Bibliolatry, Papolatry, And Rotting Cabbage.

I wish it could throw foul cabbage over the Vatican.

Father Z has a rather blunt article, containing a rather vivid illustration of the way the Kaspers of the world – crucially, up to the very top; which includes Francis – should be treated by faithful Catholics if they go, well, Kaspering around.

This kind or remark is extremely salutary, because we live in times in which every day seems to bring more chaos than the preceding and less than the following one.

When one lives in times in which a Cardinal can say that the Pope has stated that 50% of marriages might be invalid, and everyone realises Francis might really have said it, because there is almost nothing he would not be able to say, then you know that it is time to keep the rotting cabbage at the ready.

Now, the question here is not whether Francis really has, or has not, said something of the sort. It is, rather, that he brought the Papacy down to a level of such ridicule and disrepute that there is no piece of nonsense that would cause the faithful to state, as one man, “this must be nonsense, the Pope cannot have said any rubbish like that”.

I am sorry to disappoint you, but rubbish Popes will produce rubbish. This is where we are now. If you can't see it, I question your sound judgment.

An interesting question might then arise from Proddie, or ex-Proddie quarters: “I was told”, the argument could go “that I have to trust that the Bishops and the Pope hold the Catholic faith. If I were to realise this is not the case, then the sola scriptura proponent are, surely, right?”

No, they aren't. They are most certainly wrong. A converted ex-Protestant who would reason in this way would have to realise he has been substituting Bibliolatry for Papolatry, but still without getting what Catholicism is about; what, in one word, makes it True beyond the fashion of the ages and the vagaries of human nature.

The Pope is not the maker of Truth. Not in any way, shape or form. Catholic Truth existed before the first Pope, and will exist after the last one. The Pope is a custodian; or, if you prefer, a caretaker of Truth. Nothing of the edifice of the Church belongs to him; of nothing pertaining of Truth can he dispose; he will have to give a very exacting account of how he has disposed of Truth, exactly because this Truth has never, nor could ever, belong to him.

The Proddies aren't wrong at all in saying that there is a superior Truth that men cannot change; where they are wrong – and it is a huge mistake, but this post is not about that – is in their wanting to find this Truth exclusively in the Bible, to the exclusion of Sacred Tradition; thus imagining a building that begins from, say, the third floor, with nothing to keep it in place below.

But Papolatry, a most dangerous heresy in our time, is just as bad and just as dangerous. Papolatry disposes of Truth according to the will of the Pope of the day. But if the Pope can do what he wills with the Truth, then there is obviously no Truth. On the contrary, the Pope exists exactly because there is a Truth superior to him, that he has the task to protect; a task for which task he will be called to give, as already stated, a very detailed and demanding account; a task without which there would have been no Pope in the first place, with Jesus simply handing down a manual to the Apostles saying “learn it well, because in two weeks you will be examined; yes, Judas, you too…”.

I do not judge the Truth according to Popes and Cardinals. I judge Popes and Cardinals according to the Truth. I will (have to) insist on this rather often in future, because I think the point must be hammered into blogdom with extraordinary frequency if we want – from our human perspective at least – to avoid that the multitude of sheep baa their way into a judgment of rather uncertain outcome.

Whenever the BoR takes out his rubbish and spreads it all over Catholicism he is, to all intent and purposes, asking you – yes, you; no, really, you! – to buy his rubbish and get rid of the Truth. You cannot buy Francis' rubbish without effectively betraying the Truth the BoR has been “modernising” (that's what Modernists do), and substituting it with a highly radioactive novelty of fashionable, if disgusting, odour of heresy, heathenism, socialism, and freemasonry. All of which, hopefully, due to sheer idiocy. An idiocy whose evil effects might be if not neutralised, at least reduced by a carpet bombing of rotting cabbage.

Stay near, then, to both the Truth and the rotting cabbage. There might soon be great need for both.



Posted on May 9, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 15 Comments.

  1. Francis has plenty of company among US Catholics and clergy if he actually did say that 50% of marriages are invalid. I have been startled to hear from conservative Catholic lay and clergy remarks that most or many marriages are not valid and therefore could be annulled.
    These people are not surprised at the annulment rate in the US and many of us have several friends or relatives who have obtained annulments, in some cases after having several children. I knew a psychologist in a major US city, who some years ago wrote his own psychological evaluation which was the crux of his annulment , based on his own psychological immaturity when he married. I personally thought he was increasingly immature over the 10 years or so that I had occasion to meet him, so I can only assume the reverse of his conclusion, but he was one of the psychologists who did the evaluations for annulments in his city.

  2. So, to summarise – as Catholics we owe total obedience here on Earth to Peter as the Vicar of Christ, as guardian of the Truth, which Vicar has however substituted the Truth “with a highly radioactive novelty of fashionable, if disgusting, odour of heresy, heathenism, socialism, and freemasonry” (I couldn’t agree more on this synopsis, by the way), but he is still the Vicar and although we owe total obedience (see Leo XIII) nevertheless we must carpet bomb with rotten cabbage (because of the heresy, communism, freemasonic devastation etc.)..

    Are we then only to give our assent to Christ’s Vicar when he speaks the Truth? And who decides when that is – who is the final arbiter? – is it the Pope? Jorge Bergoglio? That same one spreading heresy? Or do we make that judgement ourselves, just like Luther?

    Something is not right, and not Catholic, in all of this. For a religion (the religion) of perfect Truth and divine order, our present situation does not make any sense – and would, I think, be nigh on impossible to justify to a committed prod (never mind a non-believer). Our Faith – Christ’s Faith – is not obscure, it is not contradictory, it is not an obstacle to either the faithful or the evangelised. How can this be?

