“The Remnant” Video: The Comment

This is one in the fray...

This is one in the fray…

I have already published a post about this wonderful video.

I invite everyone who has not done it to view it first.

There are several points in this video, of which one is the main one and others are added considerations. First the added considerations.

1. Bill Donohue was very wrong (actually: factually very wrong) in downplaying as “leak” something that was officially announced and the official “preparatory” document of the 2014 synod.  This downplays the gravity of the entire matter, and lulls Catholics into thinking reality is what our wishes make of it. I have dealt with the matter here

2. Pat Buchanan (a Catholic, I think) had a wonderful column about the fact that this Pope is leaning so far out of the window, that a vacant sea is not inconceivable anymore. I enjoyed the column a lot (web search engines may help you to find it) but did not find the time to write about it.

3. Astonishingly, there seem to be Catholic broadcasters (here is, clearly, meant Michael Voris) who feel ashamed even of reporting opposition to the Pope. Burke’s criticism of the Pope’s stance is, if not personal, very strong, and deservedly so. 

4. There have been “wayward” Popes in history. Heck, there have been heretical Popes in history! The names should be circulated more: Honorius, Liberius and John XXII are three safe candidates; Formosus ( I add) is a probable fourth one. I wish I could find again the sources about other Popes, but these four here seem to be the biggest. Before Francis, that is. We must spread the word and say this out loud, because in the modern clericalist atmosphere filled with ignorance and feel-goodism, most would fear their religion will crumble if they ever admit the Pope is wrong, or a heretic. 

Cardinal Piacenza also spoke (though very late...)

Cardinal Piacenza also spoke (though very late…)

5. There have been paragraphs in the definitive Relatio Synodi, which are very bad. Are we desensitising ourselves to them, particularly to sexual perversion? 

Personally, I think not. I found many paragraphs bad, but merely “V II-bad”, not “Francis-bad”. The new paragraph about perverts merely says that homosexuals (homosexuals, not sodomites; we are talking here of the perversion, not the sodomy or even the active militancy!) must not be discriminated against. This is not only the same tone of the JP II catechism (actually, it is indicative that the paragraph has apparently been rejected by the bishops; it tells you what many of them would do with JP II’s catechism if they had a choice), but can only be approved of if it is read with the mind of the actual sound catholic, rather than of the rabid liberal.

Not even I (and you know what kind of “welcoming” chap I am) would refuse to sell to an homosexual the means to stay alive ( I do not say a “wedding cake”, which is an obvious statement; but bread, milk, tomato, mozzarella, and the like…); nor would I, if I were an employer at, say, the Land Registry, refuse employment to a poor chap because I suspect he  has a perversion. Homosexuals must eat too, and provided they do not give scandal and behave in the proper way I think they have the right not to be starved. I do not think this is anything new, and it is not known to me that homosexuals in the Papal States were refused bread, or wine, or a tenancy, if they did not give scandal. This would have been considered, even then, unjust discrimination.

… and even the Pontiff Emeritus had to intervene…

 

The reasons why the bishops have refused to approve it was, I think, to give an additional slap to Francis, saying to him “you wanted to ram heresy down our throat, now you get slapped in the face even for things we could otherwise approve without problems”;  and also – an issue I, in my innocence, had not examined – to avoid that even these words may be mis-construed as something different: then the very same words may be made to mean, in the Age of Mercy, something completely different than in the old Age of Catholicism.

 

—-

All this, though, is accessory. The main issue is another, that is: 

1. that the Pope read and approved the text of the relatio post disceptationem on the Saturday before the publication; 

2. that, therefore, all the heresies therein contained can be traced back to him;  

3. that the Pope has acted like an Oriental Satrap in disrespecting his bishops at every step: putting in charge a cabal of ultra-liberal, silencing the bishops so that the world does not see orthodoxy at work, publishing a text the bishops had not approved, (imposing the Six Little Pigs to draft the final version, I add);  imposing the publication of the preliminary report (which is on the internet anyway), and finally imposing the publication of the final text (the Relatio Synodi) including those paragraphs explicitly not approved by the required majority. 

4. that Burke, Chaput, Mueller & Co. are saying, with thinly veiled words, that the Pope was behind all this, and the Pope was the one who wanted to weak the discipline of the Church in matters of sexual morality. That Cardinal Pell meant, when he said that the Synod was being manipulated, exactly that the Pope was manipulating it, and this behaviour had to stop. 

Summa Summarum, the Pope did all exactly as he wished without listening to the bishops every time he could (preliminary relatio, appointment of the “little pigs”, decision to keep paragraphs that had been excised), and promptly looking for cover every time he could not (the second relatio in most paragraphs, and the posturing as the “wise mediator between truth and heresy” in the final speech). 

There is a fifth issue, on which I must offer a most optimistic outlook than the two excellent men in the video.

Yes, there will now be “discussions” about sodomy, & Co. But I can’t see how this discussion can be silenced if the Pope not only does not silence it (which Burke invited him to do, unheeded; I think we will hear more about this), but rams it down the throat of the Church.

And if discussion (scandalous! obscene!) must be had, then better from a position of clear defeat for the Modernist position, and clear approval of the Catholic position; a Catholic position which the bishops will take care to have well explained to their own sheep, lest they themselves, the bishops, get grilled next year at the Synod 2015, and then stoned in public by the homosexual minions of Francis. A man who, as we have already seen in the case of the FFI, “does” persecution and revenge with reckless abandon. 

Yes, the dissenters will dissent. But this they would have done anyway. It is much better that they open their mouth as dissenters, and are seen to be so. All the others (which means by the way: the overwhelming majority in Africa and Asia) will discuss, get very angry at the Modernists, and go to the 2015 synod better prepared, and with well-sharpened swords.

And what will Francis do? Leave African or Asian bishops out? All hell would break loose. What then? Impose silence and censorship again? Don’t make me laugh. He caved in once to avoid a public and unprecedented humiliation, he would do it thirty more times.

This here is a Jesuit. His motto could be “In defeat, cowardice. In victory, revenge!”. 

Do you want to know what I think? Francis had his moment, and he lost bad. He made a surprise bid for Russia, and was stopped at the outskirts of Moscow. The surprise attack has failed, and he now has in front of him an army so overwhelming – if they only want to fight –  that there is no way he can reverse the destiny of the battle, unless it is for the incompetence and cowardice of his opponent.

If you ask me (warning! Born optimist!) this battle is not for Francis to win. It is only for the the Bishops (and Catholicism) to lose.  But Francis is now a lame duck. The world has seen it already, and it is coming to terms with it. The Newsweek article I have already linked to is an example of a new reality slowly starting to “sink in”.        

A year of battle is before us. 

But the events of last week showed that ours is, by far, the better army.

If we (and the Bishops and Cardinals) do not lose faith and go on pounding – and several of them have done it already, and new ones are coming in, like the very late Cardinal Piacenza – Francis and his little troop of heretics will be exposed as a bunch of heretic morons.

At that point Francis will leave the battle, and let others have the blame.

Posted on October 24, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. And on the other side of the coin there are those like Cardinal “Amnesia” Nichols who can’t remember how he voted at the Synod but gives the game away in his new diocesan letter. If it’s a numbers game, one needs to work out how many are like him in the church of the “developed world”, an oxymoron if ever there was one. It is going to take great courage and organisation to defeat Francis’ determined, vengeful streak. I don’t think he will win but there are going to be an awful lot of good men sacrificed in the battle ahead.

  2. Each day Maria Divine Mercy is proving to be more and more accurate, who could have predicted this 2, 3, 4 years ago?

  3. Thanks for this clear summation of what happened.

  4. Wow, lots to chew on here, thanks, Mundabor. Please excuse the length of my reply.

    -Well said about Donohue, no argument there.

    -Yes, Pat Buchanan is a Catholic, a real old-school, hard-scrabble Irish-American type.

    -I have great concern that as faithful Catholics seek to engage on these marital and sexual issues, all too many seem desperate to effectively rehabilitate Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI and make them into a new baseline of orthodoxy from which to hold the line. No, I say, a thousand times, no. In fairness, didn’t John XXII at least recognize, retract and repent of his error before he died? How much more than can be said of JPII, one who declared that the Church fundamentally changed its nature at VII [a prelude to the gd of surprises??], publicly violated the first commandment in Togo, and facilitated the cacophony of false, non-Christian, non-salvific rites at Assisi, none of which were every publicly recanted nor apologized for. JXXII would be a breath of fresh air by comparison.

    -Let us also be honest that, with the exception of the SSPX bishops, we have virutally no full orthodox bishops. Great that Burke is vociferously holding to true teaching here and critiquing the pope, but this still does not give us full tradition from him.

    -FYI regarding Chaput. While he is, relatively speaking, one of the best American bishops at this time along with Burke, he is also problematic. Some dozen years ago, in response to a prominent American Catholic who said that a Catholic could support enactment of the death penalty for situations other than those which represent a threat to public safety [a position that is thoroughly Catholic, orthodox, and traditional, aside from the PVI/JPII/BXVI liberal revisionism we now have on the matter], Chaput criticized this expression of traditional thinking, and referred to any such Catholics as cafeteria, pick-and-choose Catholics for not hewing to the new party line, essentially putting them on a par with pro-choice Catholics.

    • You are very difficult to please, but I can’t say you are wrong.

      The important thing is to recognise that whilst none of the modern orthodox are perfectly orthodox, they are the only ones we have inside of the Church apparatus.

      M

%d bloggers like this: