Daily Archives: July 30, 2013
I’d love to know how many Catholic women have not voted, or have stated they would never vote, for Newt Gingrich because of his past marital infidelities, but are so ready to believe that Monsignor Ricca must now be “reformed” and “chaste”.
And so it came to pass an efficient, prosperous, growing semi-traditionalist Order, the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (short: FFI), had its Tridentine Mass culled par ordre du mufti, the mufti in this case being none other than the gay-loving Bishop of Rome of ours.
The event is – or might be; or should be – rather massive, because impinges exactly on those freedoms that Summorum Pontificum freely gives to all religious: not only the Ecclesia Dei orders, but all of them.
One can, therefore, wonder whether the FFI isn’t the canary in the coal mine, whose death warns us of immediate danger for the Traditional Mass.
On the matter, I have read two opposed opinions, that you can read here and here. I add that there can be little doubt the FFI, in itself not a traditionalist order, has been factually overtaken by the Traditionalist; who, whilst obviously not “oppressing” their more progressive brother, have given a certain “tone” to the work of the order; order that, punctually, has started to expand robustly and gather friends everywhere. This is the kind of plague that generally befalls the traditionalists orders; which, in turn, lets the Bergoglios of this world look very, very bad.
In short, according to the two camps either the Bishop of Rome is merely intervening in internal squabbles, and the de facto silencing of the TLM mass is just a medicinal measure to bring harmony within the order again; or he is profiting from a convenient minority of “progressives” within the FFI to cull their Latin Mass activity and make of them a ballon d’essai or a dress rehearsal for the great attack to the Traditional Mass.
I invite you to click both links and read the arguments on both sides, arguments which would take too much time – and wasted time at that, because they are very well put – to rephrase here for you.
I wasn’t there, of course, and if I was there I must have been in the bathroom. Personally, though, I think that the Rorate argument wins hands down. Not only are the positions expressed by Rorate, in my humble opinion, more logical from the point of view of an outsider; but crucially, they match with the subversive character of Bishop Francis we could observe in these short months.
Often in the past I have written that I could not see Bishop Francis going head on against the traditionalists. On one hand I considered him if not smart, at least attentive; then I thought he would have other problems to deal with; finally, it wouldn’t be smart to give the SSPX so great a gift by showing to the entire Catholic world what a joke Bergoglio is.
I must, though, here frankly admit that when I wrote that I also did not imagine a man going to such excesses of egomaniacal conduct as to keep at his place a sodomite destroyed the world over by horrible revelations of rent boys & Co., just because he is his buddy – or, worse, because he needs Ricca’s many friends, friends as bent as Ricca is; or, worse still, because these are the friends who have allowed him to be chosen to be the Bishop of Rome, so that he now owes them -.
Every month, this man shows us that he can be even more shameless than we thought him capable of; and as a result, every month we must reassess his possible moves concerning this or that in light of the increasing more dangerous character emerging from his action.
Bishop Bergoglio has surpassed our worst fears with beautiful regularity since the beginning of his … new appointment. How can we say he will stop in front of the Tridentine Mass? Who can say he will even wait for Pope’s Benedict’s death before officially demolishing his heritage? This is a man whose lack of the most common sense of decency extends not only to almost daily insulting his predecessor in a very thinly veiled manner, but even to defying the most elementary sense of propriety in front of the entire Catholic world by keeping a sodomite at his place, and making stupid and arrogant jokes about the non-existence of the “gay lobby” he himself had publicly mentioned. What is such a man not capable of?
From their fruits you shall know them. Even in Collodi’s book, you never know in which problems Pinocchio can put himself into. But at least Pinocchio had the fee and the Wise Cricket. Bishop Bergoglio has Monsignor Ricca, the man (?) he absolutely clings to…
This being the situation, and with Screwtape clearly making himself very comfortable within the Vatican corridors, what could not happen? Could perhaps Francis decide – which I would think extremely stupid – that every advantage given to the SSPX is worth being suffered, if it allows him to silence all the others? Imagine his objective is simply to stop the Tridentine Mass for being celebrated, without any concern whatsoever of the huge boost in prestige and reputation – and money – this would give the SSPX?
