearly not committed to raise them at least halfway decently in the Faith. ”
One question about this from a mainly “self-instructed” convert: Is not baptism in itself a sacrament beneficial to the child, whether the parents raise the child in the faith, or not? In other words, why should baptism be refused in a case like this? May it not be, that the graces provided through baptism will be effectual even if the parents do not do their part, so to speak? Would not, then, baptism be for the good of the child, who is not responsible for the behavior of his parents? There is certainly a very good reason for it, but it is not obvious to me at the moment. If good priests do it, and it was done traditionally, it will most certainly be the right thing to do. But why?
The way I know it (other will correct me if I am wrong) is this: in theory, a person should be baptised only as an adult (that’s what the Baptists do). In practice, and following the scriptural example, a person can be baptised as a child when there are people (generally the parents) who take on themselves the obligation of raising the child in the faith. The baptism is, in this sense, like a “credit” that the parents get for their child, because they offer and oblige themselves to raise him in the faith. This is so important, that there must be also one or two stepfathers, who also oblige themselves to raise the child in the faith if the parents should die.
If the priest sees that the parents aren’t serious, he sees that the sacrament is no more than mere ceremony, and refuse to baptise the child because he has reached the conclusion that he will be raised as a heathen. If he, therefore, should die, he would die as a heathen child anyway. Obviously, different priests will see the condition for baptism in a different way, but it is not surprising that conservative priests would see it strictly.
Take for example two parents who want their child baptised, but aren’t married in the Church themselves. They want to baptise the child because the grandparents insists in getting at least that, but they show how much they care in that they aren’t even married in the Church. Should the priest accept to baptise the child? I think not.
M
thank you for the welcome…..glad to be here. as for baptism, the Church has repeatedly said, for almost the entire duration of the Church, that baptism should NOT be put off, less the baby die and be lost eternally. as long as they are legitimately baptized (even though they may not be Catholic at the time of said baptism) and happen to die before they reach the age of reason, they will be saved and will avoid limbo. if they do not receive baptism and die before that time, they will never see our Lord. we cannot force non-believers to baptize their child….but if possible, it is to that child’s benefit that they be baptized as soon as possible.
as a quick aside: if I knew two parents who had NO intention of ever baptizing their child, and I took it upon myself to baptize that child when they weren’t aware, I don’t think id be wrong at all. why take the chance of having that child possibly die without baptism and suffer the loss of God for all eternity because his parents were non-believers? that child should in NO WAY suffer because his parents didn’t accept our faith.
Thanks, arwiv, very interesting considerations and I will have to deepen the matter at some time.
For example this here expresses both points:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/12/12/should-priests-be-firmer-with-non-practising-catholics/
M
arwiv, am I wrong again or a layman can baptise only in danger of death? Again, I’ll have to deepen the matter…
M
mundabor
In all honesty, I too would need to find out what the Church’s exact stance is on the matter as well. im pretty sure, like you said, that the Church wont baptize a child unless the parents are on board with it. as far as a layman performing a baptism on a baby who isn’t in danger of death just because he doesn’t believe the baby’s parents will do it…is that right? is it a sin on the part of the person doing the baptizing? I really don’t know.