Daily Archives: October 29, 2014
And it came to pass TMAHICH met, as the Vatican news agency reports, representatives of the Proddie community to which the late buddy of his, Tony Palmer, belonged before going to meet (or not, as the case may be) his Maker.
During this meeting Pope Francis made, as usual, some stunning affirmations, notable for their decidedly anti-Catholic character.
The main one: we sin when we focus on our differences.
I wish his grandmother had slapped him in the face as a child. I wish his spiritual director at the seminary had kicked his ass all day long. I wish he had become just another of the potheads leaving the priesthood in the Seventies. Alas, the second and third have not happened, and the first did not, if it really happened, had any lasting result.
The missionaries, preachers, theologians, and simple priests sinned all this time, then, by defending Catholicism against heresies. The countless martyrs who decided to suffer death or persecution in order to “focus on the differences” rather than going along with the world were, according to this nincompoop, sinning. Oh St Thomas Aquinas, you must be one of the greatest sinners of all! Oh St Thomas More and St John Fisher, what great sinners you were!
In charity, one must say that this man might be an alcoholic, but we must wait to see whether something is leaked about it. He might also, for all we know, still smoke marijuana (he already admitted he did so as a young man; another good example given to the youth. What a cool pothead our Pope is…). I am by now persuaded he is not stupid, and whilst obviously not very intelligent he seems to be rather cunning.
He must be evil, then.
He is most certainly not Catholic.
The rest of this possibly grappa-fueled or marijuana-driven speech goes along the same lines, so I will spare you the revolting details.
The devil divides us, you know; but we must be smarter and just overlook the differences. This is worse than Protestant, as you will find that even Protestants do not generally simply overlook the differences. Wrong as they are, they at least believe their wrongness is right. They do not say that they in the end just do not care. Francis, the Pope, does!
This is satanical. This is the same as saying that the specificity of Catholicism is just an obstacle to the understanding among Christians; a pastime for quibbling Theologians; an occasion of sin! It is so sad, that he can't have his sorry ass kicked all the way from the faggot-run hotel to Termini Station! It would be so good for his soul! It would be, perhaps, his only chance to redemption! Alas, as a Pope he enjoys physical inviolability. Which makes of his redemption a very arduous task.
This is an Apprentice Sorcerer who has already miserably failed his apprenticeship. Screwtape will not be happy with him at all.
This man is of the devil, and I thank God that He at least gives us the opportunity to spot it so easily, if we but stay by His teaching and the teaching of the Church. Had he been smarter in his doings, the deception would have been easier. As it is, no informed Catholic has any excuse.
There is no way you can love the Church and side with this man, knowing what he is saying.
This man is, clearly, the stuff of reprobates. Which is why they love him so much, and applaud him whilst he insults Catholics and Catholicism every day.
But you, dear read, you keep strong in the Faith of our Fathers. You know better than to follow a heretic, blaspheming, socialist, sacrilegious pothead just because he is dressed in white, and embraces wheelchairs.
If you follow Catholic priests – as I do – you might notice – as I think I do – a certain “style” of criticism, that to me seems rather uniform. The main rules I can recognise are the following:
– the civility of the criticism (excessive, if you ask me, in most cases; but then again I am not a priest) and
– the limitation of the criticism to a fact or a statement, without ever targeting the person, if the person if a fellow clergyman.
I notice this very often in the priestly blogs I follow: there is the statement of a fact, and the criticism of the fact. There is the report of a certain statement, and the refutation of that particular statement. Clergymen of this type do not attack other clergymen as people (some other clergymen, of another type, do; Cardinal Kasper comes to mind; but not the ones I am talking about).
I have read, at the time it was finally published, the full transcript of Cardinal Burke’s interview to BuzzFeed. I was in no doubt that the actual words of the interview, when they were made public, did not contain a direct criticism of the character of Francis as person, as much as a very strong criticism of a certain behaviour in a certain, particular circumstance. Which, in the case of a Pope, is a very strong criticism, but not a personal attack.
The difference between “what the Pope does is bad” and “the Pope is bad” is not a milder criticism in the second case. It is, in my view, the desire to make clear that the criticism is a factual one, not a personal one. This is, I think, always important among the right kind of clergymen; but it becomes even more important when Cardinal Kasper blathers all the time about attacks to the Pope and enemies of the Pope.
In some cultures, this difference between the person and the issue at hand is more blurred, and there is a more or less implied understanding that you criticise a man as a result of an action or a statement of his; whilst in other cultures – like the German and, I begin to think, the ecclesiastical one – the distinction between the criticism of a person and the criticism of his stance are far more marked. The Germans even have an adjective (“sachlich”), which conveys this idea of being “linked to a thing”, rather than to the person attached to it. Whilst every language has such expressions, in the case of the Germans the frequency of its use conveys to the Foreigner the particular importance attached to it. In the case of churchmen, I doubt there is an equivalent expression; but the praxis is, it seems to me, just as solidly established: he who attacks the person looks bad; the battle is always fought on things, not people.
Therefore, I am unable to see in the recent clarification of Cardinal Burke any kind of backpedaling or watering down of his criticism. Besides, the man is a legally trained mind, and for legally trained minds distinctions of this sort do matter.
On the contrary, it seems to me – and I may be wrong on this; time will tell – that with his brutal repetition of the exact content of his criticism – the exact one; without softening of any sort – the Cardinal has sent quite the contrary message. A message which I for myself read thus: “please do not describe me as the personal enemy of the Pope; but my criticism of what he does is still there, and for the sake of clarity I will repeat it word for word”.
I have just written that the way I know these things, the criticism is often followed by a “soft retractation” meant to deny the implied, but very obvious criticism. In this case, it seems to me that the Cardinal is not ready to do even that; conscious, perhaps, of the huge dismay every little apparent giving away of Catholic ground could have on countless faithful Catholics.
I am, though, simply unable to see any difference in the clarification, which has to me the very same meaning I had already understood: what the Pope is doing – a specific conduct: not intervening against heresy – harms the Church. Headline writers tend to be imprecise and untechnical, something a rigorous legal mind like Burke will not let stand without correction. Honestly, I did not even need the clarification, because I got the Cardinal the first time, and I always discount the titles.
I do not know how strong Burke and his are. I have no way to read their mind and measure their determination on a scale from one to ten. I pray that the Lord may give them, and all those willing to take this battle on their shoulders, the determination to fight, and to fight well.
I suspect, in fact, that now a very complicated and subterranean game will begin, in which both sides will alternate public interventions with a very intensive corridor work. The result of this work will, probably, only become clear in October 2015. I cannot tell you how it will end. I am fairly optimistic, but then I always am. I carry the Roman sun inside, and if at times I do not see the shadows, I still think this Roman sun is a very good help in seeing the reality around me. Yes, I have my worries for the huge battle in front of us.
But Cardinal Burke’s clarification is, as far as I am concerned, not one of them.
TMAHICH has given another example of boundless hypocrisy and utter carelessness today for what he has said yesterday.
The family is being “bastardised”, he decries. Nowadays, so much is called “family”.
Well, let me think aloud here.
The family would be less bastardised if there were no Archbishops sending their priests in the slums, allowing mass sacrilege as they permit everyone to receive communion in a context in which 80% or more of couples are not married and, therefore, presumably 80% of children are bastards.
There is, in fact, no way to bastardise the family more effectively than what Francis has done as Archbishop and is doing as Pope: allowing mass sacrilege in his own diocese, devaluing marriage as he allows concubines to receive, marrying in his capacity as Pope public concubines, allowing the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires to baptise poor children “adopted” by goddamn dykes, and in general sabotaging the very idea of family with a Synod full of heresy, blasphemy and sexual perversion.
Francis is like a Hitler complaining of Antisemitism. With the important difference that Hitler at least did not have the stunning hypocrisy of decrying what he himself promoted day in and day out.
Francis is here, clearly, trying to remake a virginity by appearing a defender of the family. He is in fact, and remains, its worst enemy. He is merely being his Modernist self, and throwing some pigeon feed to the Pollyannas so that they may now storm the comment boxes of blogs and fora singing the praise of Francis The Defender Of Family.
The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History has opened his mouth again, and again he has given us a demonstration of his breathtakingly double-tongued persona.
Don’t believe one word of what he says. Francis may not be, technically at least, a bastard; but his Catholicism is not even recognisable as bastardised.
It is just not there.
Just as a way of I do not want to say “preparation for the worse”, but rather “exploration of our past”, I would be very grateful for credible sources and links concerning what exactly happened during (not after) the Pontificates of Popes like Liberius, Honorius, Formosus, or John XXII.
Let me explain: though we all know that Liberius lost face and Honorius was declared heretic in the end, and after their death, that Formosus was also rather spectacularly condemned after death, and that John XXII renounced to his error the day before he died, I am rather curious to know more about the day-to-day dealing of the clergy and the the faithful when these Popes were still alive and in power.
Take John XXII.
Chappy goes around saying that there is no beatific Vision before the Universal Judgment. He says he is minded to proclaim this as dogma. His attempt is thwarted (methinks, some Dominican managed to let the stake appear to him a very real possibility; but that’s just me…) and he renounces to the proclamation of the dogma; but at this point, the world still has a Pope who is as officially heretical as can be; a formal heretic so attached to his error as to continue to defend it for almost the rest of his life in front of the brutal opposition of his own Church; one whose theology denies all the edifice of the Communion of saints, make a good part of the Mass senseless, et cetera, and still keeps saying he is right and Church Tradition and Mass are wrong.
How did the bishops deal with him? Did they deny him obedience in everything? Or only in that which pertained directly to his heretical thinking? If he issued encyclical letters, what value did they have? I know that the Sea was not declared vacant in the proper sense (say: with the large majority of Cardinals and Bishops declaring the Sea empty for manifest and persistent heresy; this is, in my understanding, the concept that St. Robert Bellarmine developed later), but do we know of bishops and cardinals who simply declared that they would deny obedience to such a Pope, without denying that he is Pope? What happens of the cardinals and bishops appointed by a Pope in manifest heresy? What of his letters, bulls, etc? What of his administrative orders, disciplinary measures,and such? They may be changed, of course. But were they valid?
It’s even more complicated for Formosus; because whilst we – AFAIK – know that many of his administrative acts were declared at least formally invalid after his death – I have little doubt many will have been validated by his successor anyway – there is a thick fog as to what happened whilst Formosus was alive and in charge. Formosus remained Pope for around five years. This is a long, long time for the wrong kind of Pope. But then again it would appear the Sea was not declared vacant: not during his Pontificate, and not even retroactively after his condemnation in the famous “Cadaver Synod”. May his acts have been annulled, this does not make a Pontificate null. Nor does it answer the question whether his acts were obeyed at the time they were issued.
If Francis throws himself and the Church (or better: those member of her who will be reckless enough to follow him) in the abyss of blasphemy and heresy, it will be very important to have clear historical coordinates about what exactly happened in the past in at least comparable circumstances.
Ideally, from places like the SSPX a clear guidance should come before hand: how to behave in scenarios a, b, or c; what conditions must exactly be fulfilled for the Sea to be declared vacant; in which ways the SSPX would examine the matter and make it public, etc.
Mind, not only I do not think in the least that the Sedevacantist position is justified as I write this. I do not even think that Francis will ever be so stupid as to push things in that direction, because as I have already written it seems to me that when he had to show if he has the balls to plunge the Church into chaos he showed no balls whatsoever, but abundant Jesuitism instead.
But it is true that we are at the brink of a precipice, irrespective of how optimistic we may be concerning vast sectors of the Church ever falling into it.
I am grateful for usable historical material.
What times are we living in.
Ah? Uh? No?