FFI: “Judgemental” Intervention Dares To Criticise Francis.

Monsignor Ricca is not “judged”. The FFI are.

 

It has happened. Four conspirators, “hypocrites” and “cowards”,  have launched an attack to the Holy Father, daring to “judge” and “criticise” him. They criticised him, in fact, rather strongly.

Seriously, these people should take example from Monsignor Ricca, the quiet sodomite who kept his own lover for all the world to see for years, and never, nevah evah dared to judge or criticise anyone! He was living such an un-judgemental and happy life, when the slanderous, cowardly, murderous “gossip” press exposed him, poor girl!

You see? Murder, again!

Back to today’s crime news. The four men who dared to move such an attack have, apparently, a big problem with the Vatican attitude towards the FFI, (this is, of course, because “they lack the strength and the courage to look to their own shortcomings”) about which I have reported. They have, in fact, such a “murderous” inclination to criticism that they consider the ban on TLM by the FFI – a ban which allow for individual authorisation, but is in principle a ban – an open attack not only to Summorum Pontificum, but even to Quo Primum. As the Pop Bishop of Rome clearly carries the responsibility for the measure, I cannot see how this – let us say it again: cowardly and judgmental – criticism may avoid being considered a true first-class act of hypocrisy and (let me look… oh, yes) cowardice.

Let us report, below, some of the most important passages of their intervention (which you find, as always, on Rorate Caeli) in its entirety. Emphases, as always, mine. 

But first, let us mention the name of the four “cowards”:

Roberto de Mattei, Mario Palmaro, Andrea Sandri, Giovanni Turco

God bless them.

Mundabor

———————————————————————————————-

The decree of the congregation for institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life of July 11, 2013 (prot. 52741/2012) […] is an act of such gravity as not to be capable of being considered of mere internal relevance for the intended recipients alone. […]

The decree imposes upon the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate – contrary to what is established by the bull “Quo Primum” of Saint Pius V and by the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” of Benedict XVI – a ban on celebrating the traditional Mass.

In doing so, it deprives of a good of incommensurable value – the Mass (celebrated in the ancient Roman rite) – both the friars and the faithful who through the ministry of the friars have been able to participate in the Tridentine Mass, as well as all of those who in the future could eventually have participated in it.

The decree therefore does not concern only a good – and with this, “the” good – of which the friars are deprived (save express authorization), but also a good – and with this, “the” spiritual good – of the faithful, who through the ministry of the friars desired and still desire to access the traditional Mass.

These find themselves subject – in spite of themselves and apart from any offense, and therefore without reason – to a sanction in clear contrast with the spirit and the letter both of the indult “Quattuor Abhinc Annos” and of the apostolic letter “Ecclesia Dei” of John Paul II, and of the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” of Benedict XVI.

These documents, in fact, are clearly motivated by the intention of satisfying the need for participation in the Mass according to the classic Roman rite, on the part of all the faithful who have the desire for this.

Thus the decree bears an objective relevance for all those who – for the most diverse reasons – treasure and love the Latin-Gregorian Mass. These faithful currently constitute a conspicuous part, and certainly not a negligible one, of Catholics, scattered all over the world. Potentially they could coincide even with the totality of the members of the Church. The decree objectively impacts them as well.

It likewise impacts all those who, even if they are non-Catholic – for different reasons, as historically emerged on the occasion of the appeal presented to Paul VI in 1971 – should have at heart the continuation of the traditional Mass. The decree (well beyond, therefore, the incident relative to one religious institute) bears a universal relevance under this profile as well. […]

*

As for the prohibition of the celebration of the Mass in the ancient Roman rite (also called the “extraordinary form”), many grave problems are posed by the decree that objectively highlight logical and juridical anomalies that are equally manifest.

First of all, with regard to this prohibition imposed on the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, deriving from the imposition on them of the sole faculty of celebrating in an exclusive way according to the new missal (also called the “ordinary form”) save express authorization, one cannot help but point out that this is clearly in contrast with what is established for the universal Church as much by the bull “Quo Primum” of St. Pius V (1570) as by the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” of Benedict XVI (2007).

The bull of St. Pius V, in fact, establishes universally and in perpetuity: “by virtue of the apostolic authority we grant, to all priests, by these presents, the perpetual indult of being able to follow, in a general way, in any church, without any scruples of conscience or danger of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, this same missal, which they will have the full faculty to use freely and licitly, so that prelates, administrators, canons, chaplains, and all other secular priests, whatever may be their degree, or regular, to whatever order they may belong, may not be bound to celebrate the Mass in a manner different from that which we have prescribed nor be forced and driven by anyone to change this missal.”

In its turn, the motu proprio of Benedict XVI establishes that “it is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated.” And it specifies that “for such a celebration with either Missal, the priest needs no permission from the Apostolic See or from his own Ordinary.”

The motu proprio furthermore affirms that “if communities of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, whether of pontifical or diocesan right, wish to celebrate the conventual or community Mass in their own oratories according to the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal, they are permitted to do so.” Analogously it declares that “ordained clerics may also use the Roman Breviary promulgated in 1962 by Blessed John XXIII.”

The same motu proprio establishes unequivocally that “we order that all that we have decreed in this Apostolic Letter given Motu Proprio take effect and be observed from the fourteenth day of September, the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, in the present year [2007], all things to the contrary notwithstanding.”

As is clear from the two aforementioned texts and from their essential connotations, the freedom to celebrate the Tridentine Mass belongs to the universal legislation of the Church and establishes a right for every priest.

Analogously there is derived from this a right for the faithful adhering to this “liturgical tradition.” As for them, in fact, the Code of Canon Law recognizes: “The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescripts of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church” (can. 214).

Thus the prohibition, save authorization, established by the decree objectively fails to take into account this universal legislation of the Church, deliberating – through an act evidently to be subordinated to it (in terms of both matter and form) – in a way that contrasts with the universal and permanent discipline. Which, by reason of its apostolic origins, enjoys – as illustrious scholars argue – the character of irreformability.

The prohibition of the celebration of the Tridentine Mass on the part of the decree is unjustly discriminatory toward the Latin-Gregorian rite, which not only dates back from the Council of Trent to St. Gregory the Great, and from these to the apostolic tradition, but according to the unequivocal appreciation of the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” of Benedict XVI must be “duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage.” It, in fact, is an expression of the “lex orandi” of the Church. It is therefore a good to be protected. Not an evil to be shunned.

Moreover, the imposition on the friars of the celebration of the new missal alone supposes a regulation of special authorization with regard to the Latin-Gregorian missal, which is objectively nonexistent. Or otherwise it introduces its application, in the face of legislation of clearly different and opposing content.

It is clear, in fact, that the regime of authorization of a particular act or activity presupposes an ordinary prohibition, to which an exemption may be given in extraordinary cases (particular and determined). But this (or ordinary interdiction) is explicitly excluded by the law of the Church, which declares as a faculty of the priest, to be exercised freely and without any authorization, that of celebrating the Tridentine Mass.

It must also be pointed out that the interdiction (save express authorization) of such a celebration brings out three further objective anomalies of the decree.

This, in fact, establishes a regime of authorization for the traditional Mass, indicating generically as holder of the power of authorization the “competent authorities.” But with the regulation established by the indult “Quattuor Abhinc Annos” and by the apostolic letter “Ecclesia Dei” having been abrogated, it is not clear what is precisely the competent authority to release authorization in words. All the more so in that the competency in this matter certainly surpasses the congregation of institutes of consecrated life, and if anything should be referred to the pontifical commission “Ecclesia Dei.”

It is singular, moreover, that the authorization according to the decree is to be granted “to every religious and/or community,” almost as if the Mass were celebrated not by the individual priest, but even by a whole community, in its entirety (potentially including the friars who are not priests). Almost as if the authorized community could authorize in its turn, transmitting (how?) the authorization (on the part of whom?), procedurally (on what conditions?) to the individual celebrant.

A further anomaly of the decree is marked by the fact that this regime of authorization is temporally undetermined. That is, no terms of applicability are indicated for the regime of authorization imposed only on the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. How long will the request for authorization be imposed? Until a certain date? Until the attainment of a certain objective? In perpetuity?

The text of the decree says nothing in this regard. Contrary to the need for specificity – or rather for rationality and justice – of any provision (in fact, even a penalty that would coincide with an entire lifespan or be perpetual has its specificity). This is a demand of natural law and canon law (cf. can. 1319). Having ignored which manifests an evident detriment both of the punitive character and of the remedial character of any restrictive provision (in this case, of a faculty proper to each priest).

On the other hand, the prohibition of the celebration of the Latin-Gregorian Mass – although referred to by the decree as having been decided by the pope – remains objectively circumscribed within the domain of a decree of a Roman congregation.

It follows that – at least in terms of its form and the obligation arising from it – it cannot help but share the limitations of the decree itself and its necessary submission to the universal legislation of the Church. In fact, unlike any pontifical disciplinary deliberation whatsoever – “ex professo,” if carried out within the domain of his power of jurisdiction, or indeed of the “munus gubernandi,” and as such legitimately possible in conformity with positive divine law and the solemn definitions relative to it – the measure in question cannot help but remain circumscribed to the decree itself, within the limits of the faculties of one of the Roman congregations.

In any case, the imposition derived from the decree like any sort of disciplinary deliberation by anyone cannot help but be measured objectively by natural law – or indeed by justice – and by positive divine law, to which canon law, discipline, and ecclesiastical jurisprudence must necessarily conform.

In fact, as Benedict XVI recalled in the speech on the occasion of the inauguration of the judicial year of the tribunal of the Roman Rota of January 21, 2012, “the ‘lex agendi’ cannot but mirror the ‘lex credendi.'”

 

 

Some Words From “Auctorem Fidei”

Pope Pius VI.

Rending unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, I link to a document published in a Sedevacantist site (something I try to avoid whenever possible; today, in honesty, it wouldn’t be fair).

This document is the translation in English of the introductory part of the Bull Auctorem Fidei, with which Pope Pius VI condemned 85 propositions taught by a regional Synod held in Pistoia (Tuscany) in 1786.

Whilst I am not an expert in the matter, it would appear – if we think of the years and the climate of the time: we are in the full swing of the so-called enlightenment, and at the vigil of the French Revolution – that in the Council of Pistoia some “lio” was made, in the attempt to “modernise” the Church faced with the new “springtime” of the “enlightenment”.

The Sedevacantist site above has, then, undertaken the very laudable task to translate the introductory part of this Bull. It makes for interesting reading, because in it Pius VI expresses with a remarkable – and in light of the present situation, uncanny – clarity the workings of the heretical mind and the methods it uses.

I reproduce here the most striking lines of Pius’ reflections. Emphases mine.

They [ our most holy predecessors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error. Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both thepossibility of promoting error and of excusing it. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor St. Celestine, who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

The methods described by the Pope can be recognised in much of the theology of the last 50 years, in the duplicitous Vatican II documents, in the assertion of much of the moderate “spirit of V II” crowd, and in a good part of the accommodating clergy of our times, nowadays led by the humble Appeaser In Chief.

What method uses Pius to expose the error? 

In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.

Whilst the motives can be different in different persons, and there is no reason to doubt Francis is not deliberately trying to corrupt a teaching that he positively knows as right – rather, in his hubris and ignorance he thinks he is giving a faithful rendition of the message, of which he “merely” emphasizes some parts; though, think of it, probably most formal heretics start in that way… – I cannot avoid noticing variations of the same modus operandi Pope Pius VI describes here so well, both in Francis and in the many erroneous theologians that have afflicted us in the last fifty or sixty years. 

Again, I read the words and I found them uncanny. They seem written today, by a SSPX priest explaining to us the errors of modernism and the methods used by Neo-Modernists to propagate them. Nihil sub sole novi.

Let us stay vigilant, and let us avoid being enchanted by the “seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner”.

Atheists who die in their atheism go to Hell. 

It is a work of mercy to admonish the sinner.

Silence is a way to be accessory to another’s sin.

Mundabor

The German Greens, The Sodomites And The Church.

Trittin is looking uncomfortable. Hopefully too late.

And it came to pass that only six days before the General Elections in Germany – and only one day after the very important regional elections in Bavaria, which was a great disappointment to them – the Greens and their head candidate Juergen Trittin are in the middle of a storm.

It turns out Mr Trittin supported himself the Green Party's electoral programme for the local elections in 1981, which called for the decriminalisation of at least some “non violent” sexual relationships between children and adults. It was apparently only in 1989 that such calls disappeared from the green party's agenda.

Yours truly would like to – beside not hiding from you his satisfaction at the events – make a couple of considerations.

1. Mr Trittin says he is sorry he has not done enough against this objective of his party, with which he always felt “uncomfortable”. I wonder if in all these years he showed the Church the same kind of understanding he now asks for himself and his political affiliates.

2. Funnily enough, there is now vague talk of the Green Party asked to pay to those organisations caring for the victims of pedophilia. I do not have the details, nor do I know how the legal frame for this is in Germany; but boy, I do hope that they are made to pay for decades, are criminalised as a category, and their name is never mentioned by the press without reference of their support for pedophilia. Do to them what they have done to the Church, say I.

Some tries now to take refuge in “the times”. Yes, they say, we supported such demands and calls, but “those were the times”. It is not clear to me why a politician who supported perversion in perverted times should feel authorised to tell us what is right and wrong a couple of decades later. It is obvious that such people – including Trittin – should look for their vocation elsewhere: gardening, say, or collecting stamps. There is such a disgusting entitlement mentality in saying to us we should cope with whatever past these people have, as if the doctor had prescribed to have a Juergen Trittin in politics at the highest level. Besides, “those were the times” is never heard when a bishop is accused to have been too naive or too lenient with his own priest. I am not justifying the bishop here, at all. I am saying that the leftist politician should not get any discount due to “the times”.

3. Lastly, allow me to make a prediction. These arrogant Greens and assorted liberal politicians who prostituted themselves to the pedophile mentality of past times are the same kind of people who today prostitute themselves to the lobby of the sodomites. In twenty or thirty years' time, they will tell us that they “deeply regret” having supported perversion, and that “the times” did not allow them to see reason, or they – Trittin's pathetic excuse – did not “oppose” the ideology as they should have, though they felt “uncomfortable”.

I truly hope this scandal leads to the destruction of a couple of ill-gained political careers – starting with Mr Trittin's – and that this becomes a first alarm bell to all those who continue to support sexual perversion, only of a different kind from pedophilia.

Make no mistake, if the “uncomfortable” Trittin had been told in 1981 that the party programme on sex with children would one day be seen as gravely perverted, he would have laughed, pointing out to the enlightened times that have taken the place of old Christian bigotry and the irreversibility of the evolution process now started and helped by the progressive Green Party. “You can't put the clock back”, and all that jazz.

The clock was, in fact, put back, or better said the madness was stopped. One day, it will happen in the matter of sodomy, too. I hope it will be soon enough, and hard enough, to destroy the careers of all those who have prostituted themselves to Satan for the sake of their own political advantage.

This story is very young, and it is for me difficult to see whether it will develop in the Green Sledgehammer the enormity of the facts justifies, or whether it will (more probably, I am afraid) rapidly disappear once the elections are over. On the one hand, it is alarming the core facts were already known and have been brewing for some time before making the national headlines in this way; on the other hand, Germany is possibly still healing from their liberal pedophile madness of the Eighties, and at some point the awareness must reach the level where head rolls. There are social processes that grow slowly for many years (whether rightly or wrongly) and then suddenly develop their own dynamic and jump at the centre of the attention in a relatively short time. The new religion of global warming is, I think, a good example.

Let's enjoy this for now, and let us hope this matter teaches a couple of professional electoral prostitutes that their satanic support for perversion today can catch up with them not only in years, but even in decades.

If we had a halfway decent clergy rather than too many little Bergoglios, this message – “we are going to try to demolish every politician who supports sodomy, even if it should take two generations to do so” – would be sent from the pulpits every week, and would have the little prostitutes trembling and wetting their trousers in no time.

Alas, we live in time when to criticise is allegedly a crime. This mentality, too, will come back to haunt its supporters one day, or the day they die.

Mundabor