Of course, this would be extremely stupid. Of course, this would continue the Pinocchio-isation of the Church and plunge her in a new crisis of vocation of heterosexual priests – faggots will, I am sure, run to be enrolled in the seminaries -; of course, Francis would lose the image of “great uncle” to acquire the one of “grumpy old sixty-eighter”, the vastly superior traditionalists shaming him at every occasion. But perhaps, he is not so intelligent? Perhaps, he is so full of himself that he thinks he can do nothing wrong, and does not need to follow prudent advice? Hitler and Napoleon, when they lost their head, thought they could conquer Russia. Bishop Humble, once he has seen a couple of million people in Copacabana, might well think he can conquer a small number of Traditionalists?
It is difficult to give an answer to these questions. This is like 1933. There is a new man in power, and this new man shows he is increasingly strange and unpredictable, and gives all signs to be a megalomaniac of “change”. I do not doubt he feels, like Hitler, called to be remembered in one thousand years.
On the other hand, when he was in Argentina he refused every open clash with the SSPX, who have a strong presence there. This is a powerful argument. But history teaches us that more often than not, the Pope is different from what the Cardinal used to be. This “bishop of Rome” must be the most different in a long time.
For example, there is this rumour of a great plan to be announced in Autumn, to make the Church, in a way, simpler. When I heard it I thought it had to do with the exterior appearance of the clergy (say: only Fiat or Ford cars; bishop must live in a three bedroom house; compulsory embracing of people in wheelchair whenever a camera is present; and the like), but in the light of the FFI measure the plans certainly assume a more sinister trait. Perhaps is the man trying to sweep away Summorum Pontificum in one fell swoop, counting on the choir of wannabe conservative who will suddenly discover the Holy Ghost hates Latin?
I wish I had an aswer, but this man eludes answers. He plunged himself into a grave liturgical abuse weeks into his pontificate; he aids and abets not only homosexual clergy, but sodomites at that – don’t insult your intelligence pretending to believe the likes of Ricca are “chaste” anyway – and even dares to make a mockery of the people’s worries about the very faggots he protects.
This is the kind of man we have at the top. Again, it’s like 1933. There’s no way to know more until the true scale of this man’s delusion emerges.
What to do, asks the excellent author. People so addressed can easily lose their temper, so the matter of people simply going away with the Body of Christ must be dealt with in an appropriately sensitive manner.
Have some “guardians” near the priest, says one.
Yes, says another, “communion guardians” are becoming more frequent int he US because of the danger of willful desecration.
Ushers should do the job, says a third.
Oh, how stupid our pre-Vatican II ancestor were, who would distribute on the tongue!
We have tons of useless apps, so we must be smarter.
My dear reader, the new season of madness that is coming upon us will see our faith attacked from all sides; from the media and from our friends, from the environment (at work, etc.) that will isolate us, to the worst treason of all, the one of the clergy suddenly “embracing” those things for which their grand-grandmothers would have slapped them in the face.
We must now expect many of the “how cool it is to be a conservative” camp to make a volte-face, and decide that yeah, the Church got that with homosexuality wrong these last two thousand years; hey, it happens in the best families; but look at how many people go to see the Pope as if it were the Cannon Man or the Bearded Woman! Hey, he must be doing something right! Can’t you see how much the world luuuv him?!
Be ready. Be steadfast. Never waver. What the Church has taught to your grand-grandmothers, that is the Church you belong to. Novelties must have no effect on you. No amount of drunkenness of the Vatican II clergy must ever let you think that perhaps, perhaps one who says ten thousand times what was right is now wrong might have an argument. He hasn’t. This is Goebbel’s method. Just repeat the lie long enough, and most will end up believing it is the truth.
The sirens of pacification, suggesting that you go with the flow and simply embrace all the shallowness, stupidity, and outright heresy of the times make – even when they are in good faith – the work of the devil. There is no way sloppy theology can be right, exactly as there is no way guitars at Mass can be right. There is no way it would have been right for Pius XII to be a “Renaissance Prince”, and it is right for Pope Francis to mock “Renaissance Princes”. There is no way God or Christianity have “changed” and the Holy Ghost is now, under the stewardship of Francis, changing the course after the first 2000 years of introductory experiment.
The next years are going to see a polarisation in the Catholic camp: as those who love to call themselves (vaguely) Conservative but do not care for the conservation of Catholic values “embrace” Francis’ devastation of Catholic tradition and abetting of perversion, a minority of people who really care will continue to say it as it is, in the serene knowledge that Truth is unchangeable, and those who try to tamper with it will pay a terrible, terrible price.
