On Fashions, Masses, And Popes.

Mere fashion, says the Bishop of Rome.

Mere fashion, says the Bishop of Rome.

In every reasonable, commonly accepted and proper sense of the term, the word fashion denotes something impermanent, fickle, mutable.  

In Italy, and elsewhere, the word fashion is often opposed to the word elegance.

The two worlds do not really communicate, and everyone must choose if he – or she – wants to follow the one or the other. Traditionally, fashion has been the preserve of women, whose ways of dressing have shown a marked tendency to change, particularly in certain matters like, for example, shoes. A woman can – in some ways, will have to – follow the fashion and still be elegant, but not a man. In brutal contrast to women, the concept of men’s elegance has been as conservative as, so to speak, a SSPX priest. It is nothing less than astonishing that a well-dressed man of today dresses pretty much in the same way as the lower middle-class well-dressed man of one hundred years ago; the man, that is, who could not afford those expensive garments now confined to a kind of ceremonial, highly defined  role (the morning coat, say; or the tails; whilst the frock coat has basically disappeared) but had to limit themselves to the kind of suit that has come to us, unchanged in essentials, more than 100 years later.  The beautiful Ealing Comedy classic Kind Hearts and Coronets, the product of extremely thorough research and a sartorially lavish production, is a very pleasant way to educate yourself to the elegance of 100 years ago.

You will notice, though, that even in matter of men’s clothing, fashion regularly tries to invade the citadel of men’s decency. From the peacock revolution of the Sixties, to the unspeakably ugly Armani jackets of the Eighties, to the even worse looking “faggot look” of these days – you know what I mean: the jackets that look as if they had shrunk in the washing machine, and leaving the backside in sight; and the ridiculously tapered trousers, again in faggot’s style – some men think they have to dress in a fashionable, rather than in a traditional way. They are fools, and not very manly; because the stylists who create such fashions are largely homosexual, and they will let the men stupid enough to follow them look like homosexuals. Cue the buttocks in sight, the desperate attempt to get a boyish, or even ephebic look, and the general air of “diversity” from the accepted standard of manliness. Fashion for men is – and cannot but be – effeminate; because fashion for men must be – even when the buttocks are not in sight – the contrary of that steady conservatism, that strong and quiet assertiveness of a never-changing strenght, that is the very essence of masculinity. 

Elegance is for manly men, and fashion is for men who would like to be women; because fashion is changeable and fickle, and elegance is permanent and steady.  

Why this long rant about the faggotry look invading our streets, and worn by idiots who don’t even get how ridiculous they are, and how they are advancing the cause of the perverts? Because the Bishop of Rome has allegedly called the Traditional Latin Mass rather a kind of fashion, and those devoted to it, wait for it, addicted to it

The confusion – or worse; much worse – reigning in the head of this man could not be exposed more brutally than by its own words. He does not know what he is talking about, or he hopes you don’t notice what nonsense he is talking. 

We have here a 2,000 year tradition compared to which even elegance – much less fashion – can be seen as extremely unsteady. A 2,000 year tradition not only tracing his roots to the very beginning of Christianity, but whose untouchable sacredness has been long considered one of the most obvious facts of Church life. A 2,000 year tradition solemnly declared inviolable for all times by Pope St. Pius V. A 2,000 tradition of which Pope Benedict had the following to say:

What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.

This foolish man now declared the Traditional Latin Mass… a fashion. His words are reported as follows:

When I search more thoroughly – the Pope said – I find that it is rather a kind of fashion. And if it is a fashion, therefore it is a matter that does not need that much attention. It is just necessary to show some patience and kindness to people who are addicted to a certain fashion.

Seriously, this is way out of line: extremely confused, or wilfully evil. It might not be anathema – I think; not entirely sure there – but to treat 2,000 years of most sacred Christian liturgical tradition as if it were a fix for fashion junkies is beyond stupid. It is positively obscene. It has an indecency in it that borders the blasphemous. It shows a willigness to twist the most simple words, to make the most outlandish accusations, that is utterly Jesuitical, Pharisaic, evil. It shouts out loud the utterly subversive nature of this pontificate, the mocking disrespect for 2,000 years of Christianity, the unspeakable arrogance of a man who thinks he can liquidate 2,000 years of God-willed liturgy with the insulting name of fashion, and label those who love and respect this Christian tradition as addicted.

What kind of man is this? Who made him Cardinal? Why was he made a Bishop? How was he allowed to become a priest in the first place? 

The answer to this is, alas, sobering. He was made Cardinal by John Paul II. Bishop by the same man. And priest by the most benighted of all wannabe Catholics, South American Jesuits; in 1969, in the very midst of a satanic revolution within the Church, that is: smack dab in the middle of Satan’s party. 

It beggars belief that the Papacy could sink so low. Who could have thought, one year ago this very day, waiting for a Pope that would continue Benedict’s slow and too prudent, but still reasonable work, that such an individual would be elected.Lord, have mercy.

———————–

Still, let us see the positive side of this event.

In his unspeakable way, Francis is saying that he has no intention to make any dramatic move against the Mass of the Ages. He will mock it, obstacle it any way he can. But he will, for the time being, not make any overt move against the Tridentine Mass qua Tridentine Mass.

