Daily Archives: October 15, 2013
The first thing I allow myself to suggest you do is to click this link.
You will find a brilliant post from “that the bones etc.” (they always choose such long names for their blogs; I'll never get it; but hey: if they follow their conscience, who am I to judge?) concerning the Archbishop of Buenos Aires and the great love of his life: the Bishop of Rome.
I will not write any spoiler, because I think the post truly deserves to be read.
I will allow myself, though, to add some spontaneous considerations as to what moves this man to make such a clown of himself not only as an Archbishop – see “Pinocchio Mass”; though I am sure I would find his book highly entertaining in a way – but even as a, erm, well, (cough) Pope. So there they are:
1. Francis is an enemy of everything that is beautiful. I cannot even dream of a Rolex, but in it I see a wonderful piece of craftsmanship, and I can well imagine – and know for a fact – there are people buying such things for their sheer aesthetic and technical beauty. Francis does not see beauty. He does not “get” it. Francis only sees “vanity”. Thank God, he is the one who does not “judge”.
2. Francis carries his class warfare with him all the time. He does not say it, but it is rather clear he hates the rich. He does not call it that way, preferring the expression “loving the poor”, but it is clear enough. He hates the rich so much, that he prefers the very poor not to have a financial relief (the word “disgrace” referred to the auction of the Rolex can have no other meaning) rather than having them helped through a rich man satisfying his “vanity”.
Make no mistake: such a one does not love the poor. He loves bashing the rich, and the poor can get stuffed whenever helping them does not square with his ideology. Mind, we are not talking of Western-welfare-State poor here, but of the real poor. Sorry mate, no new clothes or shoes or even decent food for your children. They would have come from the sale of a Rolex, you know…
3. It can, therefore, be reasonably argued that Francis is not being hypocritical when he auctions the Harley. He is rather following his own inner Che: he (Francis) can auction a Harley, because he is (as by now even the dead know) a poor and humble man. But it is a disgrace to offer a Rolex, because that particular Rolex comes from the class enemies, the rich, and to them will it go back. How Francis solves the problem related to the one who will buy the motorbike, I am not told; then such a Harley, bought “from the Pope”, will fetch a lot of money indeed, and will most certainly not be bought by a Londoner motorbike courier as a way to earn a living.
4. I would have liked to spend a couple of words about Francis' new Almoner, but this is getting long; so it will be, perhaps, for another day.
In this matter at least I do not detect the pungent smell of pharisaism; rather, I see another example of Francis' uneducated (one would be tempted so say: vulgar), rashly judgmental, and resentful mind.
Compare him with the gentle, educated, and always deep Ratzinger, and weep.
We are being punished.
This video is forty minutes of pure Catholic teaching, as our shepherds cannot give us anymore.
The likes of Archbishop Nichols, Cardinal Woelki, and Bishop Francis of Rome could do much worse than listen to this.
They are in great need of Catholic instruction.
Note the approach of Father Rodriguez: absolute fidelity to the teaching of the Church, and no “respecting of persons”. Splendidly, he quotes Pope Francis exactly to explain what Pope Francis is not doing. Please also note he does not read Francis through Benedict a bit.
This is truly, truly good. Don’t miss it.
Bishop Fellay had something to say about the Bishop of Rome on the 12th; and boy, he did not mince words.
I have already reported that the SSPX made an appeal to Francis imploring him not to allow countless souls to perish. This time, the tones are far harsher.
Fellay is on record with saying that Francis is making an already disastrous situation “10,000 time worse”, and his metaphor with Francis and the parachute is, actually, funny in a very tragic way. He is obviously right in his analysis that Francis is willingly throwing bombs at the Church, possibly thinking the poor will be able to find better shelter among the ruins.
I am frankly surprised at the extreme severity of Fellay's words, as I had rather thought the approach of the first intervention would have been followed in the years to come; what I think has happened is that Fellay & Co. feel the situation is so extreme than nothing less than extreme words will do.
Mind, I do not agree with his calling the Novus Ordo “evil”, either (I follow him up to “bad”, though); but then again I am not a member of the Order, so this is par for the course. We have already discussed this ad abundantiam, though, so I will leave it at that.
Coming back to Bishop Fellay, please note the obvious relief at the failure to reconcile in 2012. Though I do not doubt the SSPX would never have agreed to a reconciliation putting them at the mercy of future Popes, there is no denying a reconciliation followed shortly thereafter by accusations of heresy moved to the Pope would not have been a very lasting one. I cannot avoid seeing in that a sign of Providence, leaving the SSPX free to defend orthodoxy without being encumbered by the desire not to rock the boat of a very fresh agreement. I also remember the one or other suggesting the SSPX leaders come crawling at the presence of the Pope and ask for a reconciliation whatever, before it gets worse. It seems fair to say these good men of God will not only not crawl anywhere, but will stand and be ready for battle at all times.
Someway, I get the impression they don't really read Francis through Benedict.
I haven’t been reading anything stupid from Pope Modernist The First lately. I do not doubt he has said something stupid, and I do not doubt his thinking is fundamentally stupid; but the stupidity has not paved his way to something I would actually read.
Now, think of a bus driver. You don’t write a blog post because the bus showed up at your bus station. You don’t praise a bus driver for showing up in the morning, and driving the bus. Driving buses is his job and duty, what his employer and the community simply expect from him.
Forgive me, therefore, for not writing blog posts saying: “phew! Today the Pope has said something that was actually all right!” I do not write blog posts every time my car’s engine does its job, either.
If memory serves, Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic because of the content of one single letter he had written. I do not doubt his conduct must have been scandalous on more occasions than one, but please reflect that one piece of written evidence was enough to have him condemned as heretic for all generations to come.
If Honorius could be condemned for one piece of evidence, think what the successors of Francis will do of him when, eventually, sanity comes back. They will atomise him, that’s what they’ll do.
Therefore, our attention must be focused on the heretical statements this Pope has already abundantly disseminated, let alone those he will continue to disseminate. At times, he will show at work on time and drive his Catholic bus. Most of the times, hopefully. But heresy – or even being a catastrophe of a Pope, if you are so astonishingly gently inclined – is not something you weight against orthodoxy. “Of the last 100 public statements of the Pope only eleven contained Neo-Modernist or Modernist elements” isn’t really a great show of orthodoxy.
This man accepted to become the Pope. As such, he must do what is expected from him. His Employer requires it, and the general public also has a justified expectation that he discharges his duty faithfully.
If one piece of evidence was enough to condemn Honorius, single episodes of orthodoxy cannot be enough to exculpate Francis in the face of the chaos he has created.
Stay vigilant. The driver of this bus will show up at your bus station most of the times; but he doesn’t think much of the Highway Code.