As to this blog, I invite you to read its headlines: tradidi quod et accepi, and Catholicism without compromise. They will continue to be the guiding lights of this effort; and if one day the Bishop of Rome dances a passionate Tango with his buddy Monsignor Ricca in the middle of St. Peter’s square, or produces himself in a dance dressed in a pink tutu, I will first ask myself what my great-grandmothers (in my case, the grandmothers would be more than sufficient) would have thought of it; and what Pope Pius X, or Pope Pius XII, or Padre Pio would have made of the event; and what they would have thought – you know perfectly well what they would have thought – I will also think, and there you have it.
Stuff “change”, stuff the new times, stuff the fashion and the bollocks of an unbelieving clergy only interested in popularity and short-term quiet. The mere idea the new times could not be lived with the instruments of the old ones is the very core of Modernism.
Thanks, but no, thanks. Give me the old religion, and may the Lord give me and us the force to bear whatever price for our faithfulness we may be called, one day, to pay.
I must think rather often of the Pontiff Emeritus these days; namely, every time the Bishop of Rome decides to impart to us another lesson in heretical thinking, revolutionary Christianity or abetting of sexual perversion.
Pope Benedict appointed almost half of the Cardinals going into the 2013 Conclave. Francis’ election is, to around half, literally the result of his own doing. It must, therefore, be rather bitter for the Pontiff Emeritus to see how his own successor – for whose election he himself, Benedict, is responsible – to mock, dismantle or threaten everything Pope Benedict has worked for.
This is, if you ask me, a fitting punishment; it is, the way I see it, as if the Lord would force him to see the consequences of his own mistakes, whilst still on this world.
Benedict always acted like the one who thinks he does not need to act, and a couple of symbolic gestures and sundry encouragements will be sufficient to steer the Barque in the right direction. Unfortunately it does not work that way, and he who is put in a position of power and responsibility but fails to exercise this power and shoulder this responsibility is an excellent candidate for failure and ridicule.
Pope Benedict liked the Tridentine Mass, but he did not have the guts to forcefully impose it to his bishops; he sincerely wanted sound, and orthodox bishops, but when the big conflict came (with Monsignor Wagner, in Austria) he refused to impose himself on the Austrian clergy and caved in in the most shameful way; he would have certainly wished a successor willing to continue on his path, but he obviously did not have the energy to appoint those sound, conservative, orthodox Cardinals who would have never dreamed of appointing a maverick like Bergoglio.
In this tragedy, I suspect the lack of teeth played only one part. We must reflect that Benedict is still a product of V II and one of the man who – admittedly, from the second row – shaped it. He does not have the “lio” madness of his disgraceful successor, but he was certainly “collegial” enough not to stem the tide of stupidity coming from his dioceses. He must have thought – at least in part – that whatever the instances and the flawed ideology of the local churches, they have a right for these instances and these ideologies to be reflected in the appointment of bishops, and even cardinals.
The result is plain to see: bishops waving their hand like disadvantaged kindergarten children in Rio, and cardinals able to appoint a Bergoglio to the top job.
Pope Benedict will live his last years in the bitter knowledge he is the ultimate responsible not only for his own humiliation and the dismounting, brick by brick – I use this expression on purpose – of his own Pontificate, but for the plunging of the Church in an abyss of populism he must, most certainly, abhor.
A fitting punishment, as I have already pointed out. Let him see what happens to the Church he certainly loves when absence of spine and adherence to conciliar values meet to create such an explosive result as Pope Gay The First.
If Benedict had only paid more attention in his appointments of cardinals, he could now relax and watch with satisfaction his predecessor continuing on his line with more energy and enthusiasm. If he had also refused to cave in to the local hierarchies and had appointed sound and orthodox bishops, he could now look with satisfaction at an increase in vocations – and the right ones – as the fabric of the Church in the Western countries is slowly repaired. But he did neither the first nor the second, and now even Summorum Pontificum, for which his own Pontificate will be most surely remembered, might be swept away the first morning Francis feel like a bit of “lio”.
This is what happens when those in whose power it is to act prefer to teach instead, and do not care that their pupils are riotous and only waiting for them to go away.
The single man who bears the most responsibility for Bergoglio’s appointment is the Pontiff Emeritus. No one else can say he played such a big role in his election as Ratzinger did.
He will have to live with the regrets and the humiliations for the rest of his life.
They are both of his own doing. Therefore, he deserves both.
The text below comes from a time when Popes were not ashamed to call themselves, and be called, the Pope.
Their authority came not only from their office, but from the way they exercised it. And they felt obliged to transmit intact the deposit of the Faith, and to use it to understand a changing world and face the challenges of turbulent times. They never demanded that the Catholic way of thinking adapt itself to the world. Rather, they demanded that the world adapt to it.
A beautiful example is “Our Apostolic Mandate”, the letter to the French bishops with which St. Pope Pius X moved decisively against the Sillon.
The soundness of thinking and the clarity of language are very far away from the waffling of our times. There are no circiterisms. There are no appeals to emotions. This is not something written so that people feel good, but that people learn the Truth.
Besides, seen with the usual V II spectacles the writing style is “non-inclusive” and “uncharitable”.
You bet it’s “non inclusive”; as to “charitable”, one must understand the meaning of the word first.
Below are some excerpts from the letter.
Enjoy a great Pope.
Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself. Any other kind of love is sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting.
By separating fraternity from Christian charity thus understood, Democracy, far from being a progress, would mean a disastrous step backwards for civilization. If, as We desire with all Our heart, the highest possible peak of well being for society and its members is to be attained through fraternity or, as it is also called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable only by Catholic charity, and that is why Catholic charity alone can lead the people in the march of progress towards the ideal civilization.
In the first place, its brand of Catholicism accepts only the democratic form of government which it considers the most favorable to the Church and, so to speak, identifies it with her. The Sillon , therefore, subjects its religion to a political party. We do not have to demonstrate here that the advent of universal Democracy is of no concern to the action of the Church in the world; we have already recalled that the Church has always left to the nations the care of giving themselves the form of government which they think most suited to their needs. What We wish to affirm once again, after Our Predecessor, is that it is an error and a danger to bind down Catholicism by principle to a particular form of government. This error and this danger are all the greater when Religion is associated with a kind of Democracy whose doctrines are false.
But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, “the reign of love and justice” with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them – their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long as they share what unites them – a “generous idealism and moral forces drawn from whence they can” When we consider the forces, knowledge, and supernatural virtues which are necessary to establish the Christian City, and the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the self-sacrifice of all the heroes of charity, and a powerful hierarchy ordained in heaven, and the streams of Divine Grace – the whole having been built up, bound together, and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God, the Word made man – when we think, I say, of all this, it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues. What are they going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.
As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience.
However, let not these priests be misled, in the maze of current opinions, by the miracles of a false Democracy. Let them not borrow from the Rhetoric of the worst enemies of the Church and of the people, the high-flown phrases, full of promises; which are as high-sounding as unattainable. Let them be convinced that the social question and social science did not arise only yesterday; that the Church and the State, at all times and in happy concert, have raised up fruitful organizations to this end; that the Church, which has never betrayed the happiness of the people by consenting to dubious alliances, does not have to free herself from the past; that all that is needed is to take up again, with the help of the true workers for a social restoration, the organisms which the Revolution shattered, and to adapt them, in the same Christian spirit that inspired them, to the new environment arising from the material development of today’s society. Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.
“I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in her liturgy, her theology and her soul….
“I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past.
“A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them, like Mary Magdalene weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, 'Where have they taken Him?'”
Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, future Pope Pius XII, 1931.
Let me tell you what I hope will be the outcome of World Youth Day: I hope there will be noise. Here there will be noise, I’m quite sure. Here in Rio there will be plenty of noise, no doubt about that. But I want you to make yourselves heard in your dioceses, I want the noise to go out, I want the Church to go out onto the streets, I want us to resist everything worldly, everything static, everything comfortable, everything to do with clericalism, everything that might make us closed in on ourselves. The parishes, the schools, the institutions are made for going out … if they don’t, they become an NGO, and the Church cannot be an NGO. May the bishops and priests forgive me if some of you create a bit of confusion afterwards. That’s my advice. Thanks for whatever you can do.
Francis, Bishop of Rome, 2013.
What the great Pope of the past feared, my dear friends, we are already living with the disgraceful Bishop of Rome of the present.