He will attack it from the periphery, for example crushing the FFI; but he will, if this words make any sense, not dare to abrogate Summorum Pontificum.

Mundabor

Posted on February 16, 2014, in Traditional Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink. 67 Comments.

  1. I was a bit stunned when I first read that statement. I hoped it was just badly translated. I’m still hoping…

  2. Mundabor,
    maybe he will not abrogate Summorum Pontificum. Why would he? It’s much easier to consign it to slow death by stifling anyone trying to apply it. It’s much easier to stack the deck against the Tridentine Mass with compliant modernist Bishops and Cardinals and crush what little opposition to the revolution still exists in “full communion” with Rome.

    The modernists have absolutely no need to abrogate anything. As they control almost all positions of authority within the Church (and can replace any vacant positions with more party-line commissars), an issue ignored by them is almost completely ignored by the hierarchy. Anything mocked by them is mocked by the current hierarchy, with very few exceptions. And laity objecting to it – well, they’re just disobedient, you know…. And almost everybody – especially Stealth Modernists (sometimes erroneously called “conservatives”) – will comply with the newest orders from the Politburo in Rome. The Party is always right.

    It’s much more efficient to strangle SP without ever formally declaring it abrogated. Just apply liberal doses of hermeneutics of reform in continuity and every rupture will just look like a small, insignificant, but needed correction.

    Twenty years from now, Pope Francis III. may be supporting Churches hosting voodoo gatherings because of religious diversity. Maybe they will celebrate sexual man-pet-relationships for their… erm… complementarity. Catholic hospitals will probably perform abortions without any hassle from non-obsessive bureaucrats in Rome. But officially the Church will still remain opposed to false religions, be pro-marriage and pro-life. They will not have abrogated anything. But everything will have been changed beyond the recognition of even a moderate conservative of our day. True, faith and morals will still be handed down inviolate. But almost nobody will know it.

    In the same way the liturgical patrimony of the Church will still exist – will always exist – in the fond memories of a persecuted minority in “full communion” and a somewhat larger even more persecuted “irregular” minority. Some of them will be Bishops. But it is and will for the forseeable future remain eradicated in the minds and hearts and churches of almost every regular Catholic. And that’s the only thing that counts for the Devil and his willing disciples who have been called modernists, because the absence of the traditional Catholic Faith and Mass will lead innumerable souls to hell.

  3. quiavideruntoculi

    God bless you, Mundabor. Darkness closes in on all sides; but there remain a few that speak the truth.

    Humanly speaking, the situation is hopeless; but God will reduce our enemies to ridicule, once they have had their day in the sun. Christus vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

    • Yes, my thoughts exactly.

      When the mess must end, it will end. Sooner later than later, I hope.

      M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      I do not know how to square what this man is doing with what the Papacy should be about, and it has caused me no little distress; prayer remains, however, my refuge from this.

      I should be very grateful if you would make a new post on the position of sedevacantism, giving the unprecedented developments we have seen under Francis. I have adopted the position myself with great reluctance, because I find myself unable to believe that someone who does what Francis does has the Catholic Faith. It seems worse to say “That man isn’t the Pope”, than to say, “The Pope is a heretic” – the latter seems almost to deny the doctrine of the Papacy.

      Do you think a Pope can lose the Faith, either privately or publicly? I would think, he can lose it privately; but if he loses it publicly, then what? If an atheist sits on the throne of Peter, it’s as if someone put a tailors’ dummy on the throne and said, “Behold your king.”

      I have put the question to my priest, who is of the SSPX; he cautioned (I think most wisely) against being over-keen to pin the matter down, to be content to let the Church judge in the fullness of time – but on the other hand, he recognised the legitimacy of having ‘private doubts’ concerning Francis’ pontificate.

      I can’t get very far with this; surely it is not a matter of indifference, whether x claimant is the Pope or not. Surely, if he is, that is a very important thing to recognise; if we don’t submit to God’s Vicar, we are lost.

      Am I approaching this in the wrong way? Am I missing something glaring? My intellect seems utterly frustrated.

    • I will be blunt:

      you are approaching it the wrong way. It cannot be excluded that you are gravely damaging your soul. You are letting your pride get the best of your faith.

      It is not for you or myself to decide whether the Pope is Pope. The Pope is Pope because he has been elected Pope. He does not have to pass my, or yours, scrutiny to be a legitimate Pope.

      The history of the Church is (search this blog) stained with Popes who were certainly worse than Francis, and are universally considered Popes.

      Yes, this situation has few precedents. Yes, Francis is without the shadow of a doubt the worst Pope since John XXII. But we can’t pick and choose between Benedict (as long as he lives) or Francis; or decide we don’t like the man so, hey, we’ll do without a Pope.

      I will only start to reflect whether the see is vacant when the SSPX will officially declare that the sea is vacant. And the argument will have to be darn good, and absolutely watertight, because we are talking about the papacy here, not your or my preferences in matters of cooking pasta.

