Daily Archives: September 9, 2014
The article linked here is a rebuttal of a Sedevacantist criticism of John Salza, already mentioned on this blog and a proposer of classical Traditionalism in SSPX style, which they call “recognise and resist”.
I have read the article in its entirety, and it seems to me both the original article and the rebuttal are worth reading; and whilst I do not doubt that the Novus Ordo Watch troops are composed of good and sincere Catholics, I find the one or other criticism levelled at them to be rather well-chosen.
The article deals mainly with the matter of Papal infallibility and the correct reading of the Conciliar documents; apart from the little and understandable blunder of calling Francis' torrential apostolic exhortation “encyclical letter”, I find the author's every sentence worthy of careful reading and agreement.
The article does not deal with the other, so to speak, missing leg of modern Sedevacantism: the impossibility to reconcile the Indefectibility of the Church with the strange theory that a fake church is now confused all over the planet and believed to be the right one; whilst only a bunch of very smart theologians and their very perceptive readers understands that the NO Church is an impostor and the real Church is a teeny weeny spot on the Catholic world radar.
One thing is to say that a Pope is, even, a formal heretic. Quite another is to say that the entire system has short-circuited 50 years ago, and is now unable to produce valid priests, deacons, bishops and yes, Popes, without any idea of how God will set things right.
The article also has useful references to past Popes, and some interesting details about the apparently factual occurrence of the “deposition” of the offending Pope by the Roman clergy and, transposed to today, some (or better: many) good Cardinals. A thorny issue, this one, but again one showing there isn't much new under the sun, and the problems we have now have been encountered in the past already.
The article is certainly is worth your time.
The announced pregnancy of the Duchess of Cambridge moved me to think, again, of the future of the British monarchy.
As it is, the British monarch is less than totally irrelevant. He, or she, mainly kisses children and opens kindergartens. There's nothing else, really. Not only can the Monarch not take any active part in the matters of government; to him it is not even allowed to express any political opinion whatsoever. The British Monarch might well be the only sovereign on the planet whose “speeches” in front of the Parliament are – have to – come from the Prime Minister, verbatim, and no off-the-cuff “improvements” either. It is, basically, required that he or she can read. That's it.
In short, the British monarchy is an investment in decoration for the sake of tradition, gossip, and tourism.
Why do I say this? Because this modern irrelevance had to conform to the times in order to survive at least as an irrelevance, and it now resembles an autumn leaf waiting for the inevitable, as the necessity to become like the world makes it even more redundant and superfluous than it already is. The irrelevance of the Crown is perfectly seen in the fact that in the now raging debate about Scotland's independence, the Monarchy which first represents the union between England and Scotland is nowhere to be seen as an argument, or an at least emotional element. The British monarchy is irrelevant not only politically and constitutionally, but in the minds of the Brits. It has become one of those old pieces of furniture that have always been there, no one really knows why.
The present Monarch is, God knows, decent enough; but a horse-faced wannabe Francis already looms in the not-so-distant future. If he is offered the Crown – important note for foreigners: there is no automatic succession on the throne. It's the Privy Council that sanctions the right of the next in line to actually take on the job, or decides to skip him altogether if he's unfit for the job – there is no saying what might happen, as a Proto-Muslim environmentalist half-loony might well decide that kissing children is not enough after all.
William appears, to all intents and purposes, far “kinglier” than his father; but he will very probably have to wait for his father to kick the bucket before he can try to give some dignity to the throne, and he might well never see the day.
In the meantime, everything could happen. Even today, there is no reason to believe a referendum for the abolition of the monarchy would see them survive it. The only hope of the Monarchy seems at the moment to rest on the strategy of being as reassuring, as irrelevant, and as unnoticed as possible, whilst happy photos of the Duke and Duchess keep the mob entertained. But let some big scandal happen – say: the refusal of a Monarch to assist to the funeral of her whoring daughter-in-law – and all bets are off. The Queen is expected to be as immoral as the rest of the Country, and woe to her she dares to give an example. The people will be enraged. Who on earth does she think she is, the Queen?
In time, we might have a King who also is.. a Queen. Or a trannie. Or a “lover” of dogs. We might have a monarch in a polyamory situation. We might have any or all of the modern “it's complicated” stupidities. Whilst none of this would necessarily damage the Crown – it could be argued a “gay queen” would be much loved by the mob as per today, and the newspapers would praise the “modernity” of the institution – it would fester that role as cheap entertainment and gossip reservoir, which has been its unofficial function for many decades now.
At some point, the people will simply decide that a monarch is not required anymore, because – say – a head of state is better elected in a TV competition show, or the wife/companion/significant other of the Prime Minister can do the same job, or the money is just wasted, or a Republic more modern.
As the newspapers theorise about the time for the newborn George to become king, I wonder if William will ever become one. I wonder, in fact, whether the time will come when the monarchy is abolished simply because most Brits don't even know it exists, much less care; unless, that is, the occasional slut or trannie reminds them of the fact.
The Monarchy does not represent anything anymore. Not the unity of the Kingdom, as the impending Scottish Independence Referendum shows. Not the main reference of a long-lost Empire. Not any moral stance, as showed by the fact that when they had to choose between their Queen and a slut, the Brits clearly choose the latter. Not the role as head of an already ridiculous “church”, as even sodomitical “marriages” can be approved by Parliament without the Monarch having the right to utter one single word. Not one thing. Not one.
Decorative gossip material and tourist attractions. This is the role of the British Monarchy as I speak. But a Country with same sex “marriages” has no need for tradition, or decency, much less religion. It has, simply, no need for a Monarch, unless it be for cheap entertainment.
An entertainment to which only Elizabeth still gives some dignity, gravitas, and sense of decency; but of which the people might become tired very fast when she has gone.
The Duchess of Cambridge has been diagnosed with another clump of cells.
It is thought the clump will not be removed, albeit it is making the Duchess sick rather often.
If the removal of the clump does not take place, it is widely believed this clump of cells will gradually grow inside the host. At some point next Spring, the clump of cells will expel itself from the host. The process generally goes under the popular name of “birth”. After the self-expulsion, the clump of cells will, if its heart beats, legally become a human being and be entitled to various rights; like, for example, the one not to be thrown in the bin with other clumps of cells, who were removed from the host in order the prevent the self-expulsion process from taking place. .
Now, let us see if this is the way the generally oh so liberal BBC looks at it. Let me look…
yes… it’s here…
hhhmmm…what is this?
“Expecting a second child”
“Yet unborn girl or boy”
Look, it appears even the satanic buggers at the Buggers Broadcasting Communism get it: a baby in the womb is… a baby. Entitled to be considered a human being, a human life, one of us, even if not yet born. He is, already, a child. He is, in fact, an “unborn girl or boy”.
Is it so difficult, you satanic buggers? What is in this that needs an effort of understanding?
It’s a baby. It’s a baby. It’s a baby. You say it yourselves, several times. You find it utterly natural to say so, exactly as everyone else. You employ the same language of common sense that has always been used, and corresponds to a most obvious reality.
Why, then, do you forget this obvious reality when the victim of your abominable thinking is not the baby of a Duchess, but a poor baby in the womb of an unknown young woman? Why the first is considered, to all intents and purposes, a human being, and the other not?
It’s because you are satanic buggers.
I am so awfully, awfully sorry to have to blog about strange things I see happening (or better; I heard happened, because I most certainly refused to follow the ceremony) on this joyous day. Still, I try to be a Catholic blogger and I hope that even the most royalist among my two dozen readers will have some understanding for what I am going to say.
What strikes me as odd in today’s ceremony are 1) the vows and 2) the so-called indissolubility of the Anglican marriage.
As to 1), I was very surprised in reading that the then Kate Middleton (now Duchess of Cambridge), chose not to promise obedience. She promised instead to merely vow “love, comfort, honour and keep” to her royal husband. Now if the vow of obedience were not in the traditional formula one wouldn’t object very much to her not vowing it. But if…
View original post 322 more words