Daily Archives: June 17, 2014
The news that the Franciscans Sisters of the Immaculate are going to go the same way of their male counterpart is now everywhere. As Pat Archbold rightly points outs, the continued persecution might have the aim of driving some of them into the (perfectly Catholic) arms of the Society. At this point, the great “I told you they were bad” moment of Volpi & Co. would have arrived.
On the other hand, doing nothing leads simply to destruction. The FFI will simply be, at some point, disbanded and his members dispersed among other orders, probably ill or dying, but where they would be a tiny minority to be “re educated” in the failing ways of V II.
Damned if you do, dead if you don’t.
The Great Man…
How to get out of the quandary?
One understands the thinking that to accept persecution in the short…
View original post 558 more words
This is mad. Which is to say, it is very much V II.
The idea that St Pius X was not only “misunderstood”, but plain wrong in his approach to Modernism (as the man clearly implies) is, in itself, Modernist. You see it in the attitude of this chap (apparently a priest), who clearly states that Truth is to be dealt with differently now than it ever was; because hey, the Holy Ghost has said now it's better to do things differently.
There truly is a Satanical offensive underway, if the brazenness of these people comes to the point of attacking the most exemplary Popes of the past, openly belittling them (did some people ever believed Pius X “did not understand anything”? Really?) and making of them the paradigm of how not to do it as they pretend to offer us a new interpretative key to Truth.
The Modernists are camped in the middle of the Vatican, and go around undisturbed remaking the work of saintly Popes as if they owned the place.
They don't own the place. Christ owns the place. I hope the eviction of these miserable squatters will come soon.
One of the most stupid – or hypocritical – defences of the Unholy Father put forward from the complicit crowd of tambourine players is that both Jesus and Francis are criticised for spending time with sinners. The implication here is, clearly, that the critics of the Unholy Father are classical Pharisees.
Probably some of those who make such an argument are too slow to understand that in Jesus the company with sinners was one with the call to repentance. Jesus was solicitous about their salvation, he was certainly not “inclusive” of their sins. The contrast with Francis is striking: a man who is Pope and refuse to correct any sinner, but continuously rebukes those guilty of what to him must be one of the worst sins of all: Catholicism.
Some people, I was saying, are too slow to get these simple facts. But I bet Francis' humble black shoes that most of those who go around in fora and blog spreading this dung perfectly well know what it is.
The reason why they do it is, in my eyes, to be sought in the immortal question: cui prodest?
Who would undermine Church teaching among the people, if not those who have something to gain from it? Who, if not the adulterers, the fornicators, the perverts, and those who want to protect their agenda because of, say, family ties and a fully perverted sense of “love”?
I bet most people who read the too pious by half comments of such crowd do not question their Catholic credentials. An innocent Catholic will tend to believe that those who write on Catholic fora or blogs are themselves Catholics in good faith, and without any hidden agenda.
Big, big mistake.
My year-long experience on the comment box of homo smoke showed me many times that those people who commented in a way contrary to Catholic teaching had an hidden agenda and various “qualities” about which they told their readers absolutely nothing. Their hidden agenda was then subtly promoted under the cloak of piety that was supposed to be Catholic. Only repeated challenges from your truly let emerge the real picture, and the picture wasn't pretty: Anglicans, homosexual Anglicans, Atheists, homosexual Atheists, and adulterers. They ended up “outing” themselves (and not after insisted questioning; it must be very hard to deny for long what they think is “what they are”).
Therefore, the too pious by half commenter about, say, Francis going among sinners “like Jesus” can easily be an Anglican, an Atheist, an homosexual, or a divorced adulterer;,but he will not tell you so.
When someone starts by saying “I am a practicing Catholic, but…(follows attack to the Church, often very passive-aggressive)” you must immediately conclude that he is either lying to your face, or sitting in the pews to kill the time. When he writes words like “the gay people”, or “hate”, or “homophobia” you can be fairly certain he is either a fag herself, or a dyke himself, or a person with a heavy emotional investment in such perversion (say: because brother or son is such).
It is very easy to give oneself a varnish of “good heart” on the Internet. In fact, nothing more is necessary than some piece of passive-aggressive bollocks as the one mentioned at the beginning of this post. These people count on the natural innocence of pious Catholics, who will tend to take their comments at face value without questioning their motives.
We must train ourselves to pose ourselves the cui prodest? question everytime we read an “off” comment, because more likely than not, the comment has been written exactly with the intent of subtly deceiving the readers, under the cloak of piety.
Beware of comments on the Internet.
One reflects on the times in which we are living, and cannot avoid thinking how utterly unmerciful the Baptist was.
Did he really need to stand in “judgment” about King Herod's frailty? Aren't we all sinners? Aren't we all wounded creatures, in need of Mercy? Are we not called to convert each other? Did John think he had “all the answers”? What about elementary prudence? How is it “pastoral” to criticise a poor sinner, perhaps leading him to sin even more? And Salome and Herodias with him? What has he achieved? Scare tactics never work!
Instead, John should have limited himself to extolling the joy of monogamy, and to convert by his joyous example. And then, you see, his joy would have been contagious, then there is no better way to convert than by being joyful and charitable.
Clearly, John got it all wrong, and his lack of pastoral concern proved a failure in the end.
Seriously, Francis would have been completely different. He would have called some Rabbi friend of his to get counsel, and would have decided if King Herod tries to serve his own God, who is he to judge?
John lived in the Time of Wrath,you see. Francis, instead, lives in the Time of Mercy; a time in which the Holy Ghost inspires men to do things differently. To be pastoral. Inclusive. Merciful. Utterly, utterly humble. Unburdened by the past.
Francis his his gaze set upon the future: a world without war, poverty or injustice, because the Holy Ghost now inspires the New Man to things the Old Men could have never achieved. John baptised with water, Francis baptises with Mercy and Inclusiveness. Look at how many Twitter followers he has!
Thinking of it: quite an old Matusaleh, this John the Baptist.
Read here the link to a manifestation organised by the laity that was gravitating around the FFI in favour of the latter, asking for the end of the persecution.
The banner reads: “With Pope Francis in favour of the Founders of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate”
I might not be the only one who sees a problem here.
The initiative is good, mind. But unless things are called with their own name I very much doubt anything will ever change.
To pretend that Pope Francis is extraneous to the persecution – rather than the one who ordered it – is a way to keep him out of the line of fire.
As long as Francis is out of the line of fire, he will continue to do what he is doing, happy with all the blame being apportioned to Father Volpi.
I personally think the situation should be expressed with a lot more energy. You would not expect the banner to read “Against Francis, in favour of sanity”, but it could certainly have been “We implore Pope Francis to put an end to the persecution of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate”, or the like. Banners, I mean, which make clear in a polite way that he is the one behind the persecution, and refuse to keep him out of the responsibility for what is happening.
I understand the objection: if they criticise the Unholy Father, the Volpis of the world will say: “see? we told you so!” But as I have written already in the past, when the time of confrontation comes it makes no sense to shun it in order to avoid the accusation of being confrontational. Let the confrontation come, say I, and let the Unholy Father pay the price of his insolence at least in terms of popularity and approval, which he seems to love above all else.
Francis is not the solution. He is the problem.