      The adoption of sedevacantist positions also has very severe implications on the indefectibility of the Church, and poses one in front of huge logical obstacles; because it the height of arrogance to decide that the Church survives in an extremely tiny minority of people who have unilaterally decided they are the authentic Church, and the only validly ordained priests all over the planet are those very, very few sedevacantists; this, as God would allow all the while the survival of an organisation with several hundred thousands officially consecrated people, a man sitting in Rome for all the world to see, and an immense organisation working in his name, for two generations and counting… in order to see whether one in one hundred Catholics is really, really smart. And please don’t start with the remnant. There will soon be a remnant enough of official Catholics. How can you even think you can declare 99% of Catholics as followers of a fraud, and decide you are the remnant.

      Sheesh.

      For heaven’s sake, a bit of humility.

      Difficult times call for prayer, not rebellion.

      M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      “You are letting your pride get the best of your faith.

      It is not for you or myself to decide whether the Pope is Pope. The Pope is Pope because he has been elected Pope. He does not have to pass my, or yours, scrutiny to be a legitimate Pope.”

      You might be right about this; this is what troubles me. I know it is not a question of the man coming up to our expectations; what troubles me is the *Church’s* expectations, and the divine law. If the Pope isn’t Catholic, how can he be a Pope? Doesn’t that debar him from the Pontificate? Don’t you have to be a Catholic (at least outwardly) to be the Pope? It seems to me that this is what the Church teaches. I, personally, doubt that Francis is a Catholic, so – it appears – I must, personally, doubt that he is the Pope. Tertium non datur – and in fact, I find it impossible to do other than doubt.

      “How can you even think you can declare 99% of Catholics as followers of a fraud, and decide you are the remnant.”

      I don’t think Sedevacantism is a dogma, or even touches on dogma; I don’t think people who don’t hold to it are outside the Church, or that I (and others like me) are ‘the remnant’. I know some sedevacantists think like this; to me it is a confusion of a question of empirical fact (whether x is the lawful Pope) with a question of faith and morals.

      I am grateful for your directness, and your prayers.

    • You are running in circles, though: it is still *you* deciding that the Pope is below the Church’s minimal threshold. The Church does not say it is.
      His often lamented lack of Catholicism is a factual circumstance, but he never officially proclaimed his apostasy.

      If a Pope were to be even atheist, would he therefore not be Pope? By the past history of the Church, I can easily imagine a dozen or more of Popes as atheist as Dawkins, and blaspheming all day. Still, all Popes.

      As to the dogma, which obviously isn’t, or the exclusion, I am not saying that you say they are not Catholic. But if the Popes have not been Popes for the last 60 years, then obviously The Lord has allowed 99% of Catholics to live and die following a bogus church. Does it really make sense?

      And if Sedevacantism starts only with Francis: why? Wasn’t JP II clearly being heretical as he kissed the Koran? Was he being “Catholic” by allowing Assisi I and II?

      Sedevacantism does not make sense in the actual situation. It presupposes an all but complete dereliction of His flock by Christ, without any obvious signal – like: proclaiming a false dogma – that would tell the tale.

      Many a Pope has been an outright bastard. The Church has buried them all. Have confidence in the Church’s ability to survive Popes much worse than this one. Liberius excommunicated Athanasius. Still a Pope.

      M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      But don’t we have to decide the Pope is below a certain threshold, or that his teaching doesn’t conform to a certain standard, when e.g. we disobey him by going to SSPX masses, and confessing to an SSPX priest, who has no ordinary jurisdiction to hear it or absolve it, and whose jurisdiction can only be supplied? Isn’t that as much *us* judging him? I don’t see how to distinguish that kind of judgement (“That’s not Catholic, so I won’t obey it”) from what the Sedevacantists do (“He’s not Catholic, so I won’t obey him”).

      I think you’re consistent, when you say that Popes can be heretic and still Pope, and then say Francis is Pope, and an out-and-proud apostate; that is a position that makes coherent sense. But it doesn’t seem to gel with (my limited understanding of) what the Church seems to have taught on this question.

      Doesn’t the Canon Law assume the opposite (Old Code Can 188, no. 4)? Doesn’t St Robert Bellarmine teach the opposite? Doesn’t Paul IV teach the opposite? Didn’t Innocent III teach the opposite?

      I’m interested to hear the case made that a Pope can be a public heretic and remain Pope. If you are right, that would solve my dilemma.

      I agree with you that Popes have been outright bastards. I would have no trouble believing a murderer was still Pope. It is only when a public heretic sits on the throne; this has caused Fr Kramer to declare the see vacant, and it forces me to confess that I doubt that Francis is pontiff and cannot therefore, in conscience, submit to him as such.

    • When you attend a SSPX Mas you don’t say “the Pope isn’t Catholic”. The SSPX itself does not say it. So no, you are not “judging” him in the Anglo-saxon way of the world. You have simply decided that ecclesia supplet her jurisdiction when perfectly orthodox Catholics are seemingly deprived of it by bad (not non-existent) Popes.

      The distinction you make is extremely important, and very clear to the SSPX themselves: you do not obey to your mother if she orders you to, say, get drunk, but your mother she still is. You do not say to her “that’s not motherly, so you are not my mother”!

      As to the heresy, you must distinguish between material and formal heresy. Material heresy does not an invalid Pope make. If this were the case, you woudl have great difficulties in finding Popes in the last six decades. From Koran kissing to Luther praising, they are everywhere. Note, though, that the SSPX openly accuses Bergoglio of being a true Modernist (in the sense of a material heretic), but they still hold him as the Pope.

      As to the public heresy, I can offer two arguments:

      1. Pope John XXII. The man thought there is no beatific vision before the Universal Judgment. A blatant heresy. He was so in love with his own theory – if memory serves, he was a theologian – that he was minded to declare it a dogma. The huge pressure put on him not to do it – with, I think, veiled threats of declaring the sea vacant if he did, as it would have been the obvious consequence of a Pope declaring an heretical “dogma” – persuaded him to renounce to the project, but still claiming the right to his own theological opinion. Therefore, you had a Pope officially holding an heretical position, merely not declaring it infallible. Only a few days before his death he recanted from his opinion.

      2. I have had great difficulties in finding sources for this, but I am absolutely sure that I have read from a reliable source that the Popes used to recite, immediately after election, a statement promising not to hold any of the false ideas of…. here followed a list of a half dozen or more Popes. This statement was made by the Pope to assuage their electors that they would not, now that they were Popes, abuse of their powers as others had done in the past. This statement was recited until around the half of the XVIII century, when it was abandoned because the long list of perfectly orthodox Popes let it appear obsolete. I so wish I could find the source. There is another similar sentence on Wikipedia and elsewhere, but it is not what I am talking about here. I am talking about a statement read by newly elected Popes until the mid of the eighteenth century.

      3. The episode of the corpse trial (or “cadaver synod”) is also highly indicative. We do not know all the facts, but we know the accusations against Formosus were terrible, and still they did not lead to the sea being declared vacant. If you can consider a Pope so bad and abusive that you feel the need to exhume him, mutilate him, bury him, exume him again and throw his corpse in the river, plus annul all his ordinations (on suspicion of corruption, methinks) but not to declare hsi papacy null and void, this must mean something. The cadaver synod was a rather extreme event, and again, not even in this most extraordinary circumstance was the sea declared vacant.

      Now, as always: for every argument that one bring, there are arguments other can adduce. In the end, if you want to persuade yourself of the sedevacantist argument you will always found fuel to nourish your…. personal judgment about the papacy.

      But in the end, the Pope is there, for all the world to see; he has not proclaimed any heretical dogma; how can it be that Jesus allows the papacy to renounce its legitimacy whilst allowing the entire planet to continue to see the Pope in him.

      What kind of sense is there is a decision which would be, if anything, available only to an extremely tiny minority among the Catholics, and escaping the 99% majority of those who follow Peter, because Jesus told them that’s where the Church is.

      There’s a Peter for the entire planet to see, nor is there any obvious reason which would compel the Catholics to deny his reign. It just goes against the concept of visible Church. It would mean that the visible Church is in fact not church, and the real church a minuscule group of dissidents.

      It.does.not.make.sense.

      M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      “But if the Popes have not been Popes for the last 60 years, then obviously The Lord has allowed 99% of Catholics to live and die following a bogus church. Does it really make sense?”

      One could make the argument that something like that happened to people who adhered – in good faith – to Antipopes during the Great Western Schism. Obviously, not as serious.

      I agree the idea is absolutely terrifying. But these are very very strange times, are they not? Isn’t the Great Apostasy supposed to be a prodigious, monstrous thing?

    • No, you cannot make this argument. Durign the Great Western schism, half and more of Christianity always sided with the Popes of Rome. And the situation was much different. If now, say, 50 cardinals woudl elect the Pope and say they are Cardinals and they therefore can elect a Pope, a mess would surely ensue. But nothing of th esort has happened.

      There is not one cardinal who says that Francis isn;t Pope. Not one of the more than 8,000 bishops (if memory serves) in charge of dioceses. Not even the bishops of the SSPX. Not even Bishop Williamson!

      M

    • quiavideruntoculi,
      you write: “It seems to me that this is what the Church teaches. I, personally, doubt that Francis is a Catholic, so – it appears – I must, personally, doubt that he is the Pope. Tertium non datur – and in fact, I find it impossible to do other than doubt.”

      But personally doubting someone’s claim to the Papacy does not mean rejecting it. The man who appears to be the Pope and is accepted by almost all people (including clergy of the City of Rome) who appear to be Catholic certainly must be regarded as the Pope, unless there is enough evidence to justify not just doubt but certainty.

      The question is not whether you have reason to doubt, but whether you can prove with certainty, beyond reasonable doubt, that Jorge Bergoglio is NOT the Pope. The burden of proof is on the sedevacantist.

      Also, what if you’re wrong? What if, after having become a sedevacantist, you discover (possibly after death?) that you have not accepted the Vicar of Christ? Would you rather stand before the Judge answering for rejecting the true Vicar of Christ without water-tight proof, because of a rational doubt, or for accepting him in spite of some doubts because of your faith in the indefectability of the visible Church? Would you rather answer for having a bit too much faith in what appears to be the Church or for not having enough of it?

      Let the expectation of the Church be the problem of the Church – if Francis does not measure up to her expectations, she will express her judgment through competent authorities. Accept him as Pope as long as you do not have definitive, incontrovertible proof of his apostasy – such as his declaring a false dogma.