    • You may want to read again, and think harder.
      You are asking for the principle of non-contradiction to be ignored because of… what exactly?

      If what the Poep says is in contrast with what Christ says, one of the two is wrong, and it ain’t Christ.

      When Popes of the past spoke of obedience, they had in mind orthodox Popes, not Honorius or Liberius.

      Catholicism is always read in the light of Truth. Don’t twist Leo XIII into a new protestantism based on solus Pontifex.


  3. Holy Smoke, the Pope’s comments on marriage is truth, as statistics claim that more than half of marriages end in divorce…and few want to carry their crosses, and deny themselves a second, third, or fourth marriage…….

  4. Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve? And one of you is a devil. Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve. (Joh 6:71-72 DR [70-71 KJ])

    Why does the sacred writer present us with Judas’ apostasy immediately after the teaching of the Real Presence? Many disciples – whom the day before had eaten the bread and fish produced from Christ’s miracle – had now just dismissed Christ and left him, grumbling that “this is a hard teaching.” At precisely this moment of mass falling away, Judas’ belief in who Christ is and in his teachings wanes. A leader, handpicked by Christ Himself, has Satan enter into him. This is indeed instructive for the present moment.

    It shows us clearly that even a man handpicked by Christ to spread the Gospel after his ascension, can get it wrong; that one who lived and breathed and slept in the immediate presence of God incarnate, could fail to cooperate with the grace given him, even betray Him to the point of utter despair, and to finally choose death over life.

    What are we to believe today when a descendant of the twelve strays from Christ’s teaching in pursuit of a lesser good; e.g., mercy untethered from justice? Was the purpose of the sacred writer in presenting Judas’ apostasy to steady us in these times? Is it too much of a stretch to think that a bishop today, hearing the words of Christ on marriage, who grumbles “this is a hard teaching” is going down the wrong path, that he is indeed turning away from Our Lord? Must we follow such a man when he strays from Christ’s teaching? Is it, as the numerous bloggers trying to reconcile Francis seem to be saying, un-Catholic to believe that one of the twelve could go wrong?

    • One of the twelve could go wrong. Among other things, this should put us on our guard.
      But we must pay attention not to cross the line when the Papacy itself, the vidible Church, is put into question and substituted for some strange outfit gathering perhaps 0.01% of the nominal Catholic population, without (as in the case of Athanasius) dogmatic error being at tolerated by the Church for the sake of damn “unity”.


  5. Mundabor, my writing isn’t clear, and the sarcasm laid on a bit thick – I won’t start a blog. I agree with what you have written in the article above, we can in no way follow the BoR’s highway to devastation. And rather than obey, as Leo XIII commands us, we find ourselves by necessity with “cabbages”.

    What I was attempting to convey was the diabolical (and unfathomable, and unexplainable) situation we are presently in, where there is a distinction to be made between assenting to the Pope’s teaching and remaining Catholic – and that, with the BoR giddily leading his sheep astray, we are left to our own lights to make that call. Now there is a Protestant notion! So I’ll ask the rhetorical question again, because I fear after 14 months we are becoming accustomed to this terrible dilemma — how can this be?

    • Ah.

      Well, it can be because both the shepherds and the sheep have disobeyed. When the bride of Christ behaves like a slut, Christ punishes her for all the world to see.
      The imagery is not mine, but then Cardinal Ratzinger’s.


  6. What I found disturbing in the interview was Kasper’s assertion that many Catholics are “baptised pagans” and he placed responsibility for this at the feet of the Church for failing to properly instruct its members. He may be right. Once baptised you then have to be brought to a maturity in faith.

    Divorcees didn’t really understand their vows because nobody explained them? What’s not to understand? Are the vows in Latin nowadays? Failing that, we then have everyone makes mistakes. Once they are sorry and do penance God goes beyond forgiveness and is Merciful and lets them have another chance at happiness.

    Kasper’s remedy? Not the refusal of the Sacrament of Marriage to those who patently don’t understand its nature. No. Instead, the undermining of the permanency of marriage. 50% of which according to a second-hand account of a private conversation with the pope were not valid in the first place.


    • Kasper is basically saying most Catholics are heathens of sort on order to justify some heathenism of sort.
      Put him on the stake and give me a match, say I 😉


  7. Kasper’s approach is not a big step away from homosexuals, who before understanding and accepting the Church’s teachings in their “baptised paganism”, *married*. Let’s say they also *adopted* children and cannot separate now without *harming* them. Or they *love* one another and cannot be parted? What then? Let them remain together as “brother and brother”? Let them *occasionally* fall into sodomy because they are weak sinners who are doing their best. Let them have access to the Eucharist out of Mercy?

    There is a serious issue here. If we accept many people may have been Baptised and grew up without a sound Catholic education, they will have been influenced instead by our decadent culture and/or by the modernists and progressives who want to rationalise grievous, habitually sinful lifestyles. Are they entirely morally culpable? Some of these people will reach a point in their lives where, through the Grace of God and with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, they want to be reunited with Christ through His Church.

    How to awaken in these people an openness to the call of God and how to respond to the lost sheep is a legitimate pastoral concern. As is how to maintain and preserve God’s Truth in the process is the thing.

    • Sins that go grievously against natural law are mortal sins even if committed by savage aborigines grown up in inaccessible places never touched by any monotheistic religion whatever.

      I wonder, btw, if Kasper ever realises this.


  8. Thank you, to you, and to your commenters.

%d bloggers like this: