Daily Archives: October 18, 2014
… heart full of appreciation and gratitude…
so-called – today – “traditionalists”
Bla – bla – bla.
… the temptations must not frighten or disconcert us…
now we still have one year to mature,
The Italian text is available on Rorate.
This Relatio is the text that will be used for the next year, before the second part of the Synod begins in October 2015. All discussions will be based on this.
I have just finished it. Accurate English translations will soon be available everywhere, so I base my comment on the Italian without my own translation.
My first impressions:
1. It reflects a different religion than the Relatio post disceptationem. Whatever religion that text reflected, it wasn’t Catholicism. This one is. Yes, you can buy a good bottle.
2. What comes out of this document is, as it was to be expected, bad Catholicism. But it is not “Francis-bad”, merely “pre-Francis-bad”. I could not detect any quotation from Papal documents before V II, which tells you all.
3. Some paragraphs are weak, or, in my eyes, nonsensical. But they are never subversive (as in: Forte-subversive. V II is subversive..). They have the V-II-disease, not the much more aggressive, deadly Francis-disease.
4. As already reported, the most unChristian paragraphs have been simply suppressed. Dead. Gone. Make it two bottles, then…
Let us see some of the things that, without being a theologian, left me scratching my head.
17. Love is “at the centre of the family”. Effeminate, emotional fluff. If love is at the centre of the family, when the love is gone it makes sense to divorce; or if the love is found outside of the family, it makes sense to transfer the family where the new love, which is its centre, is. The defense of the family is on very fragile ground, if one allows this fluff to take over.
Perhaps simple concepts like sacrament, sin, duty, and children would have helped more. People got them when illiteracy was ripe. They can’t be so complicated.
35. This paragraph is ecumenical tosh. Serious ecu-maniacal tosh. Nothing new, though. This is a mistake of the last 50 years, not of the last six days.
38. This is the Father’s short journey to Planet Socialism. It is clear the Fathers think the West is too dependent on “market economy”. Forty to fifty percent of the GDP of these economies is made of taxes, that is: it is largely meant for redistribution. Leo XIII would be horrified at the extent of such an entitlement mentality. The Synod Fathers think (though they do not explicitly say) that it’s not enough.
41. Concubines. Wrong, sugary, V II tofu formulations. There is the implied affirmation that concubines have a “partial opening” toward the Gospel, and that a marriage of concubines is something good, but – alas- not the fullness of it. I strongly suspect these are all formulations already used in former V II documents. No mention of mortal sin, or of the grave danger of concubinage for the eternal salvation of the souls involved.
Then the Fathers complain marriage is challenged by modern society. Good Lord…
42. A very strange idea is floated: some people are too poor to marry, but not too poor to be concubines. What? You don’t pay an extra USD 7/day in heating costs if you are married. If anything, in some legislations (like Germany) the tax burden decreases for married couples. Again, there is no courage to tell the truth. Or do these people think Christianity developed in wealthier times than ours, and marriage is now in a crisis because we are so poor?
46. This is, in my eyes, the worst paragraph. Dangerous, wrong formulations. If Concubinage is to be looked at with “respect”, why criticise it? When did Christ walk on the road to Emmaus together with concubines? I thought they were faithfuls, not concubines. The idea of taking away one’s sandals in front of the “sacred ground” of the household of concubines is tosh fit for Anglicans. This seems to be the obligatory tribute to Francis, who is heavily quoted. Again, I have the impression this is nothing really new for V II documents, but it stinks mightily of Rowan Williams.
What I found particularly good:
53: “We must explain to the people, including some bishops and cardinals, why they can make spiritual communion but not partake in the Sacrament. There will be no charge. Not even for Cardinals”.
55: This here is Poetry.
– No mention of gradualism in the “bad sense” floated on Monday. That’s gone entirely.
These are my first reflections after reading once. I have certainly missed more than something. But in general, I can go to sleep knowing that the new religion has been expunged from this text.
What we still have, is our religion badly explained and weakly defended. But we knew that and, with all its problems, it is a completely different animal than the wholesale of Catholicism and Christianity we have witnessed on Monday.
It is a great day. Bergoglism has been almost completely excised from this text, with the only exception of the tosh of par. 46, which to me sounds like a token tribute. Speakin gof par. 46, one should take away his sandals and give them to him, straight on the teeth. A great help to his salvation. Alas, this is not allowed.
Last remark: Kasper and Forte should be defrocked.
They aren’t Catholics, at all.
Just come back home.
I have seen Rorate’s comments on the Relatio Synodi. Great, great, great stuff.
They also have the text in Italian, complete. And already a provisional translation in English, God bless them!
Let me make a tea, and read the whole thing in Italian.
But we know already this is a great day.
There are two main news issues, and two parts. The news issues are:
1. the confirmation of the imminent demotion, and
2. an apparently strong criticism of the Pope.
The parts are
a) a “third person” interview in the main body, and
b) the transcript of only the part concerning the demotion as an appendix.
This as I write. I do hope the full transcript will be available soon.
I am not interested in 1, because if you are a regular reader of this blog you knew all already. As already stated, this non-news is only important in the message it sends: Cardinal Burke is now more free to speak freely.
What interest us is part 2. Let us see the “printed” facts:
If Pope Francis had selected certain cardinals to steer the meeting to advance his personal views on matters like divorce and the treatment of LGBT people, Burke said, he would not be observing his mandate as the leader of the Catholic Church.
This is a report of what the Cardinal would have said. There are no direct quotes concerning this. But it is rather tentative. A warning shot, not cannon fire. If the Pope has manipulated the Synod, then he is ignoring his job description and furthering his own personal views. But the Cardinal seems to have stopped short form saying that this is the case. For now, at least. This might, in fact, be a last warning shot before the real fire begins.
“According to my understanding of the church’s teaching and discipline, no, it wouldn’t be correct,” Burke said, saying the pope had “done a lot of harm” by not stating “openly what his position is.”
We do not have the question whose answer starts with “According”. Bad journalism.
The words “done a lot of harm” are quoted, but we miss the entire phrase. If the harm is merely in keeping silent, this is not an indictment of Francis’ character: rather, merely a reproach of weakness, indecisiveness, perhaps incompetence. But it is not a public accusation of manipulation, much less heresy.
Burke said the Pope had given the impression that he endorses some of the most controversial parts of the Relatio, especially on questions of divorce, because of a German cardinal who gave an important speech suggesting a path to allowing people who had divorced and remarried to receive communion, Cardinal Walter Kasper, to open the synod’s discussion.
This is also in the third person. Pope Francis would have “given the impression”. There is no open accusation of supporting the wrong side, or of seriously misguided (as they say today for “heretical”) thinking. Francis is imprudent, perhaps a tad left-leaning. He has not spoken when he should have done so. Nothing more than that. I can’t say this is unprecedented in modern times.
“The pope, more than anyone else as the pastor of the universal church, is bound to serve the truth,” Burke said. “The pope is not free to change the church’s teachings with regard to the immorality of homosexual acts or the insolubility of marriage or any other doctrine of the faith.”
This here is, I think, the crux. The phrase describes, in itself, something every Catholic should know, but is apparently not mainstream anymore in these times of savage Clericalism and rampant Papolatry. We would need the context to know whether the Cardinal is openly accusing Francis of doing what he cannot do. The words published do not say this. I could say the same words to you concerning the same arguments, speaking of Pius XII.
Now, follow me closely here: if the last sentence was expressed after lamenting an actual attempt of the Pope to change the Church’s teaching (and we would need to read the script for that), then this would obviously be an open indictment not of Francis’ decisiveness, but of his own orthodoxy and worthiness as a Pope. I can’t see what other reading would be possible. “The Pope is not free to change church teaching, and this is what he has just tried to do” would be the message. This would clearly be a charge of material heresy.
But again, the very same words could have been said in a different context, as you can readily see if you insert the words “as the great Pope Saint Pius X already stated…”, or such like, before the actual phrase.
I wish there were less “third party” interviews, and more “regular” interviews.
Questions and answers, everything in direct speech (“I think that”, not “The Cardinal stressed the issue of”), and published in full.
I write this at 3:30 pm Italian time. No word of correction from Burke, who must be well awake by now. No doubt, his phone is ringing like mad.
Perhaps a “Francis’ game” is at work here: first the interview, then silence. No confirmation, and no retractation. Just let it stay in the air that “Francis does harm to the Church”. This is what Francis does. It would be priceless.
I wait for other Cardinals and Bishops to take their stance and say more to us about the entire matter. It is difficult for me to think Burke has no allies,with whom he could coordinate the interventions. He might have acted alone out of pure love for the Truth, but I can’t imagine we are in such a desperate situation as this.
This is, from what I can read, no open attack to Francis (and it would be high time). But it could be the last of the warning shots. There are, praise be to God, winds of war blowing. There is also, it seems to me, a rich subtext to this. “Just think what we could do, if you don’t act and stop this madness”.
The next days (and then, months) should be interesting.
I will deal with the main news (as I understand it; and if there is one) in another post.
This here is both an appetizer, and the occasion for a short comment on CMTV’s stance.
You can easily notice that this is a highly dramatic, “breaking news” broadcast.
Note that Voris interrupts a (late) dinner with his entire troop to broadcast in the night hour something that he must have seen as both huge and implying consequences for everyone, Church Militant TV included.
There is no open comment on Burke’s comments, but the treatment of the matter seems to indicate Voris himself might be, like many other persistently blind Catholics, at a crossroads.
For the moment, I limit myself to notice that Burke appears to have made what Michael Voris himself considers, or considered, very bad, weakening the Church, and (if I remember correctly) leading souls to perdition. It will be interesting to see how he deals will this: can he ever criticise a Cardinal for criticising a Pope for the very same reasons why he criticises the Cardinals himself? Absurd position, I know, but then it always was.
The fact is, it isn’t so unusual for a Cardinal to criticise a Pope. This here is important not because a criticism has been uttered, but because whichever the words used, the criticism must strike at the very core of the Papacy, exactly as Communion and sexual morality.
I am waiting to find more information on this matter. I am also eagerly awaiting to see whether other Cardinals will support Burke’s position (if it was what it is reported to be; but Voris is a serious journalist and would pay attention to what he says without having solid evidence of what was said). My impression is that the press tamtam went around the journalists’ dinner tables yesterday night, saying “Cardinal Burke wants to get rid of the gloves”. If this is so, the general tone of the words and the nature of the criticism ( that is: not of being weak or unprepared, but of being deceptive and manipulating; not of being the victim, but the architect and perpetrator) will be less important than the exact words that were said, because what counts would be, then, the main point: “Cardinal questions integrity of Pope”.
You can also be sure further interviews will follow this one, and the other Cardinals will have to take position, too.
I will not waste time on Burke’s confirmation of his demotion, because I do not write for Pollyannas. Rather, the time chosen by Burke to make this announcement is relevant for another reason: he is clearly saying that he is now more free to speak than he would have been as a person directly involved (as the head of the Signatura Apostolic,a which decides on annulments) in the administration of the Holy See and will, therefore, not shut up.
If Voris were to finally see the light, this would be great news. Another valid soldier choosing the right ranks. If not, I suspect we will just have to wait.
Brick by brick, as they say.
The army of Faggotry has had a setback this week, but there is no hoping that this is the end of the satanical pro-faggotry, sacrilegious madness fueled by TMAHICH and his minions.
Give it a couple of weeks at the most, and interviews from dissenting (from the Magisterium) bishops will start to appear, in order to gather for them Brownie Points with Francis.
The publication of the shameless Relatio will now lead to what was planned all along: the opening of a “debate”, a “discussion” between orthodoxy on one side, and sacrilege and sodomy on the other.
Whilst it is obvious the Pope did not want to start the “discussion” with a bleeding nose and a black eye, it is perfectly clear this kind of “debate” is what was planned all along, and this is what we are now going to get. And no doubt, The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History will be the one who fuels it from the very first line with more outlandish, or outright heretical, or utterly blasphemous statements.
It is clear enough by now that most Bishops do not want such a discussion at all, because Truth is not questioned and is no object for debate. But the homo troops will be reorganised in a matter of weeks, perhaps days. When the big media noise has subsided, it will be the time to start advancing again: timidly at first, more and more strongly as the months pass.
We need strong leaders now. We need Bishops and Cardinals who are actually afraid of going to hell, and put their duty to Christ before the rich privileges of their positions. When Christians in Africa and Asia risk their lives everyday just for going to Mass, it is perfectly reasonable to ask consecrated Bishops, people who should be ready to die for Christ at a moment’s notice, to run the risk of losing a diocese, and being sent to some remote and unpleasant location, at the very worst.
Some names have emerged in the last days. Cardinals Burke, Mueller, Pell, and Napier seem to me the four most courageous ones, the elite of the Christian troops in this very difficult moment. And I say this with admiration for Cardinal Mueller: a man of very questionable theological integrity concerning the Perpetual Virginity of our Blessed Lady and the Resurrection; but who has, when severely tested, reacted in an exemplary manner.
In the same vein, I am less than impressed by the silence of two names that could, I think, be expected to be among the voices claiming in the wilderness. Cardinal Piacenza is the first, and Cardinal Bagnasco is the second. The latter has, it is very true, shamefully caved in to Francis’ Gospel of inclusiveness in a past, very scandalous occasion, but it would still have been a legitimate expectation to see him, a man to whim many look as at a protector of orthodoxy, to speak clearly enough to make world news. The former is a riddle to me. A man who has never, to my knowledge, compromised his faith, has now allowed others to expose themselves to the ires of the Gay Army whilst – as far as I can see – not voicing any criticism strong enough to put him in the first line of the Resistance. Perhaps he is working with them behind the scenes. Perhaps he will intervene when his friends decide that the time is right. Perhaps the English-speaking press has ignored his strong criticism. I am grateful for links to his public utterances in these days, in whatever language. It would be a great joy to be able to count Cardinal Piacenza among the Very Brave.
Let us pray for Mueller, Pell, Napier, and particularly Burke, the first one of this brave troop to open his mouth and, from what I could read up to now, the most outspoken. But Francis needs to be questioned and criticised publicly far more strongly than this has been the case up to now.
The word “heresy” is still nowhere to be heard. We need for brave Cardinals to get into the next gear now, openly denouncing the heresy and putting the Pope in front of the choice of either openly supporting or openly recanting it.
Half words will not serve anyone now. If Francis is allowed to sit on the fence he will have reached his main objective: to sit there as the “referee” of a “friendly match” between two “pastoral views”. This is what he wanted all along.
There are no two pastoral views. There is orthodoxy on one side, and heresy on the other.
We need strong Cardinals calling Kasper’s doctrine heretical, and doing the same with the Pope if he does not condemn it. We need this vulcan to erupt in the open now, if we want to avoid the subterranean subversion of Catholicism to go on as the Pope threatens, persuades, cajoles and corrupts in the next twelve months and beyond.
The moment is now.
Who will take the lead?
In a welcome change from the covers of the homo mafia and the relentless pushing of Francis as the hero and allied of perverts of all kind (which, let us make no mistakes here, he undoubtedly is), the satirical Argentinian publication “Barcelona” has published a cover with Francis looking like a pervert, and a not entirely flattering word which, I am told, means something like “big fag” (Word Reference gives no clue, so it is difficult for me to know to fine tune my language antennae on this). The subtitle is also very clear in its mockery of the lines of the liberal press these last days, and before.
I think it is a very welcome development that such covers are published. This is not a left-wing publication, lambasting the Pope because he is Catholic. At least this is not what it is about on this occasion. This is bashing the Pope because he isn’t Catholic, and because he is a friend of sexual perversion.
It is good that such things happen. Scandal must be exposed, and brutal scandal must be exposed brutally. We need more of this. We need to publicly shame a Pope that openly attacks Catholicism either directly, or through his minions, day in and day out, and has been doing it for almost twenty montsh now, helped by the army of Pollyannas for which everything has a reasonable explanation, everything is someone else’s fault, and there’s nothing wrong, much less extremely disturbing, with this man. We need to open our eyes to the atrocious reality in front of our eyes. We need to be as brutal in our opposition to abomination as the organised Western Faggotry and Vatican Gay Mafia are brutal in the pursue of their own satanic objectives.
More of this, please. Let us bury this dirty old man under an avalanche of ridicule.
No one can uphold both this man and the papacy.
If you support this Pope, you shame the Papacy. If you support the Papacy, you must shame this Pope. Because this Pope is a shame for the Papacy.
Alternative translations of the word are welcome. Translations in other languages (as accurate as possible: nuances matter) too.
Hat tip: reader Maria Victoria Alvarez.