      In short, your duty is to save your soul. Everything else is secondary. You say, sedevacantism is not a matter of dogma or faith, but simply a matter of fact, about which reasonable Catholics may come to different conclusions. The indefectibility of the Church is, however, a matter of dogma. Given that you are not infallible, your opinion may be wrong. If sedevacantism turns out to be wrong, the sedevacantist is denying a dogma and has defected from the visible Church. If sedevacantism turns out to be right, the non-sedevacantist has committed an error of fact on a disputed issue.

      Who, I wonder, will be more likely to save his soul? My pragmatic advice: If you are in doubt, choose the safer path.

    • I generally agree, but I woudl add that Sedevacantist do not deny the indefectibility of the Church; in my eyes, though, what they construe is a parody of indefectibility. It is indefectibility based on a manipule of dissenters.

      M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      How do you mean that if he is wrong, the sedevacantist is denying a dogma? I don’t follow you. Surely he’s just mistaken.

    • I think he means that an indefectibility of that sort is no indefectibility, and it would therefore mean that the Church has all but died.

      M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      I think that cuts both ways, doesn’t it?

      The Novus Ordo mass is evil; if it came from the Church, then the Church has given us an evil universal discipline.

      Of course, we don’t believe it came from the Church, but from Satan’s agents, working inside the Church.

      Still – what kind of indefectibility is that?

      It seems just as problematic to posit e.g. an Antipope Paul VI, say, as to maintain the thesis that the New Mass *really* is a true mass of the Church.

    • No it doesn’t.
      The Novus ordo is a valid mass, period.
      And it is the only kind of indefectibility, because indefectibility does not mean you will have the Mass you want.
      That the NO is a true Mass is not based on what Paul VI said. You will find many (me included) who say that it is a bad mass, but you will not find many saying that it is not a valid Mass.
      if you want an example of traditionalism without the extremist component, click on Father Carota’s post about Michael Davies.
      Bad, yes.
      Valid, too.
      M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      I didn’t say it wasn’t valid; but it was made the rule of faith for all Catholics by the Holy See. You agree it is a bad mass.

      How, then, can the Church bind Her children to an evil discipline? If She can do that, what kind of indefectibility is that? It doesn’t seem any less problematic.

    • It’s bad or very bad. But as it is valid, it cannot be used as an argument to say that if one objects to it, why not to Francis as a legitimate Pope?

      The NO is an inadequate, bastardised, protestantised VALID mass. Francis is the Pope.

      Seems rather coherent to me.

      M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      Except:

      “…all those who glory in the title of Catholic must not only be united to him [the Pope] in matters of faith and dogmatic truth, but also be submissive to him in matters of liturgy and discipline.” From the Apostolic Letter Non Sine Gravissimo of Pope Pius IX, February 24, 1870, to the Apostolic Delegate at Constantinople.

    • As always – and unless we want to behave like Protestants – we cannot take one phrase and extrapolate a rule valid for all situations. I am sure you do not cut off your eyes when it offends you, either.

      The son is submissive to the father. But when the father orders him to do something very bad, it is part of that very obedience to refuse to do what the father says.

      What is your conclusion then: that the SSPX priests aren’t Catholic? Because you see, if this is the mentality you have no other choice.

      M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      I don’t draw any conclusion; I am merely pointing out that there seem to me to be very great problems with all positions.

      What I mean is, that I find what the SSPX says as terrifying as what the Sedevacantists say. I suppose one of them must be right; I hate having to choose at all.

      SSPX wins hands down practically; it all works very nicely. But the position seems to allow that the Church can do things that it seems the Church shouldn’t be able to do.

      I must away and sleep, now. Thank you for your thoughts; I shall consider carefully what you have said.

    • The Church seems to be able to do things she should not be able to do when the Church on earth is deemed, so to speak, more infallible than she is.

      I do not agree with the SSPX on a couple of things (and a big one might be soon added, if they really deny the canonisation of JPII and John XXIII, as they seem inclined to do if it happens), but when they use simple and reasonable arguments that are fully in line with traditional Church understanding I find that faith and reason are aligned without effort.

      The real truth is that the Church had a string of very orthodox Popes from around 1350 to 1958, and these six centuries have spoiled us. Delve a bit into the history of the Church – particularly, say, from the IX to the XI century – and you’ll find things barely believable with our standards of today.

      Still, the Church survived even that, grew and prospered in the end, and no sedevacantism.

      M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      JP II’s impending canonisation seems to me impossible from either angle.

      He was not an exemplar of Holy living; I sincerely hope he saved his soul. But whatever you may say, for or against him, he was not a man concerning whom one might say, “Here is an exemplar of the Faith”.

      So how can the Church canonise him? More problematic; if the Church in fact *can* canonise him, how can we possibly deny that he has been canonised?

      Personally, I think God may intervene to stop it; but I am not holding my breath.

    • The Church can canonise him because he is in heaven (if she canonises him).

      If he were not in heaven, the Holy Ghost would let the Poep die who attempts to do such a thing.

      Such has always been the understanding of the Church.

      That, after this, people like you and I could decide that God has no right to admit JP II in heaven is, to my ears, more than astonishing.

      I hope the SSPX will, once he is canonised (if he is canonised; because if he is not in heaven the Holy Ghost will take care he isn’t, even if this should cost Francis the skin) adopt a more reasonable position.

      M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      Hmm. Do you think the SSPX will accept the canonisation? They don’t seem ready to.

    • We shall see.
      I will read very attentively what they say.
      They seem to appeal to a minority position concerning the infallibility of canonisations.
      Clutching at straws, I call it.
      M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      Indeed. But if they, en bloc, reject the canonisation then – as far as your position goes – would that mean they were outside the Church?

    • No.
      It would probably only mean they have outlandish, very minoritarian ideas about it.
      Thanks for the offer, but no private Diskussion via Email, this Blog is Time consuming enough.
      You know my argument. I suggest obedience to Peter in all feasible. When I did not understand, I prayed God that He may give me the grace to do it.
      Worked a treat. And yes, submission to Truth came first, even if I did not get it.
      M

    • quiavideruntoculi,
      Mundabor wrote: “I think he means that an indefectibility of that sort is no indefectibility, and it would therefore mean that the Church has all but died. ”

      That’s exactly the point. A sedevacantist is committed to holding that only his small group of elect possesses the arcane knowledge that the person *everybody* acknowledges as Pope is, in fact, not the Pope. As, in his eyes, Bergoglio’s predecessors committed all the same public acts of heresy, the sedevacantist generally holds that the last actual Pope was Pius XII. All Cardinals having been created by “false popes”, there is now no regular way to elect a new one. All Bishops and Priests ordained in the “invalid” new rite are not actual Bishops and Priests.

      So the sedevacantist has determined, on his own private authority, not just that the Pope is not the Pope, but all the Cardinals, almost all Bishops, and the large majority of priests are not, in fact, Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests. Almost all those false priests and bishops and even the few remaining who were ordained in the old rite do not celebrate a valid Mass. What is presented as Mass in 99% of what seem to be (but are not) Catholic parishes is just an evil mockery. Even Tridentine Masses celebrated by those “false priests” are, of course, invalid, the celebrants being invalidly ordained. Even traditionalist priests do not live up to the sedevacantist’s standard, because they identify this evil satanic apostate stooge in Rome as “Pope”. Therefore, their Masses must be avoided at all costs. The whole Church is, therefore, gone. (Except, of course, the enlightened elite of haughty self-determined infallible judges who just *know* all this… Here they stand and they can do no other; so help them God.)

      You know, there are some “conservative” Catholics out there who twist the obvious meaning of the words of Pope Francis until they fit what they believe to be Tradition. They empty both the traditional faith and the words of Pope Francis of all meaning in the process, because they plainly do not fit. In the same way the sedevacantist desperately wants to save the “indefectibility” of the Church, even though everything that is taken to be the Church by all the world has, in his view, defected. So, the visible Church has defected, but the visible Church has to be indefectible. Therefore, he invents his vanishingly small elite remnant, a tiny minority of even the tiny minority of traditional Catholics and declares that remnant to be the last remaining portion of the Church, everybody else being apostate. Even apart from the enormous spiritual pride inherent in that position, indefectibility is emptied of all meaning in the process.

    • Very well said!

      The “here they stand” was the stuff of legends .. 😉

      M

    • quiavideruntoculi,
      “The Novus Ordo mass is evil; if it came from the Church, then the Church has given us an evil universal discipline.”
      I agree that it is inferior to the Tridentine Mass. It might be called evil, if by it you mean the absence of a good that could and should be there. But – just to be clear – it is clearly better than no Mass at all, so that it is *not* evil in the sense every normal man understands that word.

      And most of all, the Novus Ordo is infinitely better than abandoning one’s Mother because she is not spotless and perfect enough for one’s haughty standards.

    • quiavideruntoculi

      “And most of all, the Novus Ordo is infinitely better than abandoning one’s Mother because she is not spotless and perfect enough for one’s haughty standards.”

      That’s a thoughtless and unworthy remark. It has nothing to do with the individual’s standards; it has everything to do with the Church’s own standards.

      No sedevacantist argues, “It’s just so terrible, it can’t be the Church.” They all argue something like, “The Church teaches that public heretics can’t hold ecclesiastical office [this, by the way, seems to be uncontested, and is enshrined in canon law], x is a public heretic, ergo &c.”

      That’s not using one’s own standards; that’s using the Church’s standards. No headway can be made, if you do not admit that distinction.

    • No, Catocon is right.

      You can’t talk for the Church. This construct of the *church’s standards* is something you and a couple of other individuals have decided for yourself, deciding you are the church, and 99% of the priests are “public heretics who can’t hold ecclesiastical offices”.

      But I see you insist on your position.

      I have hoped you were in the middle and undecided about what to do, and that sound arguments would persuade you. I do not use this blog to host sedevacantist arguments.

      Therefore, any further comment espousing or defending in any way whatsoever sedevacantist positions will be cancelled.

      M

  4. “Who could have thought, one year ago this very day, waiting for a Pope that would continue Benedict’s slow and too prudent, but still reasonable work, that such an individual would be elected.”

    It was not that hard to guess. Just looking at the voting-age Cardinals the most reasonable expectation always was a neo-modernist. Back then I wrote on my blog.

    “Ein antimodernistischer Papst ist von diesem Konklave nicht zu erwarten, und wahrscheinlich auch kein lupenreiner Ratzingerianer oder “Kontinuitätshermeneutiker”. Weltlich betrachtet muss sogar mit der absoluten Katastrophe gerechnet werden, dass diejenigen, die “mit dem sechsten Gebot Schwierigkeiten haben”, zusammen mit den ideologischen (Neo-)Modernisten die erforderlichen 77 Stimmen auf sich vereinigen und ihren Wunschkandidaten auf den Stuhl Petri heben können.”

    Personally, I had long expected either Schönborn or Scherer, but both had some weaknesses that served to make them unelectable in the eyes of the predictable modernist majority, so another candidate was called for. A candidate able to unite dissatisfied non-Europeans, continental modernists, the German fifth column, homosexual lobbyists and anti-Curialists against the Benedictine wing of the Church. Well, their coalition could have fallen apart, victim to internal squabbles, without finding the ideal candidate needed for the project to succeed. I hoped for that outcome, but, frankly, I never thought it likely. Too much time for all these forces to unite, plan and recover from their painful loss at the 2005 Conclave. Too much scheming German tax money, too much organization and planning.

    The Holy Spirit never was a factor for these people. For them it was just electoral calculus. And that’s what happened. The modernists trusted in their planning, money, electioneering and coalition-building. The conservatives trusted in the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit has no votes – the Cardinals have, so conservatives lost. Look at the conclave just counting votes, disregarding the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and there you have your Bergoglio. The same thing happened at the Council, too. The modernists planned and organized for years. The conservatives were naive and thought prayer alone sufficient. They were woefully out-organized. Therefore, they lost the Council almost on the first day. Again, the Holy Spirit has no votes councils or conclaves, unless the participants allow their hearts and minds to be guided by Him – something the modernists never intended to do in the first place.

    • Fine, but as you say “kein lupenreiner Ratzingerianer” was also a rather reasonable expectation. In the end, conclaves work according to a logic that cannot be forecast so easily. Bergoglio wasn’t a pet candidate of the bookmakers, for sure. I thought Scola would emerge. Not the perfect candidate, but I can’t imagien he would have done one tenth of the mess Bergoglio did.

      M

  5. To be honest, I think the Pope said- or, better, someone said he said- that attending the ancient Mass was fashionable for young people, while older people attend it for “nostalgia’ of the Masses of their childhood.So it is not the Mass that is ” una moda”, but attending it.
    This is a very superficial and dismissing comment, though, but it sounds a bit different from your interpretation, based perhaps from indirect and translated source.
    Rosa, Milan

    • Rosy, the target isn’t the young generation, it’s the mass. Even taking it literally, it makes of the mass the fashion fad people who want to follow the fashion will follow. He is obviously not saying the Tridentine is a temporary fad that will disappear soon, we agree on that.
      Rorate and Gloria TV both take the meaning I gave to it.
      M

  6. It seems all the more clearer to me now that we have received ‘the pope we deserved’ rather than ‘the pope we needed’.

  7. muy felicidad

  8. Its ironic that he reduces it to a fashion. As if younger men are enthralled with lace and long cassocks because they are *cool*. Yet the traditional priest dressed in what modern man determines to be feminine, act like men. And the liberal priest dressed in what modern man determines to be masculine, act like women.

    • I never thought the attire of the traditional priest “feminine”, and I can’t understand where it comes from. In the XVII century the nobility wore a lot of lace, no one thought it feminine. I honestly find effeminate the multicolored garments of some V II priests.

      M

  9. Wow! Every day it’s worse! I’ve only found this blog a few months ago and, seriously Mundabor, I wonder what you wrote about before you had this ignoramus to be your muse. Heaven help us!

  10. There is context that is missing from all the reporting about these latest musings from the bishop of Rome.

    The key to understanding Francis’ ire and “advise” to the Czech bishops is to understand what is happening in the Czech Republic. In the span of 2 years, the TLM went from being sporadically offered in 2 dioceses, to being regularly offered in ALL 8 Czech dioceses. The Czech republic is the only country in Euroland where the TLM is regularly offered in ALL dioceses. This is causing great problems for the modernists who are trying to roll it back. They don’t know how to do it. And if one reads the quote in this context, one can see the true issue behind Francis’ comments. It probably goes something like this: modernists come to Francis to ask how can we roll back the TLM, and Francis say’s: don’t worry about it, it’s just a passing fad.

    Wonder what the modernist’s thought about that advise. Wonder if they are beginning to think that Francis is… aham…delusional.

  11. Interesting indeed!

    We might have had a similar situation in Poland if not for the cult of a certain soon to be saint. 😦

    However, there are backward countries in Euroland where the modernists have dug in their heals, namely Portugal and Malta.

    We have had a breakthrough in Portugal where there is one… yes you read that correctly… one non SSPX TLM offered presently.

    Malta, the other backward country still does not have a regular TLM. For those who are not familiar with the history of Malta, the modern country of Malta was founded by the Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem. The Knights ruled until the Napoleonic invasion, and then became part of the British Empire for the next 150+ years. It can only be described as a testament to obtuseness, that the TLM is being so brutally repressed in a country such a history.

    Please keep the Faithful of these ancient bastions of Christendom, who are presently being subjected to two repressive clericalist regimes in your prayers.

  12. Disaster the quote and desaster the intent. However, I think there is a way to take the bull by its horns, for good & truth: the modernism of the 70’s is outdated, is oldfashion. Young people are looking for the charm of old in all: films, furniture, houses … and liturgy. Its not a very solid theological argument but for those who are fans of the zeitgeist, the Pope tells them: do you want to be fashionable, updated, submissive to le dernier cri? Fashion is retro style! Do not be anachronistic!!

    • This is a man who has followed the fashion of Sixty-Eight all his life, and tells those who follow two thousand years of Tradition that they follow fads.

      You couldn’t make it up.

      M

  13. be not so sure about that “all his life”. It is a markedly changeable man… people dont know who was JB in the seventies… Only (old) argentines.-

  14. In response and perhaps related to the exchange between quiavideruntoculi and Mundabor, this is a very interesting article:
    http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/274-latest-updates-from-socci-the-papal-games

    • Frankly, it reminds me of the JFK conspiracy theories.

      Why people are unable to accept that a Poep can resign, is beyond me.

      They offend Benedict more than a rabid communist when they imply he would accept to be set aside.

      With this mentality, every dead pope might have been poisoned.

      M

  15. How does one deny or ignore all of the Church Approved prophecies that spoke of the “I see two Popes, one good and one bad” and not believe they apply to these times? Thats not a conspiracy. Christopher Ferrara is not a fool or a fear monger, and the Remnant Newspaper is a paper of long standing credibility. LaSalette? With Sodano and Bertone hovering over his every move, can you really not question Benedict’s reasons for “resigning” ? Drill deeper Mundabor.

    • Oh for heaven sake, and who authorise you to think that this is the time that has been prophesied? There is, by the way, only one pope; and the former one wasn’t so very good, either.
      Do you think there has even been a generation thinking that the end was not nigh? Are you the authorised interpreter of La Salette?
      Drill down, atsa4you

      M

    • Nobody “authorizes” me, but it doesn’t mean I am to play the ostrich either and deny or ignore what we’ve been directed by Jesus to watch for. It would be nice to have an exchange without an insult slung Mundabor. You doth protest too much. God Bless from sunny Wisconsin

    • If no one authorises you, how do you state that one cannot but see, and agree with, your position?
      And where is the insult, if I have used the same expression you have used?
      You doth protest too much.
      God bless from rainy England.
      M

  16. Nuances in semantics perhaps. I guess my point is, this is not my position. Prohecy(s) has described all of this, and one either believes it or not, since there has not been this situation with “Two Popes” since Blessed Anne Emmerich had her vision. What else could she be describing?

    “I saw also the relationship between two popes … I saw how baleful would be the consequences of this false church. I saw it increase in size; heretics of every kind came into the city of Rome. The local clergy grew lukewarm, and I saw a great darkness… I had another vision of the great tribulation. It seems to me that a concession was demanded from the clergy which could not be granted. I saw many older priests, especially one, who wept bitterly. A few younger ones were also weeping. But others, and the lukewarm among them, readily did what was demanded. It was as if people were splitting into two camps.”

    Cheers

    • You don’t know what else she could be describing. it’s basically as vast as reality itself. If, for example, a situation were to arise in future where two claim right to the Papacy (as happened during the Western Schism), then there would be, in a way, “two popes, one good and one bad”. But Benedict does not say that he is Pope, so there is only one Pope. Whether hsi predecessor is buried or not doesn’t make any difference in Francis not being and being seen as the (only) Pope.

      Then there are all the other ominous signs. I wonder what people must have thought during the First World War, or in the years following the French Revolution; events which we see today as just “history”, but back then must really have looked like the beginning of the end.

      The simple truth is, we just don’t know. Our generation weill have challenges as most others; ours are greater than many others’, but I can’t imagine they are so great as those faced by Catholics in the time of Athanasius, of the French Revolution, or even – for the educated classes – in the times of the Western Schism.

      God bless

      M

    • And of course, my perspective does not only apply to Catholics in our times or in the past, although it is my bearing. I certainly understand the historical perspective that lends itself to the position that we’ve “been here before” but again I only refer to the directive of our Lord to be awake. Just reading through my trusty Douay Rheims Bible : Luke 12: 54-56

      “And he said also to the multitudes: When you see a cloud rising from the west, presently you say: A shower is coming: and so it happeneth: And when ye see the south wind blow, you say: There will be heat: and it cometh to pass. You hypocrites, you know how to discern the face of the heaven and of the earth: but how is it that you do not discern this time?”

      These times are different…(IN MY OPINION ONLY…lol)

    • I took exception to your: “How does one deny or ignore all of the Church Approved prophecies that spoke of the “I see two Popes, one good and one bad” and not believe they apply to these times?” and have showed you how I do it.

      Of course, on this people may legitimately disagree. In the end, at some point these events will have to happen.

      M

  17. Excuse my typo…Prophecy as opposed to Prohecy…oops

%d bloggers like this: