Monsignor Ricca Still In Place, Bishop Francis Keeps Giving Scandal.

 

A few days after his return to Rome, Pope Francis was more clear. He had the secretariat of state informed that Monsignor Ricca “will remain in his position.”

And thus with him there will remain intact the glaring contradiction between the work of housecleaning and reorganization of the Roman curia that Pope Francis has repeatedly said he wants and the “prelate” of his appointment in whom he continues to place his trust, a perfect emblem precisely of those scandalous behaviors and of those “lobbies” of power which should be swept away.

One has to like Sandro Magister. In these times of shameless brown-nosing of everyone who is popular – Bishop of Rome absolutely not excluded – he is the only one among the worldwide respected and followed voices who says very clear that Bishop Francis keeps giving scandal and still doesn’t get it.

In a long article, Magister says very clearly that the King – or I should say, the Bishop – is naked. I find it particularly noteworthy that whilst the article mainly deals with the other scandalous appointment of the questionable woman from Calabria, Magister does not forget to keep his readers alert to the permanent scandal that is the support the Bishop of Rome continues to give to the, again, scandalous sodomite in the highest ranks, and an appointment of his very modest self.

Whilst Michael Voris avoids real criticism, Father Z looks for positive news with an ever more powerful magnifying glass and the varied progressive troop with a varnish of pretended conservatism swoon over how cool sacrilegious beach masses are, Magister points out with a rather stringent logic to two of the biggest problems of Francis: a) making wrong decisions and b) refusing to correct them when they explode like hand granates just very shortly after he has released them.

The hubris of this man is impressive, if not very humble. Once he has made a gigantic cock-up, he takes refuge in “not judging”, and certainly not acting. It should not be seen that the… bishop of Rome has made a rookie’s mistake; actually, already very many of them; and he Seventy-Seven.

Either Francis is so much in love with his public image that he thinks it worthwhile that the Church suffers every scandal for the sake of his own popularity; or he is so much the obedient puppet of the sodomite mafia that he does not dare to cross them; not even when the filth is there for everyone to see, and the stink goes up to heaven.

Kudos to Magister, then, for the very special act of courage of reminding his readers of how Ricca represents all that is wrong with this papacy; a papacy so wrong, that it doesn’t even want to be called with its own name.

Mundabor

 

 

Posted on August 27, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 15 Comments.

  1. I would refrain from critisizing Father Z. After all, he does have a date with destiny. There is a smart bishopric on the Tiber that might just need a intelligent and nuanced, not to mention humble, successor in a few years time.

    • I am not criticising, merely observing the facts.
      I have already written, on several occasions, that a priest has a different duty of loyalty than a layman, a duty that is hierarchical rather than purely derived from the pastoral role of the priest.

      Still, the fact remains that on that site you will not find the kind of criticism you will find elsewhere. Itseems clear to me the “reading Francis through Benedict” thing hasn’t worked, and it will get worse until Francis sees the light or dies or reigns.

      I’d love to know whether there are “rules of the game” a priest has to respect when he starts to blog, or whether it is the bishop who lays down the rules. …

      Mundabor

  2. Props to Sandro Magister for telling it like it is: Bishop Francis is acting like an arrogant and vain buffoon.

  3. I like your blog. But with all due respect what do you expect from an apostate who doesn’t have the faith? “Pope” Francis has engaged in communio in sacris with non-catholics. He has been photographed participating in these services, and he has admitted in writing that he has done so. These were not merely ecumenical services, they were the religious services of other faiths. He apparently believes he can practice catholicism through catholic AND jewish worship services. Have you called your diocese to question them on his behavior, and when your local ordinary will call the “Pope” to repentance for his mortally sinful behavior and apostasy in this regard? I ask you that not because I expect you or me to get anywhere with the local modernist, but to remind you that if we don’t raise our voice in outrage we have sinned by omission.

    The more I learn about these modernists the more I conclude that they have taken it upon themselves to eliminate tenets of the faith that those outside the faith find “hard”, e.g., EENS. How else can you interpret the messages made by the Pope and like-minded Cardinals and Bishops on the occasion of the “feast” days of non-catholic religions? One can only conclude from these laudatory statements that the prelate believe these false religions are means of salvation. It goes without saying that these prelates also place themselves above our Lord and Savior when they contradict his teachings about his exclusivity, e.g., that he is ” the way, the truth and the life” and “that no one comes to the father except through me.” If Pope Francis always had this statement of divine law in the forefront of his mind could he really have made the statement he made about atheists, or participated in non-Catholic worship services? Ergo, he doesn’t have the faith and since he doesn’t have the faith isn’t it foolish to expect anything orthodox from him?

    • My expectations are low because my esteem for the man is low. But they are also high in the sense that he is called to a better behaviour by virtue of his office.

      The scandal of this man is given by the discrepancy between what he is and what he should be. Therefore, to say “he is bad and it does not make sense to expect from him anything but bad deeds” is no answer. It would be, as you say, a sin of omission.

      M

  4. felicitasperpetua

    Sorry about my previous post. Got a bit carried away with the epithets and didn’t add much to the conversation. Tried to delete it without success.

    • I did it for you.
      Wordpress has no self-editing function, and I find it good so. One is supposed to reflect before he writes, not after.

      Comment was good, though. A pity to bin it.

      M

  5. quiavideruntoculi

    “Father Z looks for positive news with an ever more powerful magnifying glass”

    Love the imagery; we need a cartoon.

  6. @ Q,

    A cartoon would be nice, but in the mean time, a limerick will have to do. Enjoy.

    There was a priest named Father Z,
    Who knew his theology to a T.
    And it came to pass,
    That he stumbled into the “Bergoglian mess”,
    Yet he was unable to see.

    When confronted with uncomfortable circumstances,
    He tried to read through Benedict, Francis.
    But it had to come to pass,
    That the Bishop of Rome was himself such a mess,
    Any meaningful inferences were the byproducts of happenstances.

    But the Father’s efforts are indeed extraordinary,
    Until he gets called in by his new “Old Liberal” ordinary.
    And it will all happen thus,
    That he will throw his convictions under the bus,
    For a silken zucchetto, tailored by Gammarelli.

    • I enjoyed the effort, Sarmaticus, but I think you are being ungenerous.

      If Father Z were after some purple, he would have the “Patheos” stance most likely to get him one. As it is, he runs the risk of being too conservative for the liberals, and too liberal for the (seriously) conservative.

      I’d love to see him as a Bishop, though.

      M

  7. Fr. Z’s favourite theme is the alleged invalidity of SSPX Confessions, et al, arising from lack of Faculties.

    • Oh come on, Sixupman, he writes wonderful commentaries on the Liturgy and is undoubtedly an excellent priest, though I would wish he were nearer to traditional Catholics.

      I’d say his most hated target are the mad nuns, exactly as mine are the bleeding faggots…

      M

    • I love his taking the metaphoric baseball bat to those satanic witches.

      As to the SSPX confessions, it’s a shot at the SSPX for their “suggested questioning” of the valitity of N.O. ordinations.

      As far as the liberal/conservative shtick, it’s a “threading the needle” strategy from where I sit. He can say he’s both. And yes, I would love to see him as a bishop, but that’s a low threshold. My beef with Father Z is the same as with the FSSP. The SSPX are not the enemy. Their beefs with VII are legitimate. And if it wasn’t for Archbishop Lefebvre, we wouldn’t have Catholic bishops and priests questioning VII, and both Father Z and the FSSP would have been suppressed long ago. Think FFI. Yes? Or in other words, both are tools.

      But looking on the bright side, they offer lovely masses. And the choirs……

      PS This one’s for Q.
      As for imagery, Father Z reminds me of Elmer Fudd in one of the Bug’s Bunny cartoons, where Elmer thinks he’s finally got Bugs, whose standing on a branch. Elmer starts sawing, only to find out that after he finishes, the branch is still suspened but the entire tree collapses along with Elmer. 😉

    • I couldn’t agree more.
      The SSPX are not the enemy. They are the most precious ally.

      M

%d bloggers like this: