Schism, Reactionaries, And Nuking This Papacy.

When you have time (you will need a good half hour; make a tea…) you can do much worse than head to Louie Verrecchio’s site and watch two videos: Michael Voris’ latest “take” on orthodox Catholics, and Louie Verrecchio’s reply to it. Mr Verrecchio has announced a further video, so I suggest you see this first part soon so you don’t have to catch up with too much material.

I will allow myself here to add some points that I think should be said. I refer to Mr Verrecchio’s – as always – excellent reply concerning all the rest.

On the accusation of “Schism”

Plenty of material on this on the linked site. I merely point out that according to Voris St Athanasius and St. Eusebius, and all the others who sided with them, were Schismatics. Voris creates a straw man, and builds a fifteen minutes video against it.

On the “razor’s edge”

There is in the video a very embarrassed acknowledgment that the SSPX & Co. have the right diagnoses. Unfortunately, the solution would be wrong, and it would be preferable to be on the “razor’s edge” of being loyal to both orthodoxy and heterodoxy.

This razor doesn’t cut it. The principle of non-contradiction does not allow to be loyal to the Pope in his heterodox statements (of which there are hundreds) and to claim loyalty to the Church otherwise. If you are with Christ, you must be against Francis in each and every one of his wrong statements. And you must say so, lest you become an accomplice in his sins. There truly can be no way out. The Papacy is not a lesser religion. The Pope is not a lesser divinity. If Christ is right, Francis must be wrong. There are no razor’s edges here. There can only be siding with Truth, or with falseness.

On the legitimacy of the Pope

Besides the straw man of the “Schism”, the other big mistake of Mr Voris – hopefully the fruit of confusion – is to put in the same big “Reactionary” wok both the Traditionalists and all those who, in various guise, deny that Francis is Pope.

The SSPX does not deny that Francis is Pope. They do not deny that the organisation sitting in Rome is the Only Church. When they meet Vatican officials, they do so from a position of full acknowledgment of their role as Bishops, Cardinals, Monsignors & Co. There is nothing in the SSPX that says the See is Vacant. The SSPX’s position is shared by the Remnant, by Mr Verrecchio, by most other “reactionary” blogs and, unworthily of course, by your humble correspondent. To put the two positions together is a muddling of the waters.

On the attitude towards this Pope

There is a rather disquieting trait in the way in which Voris – and many others – keep talking of Francis as if touching him were some horrible offense to Holy Mother Church. We must be logical here.

God is the supreme Good. Everything else is infinitely inferior to him. An offense made to God’s Truth is an offense of infinite gravity. This is true already in the case of the quisque de populo. How much more so, then, if the one causing the offense is the very Pope!

If you love the Church, you must perforce react to offenses to the Church with all the energy the gravity of the fact allows. You must demolish the source of the offense in every permissible way. If you love the Papacy – let me state this again: if you love the Papacy – you must perforce react with outmost energy to the parody of the Papacy this man is staging, day in and day out.

If the King becomes a porn actor, the attack to the King is not an attack to the Crown; it is its defense.

This papacy must be nuked. Not the papacy, mind. This papacy. Not the Crown. The porn actor.

The most effective way to deal with a mortal enemy is his physical destruction, or at least military defeat. The second is contempt and ridicule. 

I recognise that Francis is legitimately Pope. He enjoys physical inviolability. We can, therefore, not advocate the forced remotion of the man from his office through, say, a Swiss Guard coup. We would also be in mortal sin if we willfully and sincerely wished that the man may be given, say, a “Sicilian coffee”. We can – some would say: should – pray for his painless death, or for the Lord to free us from this Pontificate; but that’s that.

But the other way, that is certainly open to us. The second most effective way to deal with this papacy is to bury it under a mountain of ridicule, exposing its falseness day in and day out, making him the butt of jokes, taking every credibility away from him as we, by the very act, extol the importance, dignity, and sacredness of the Papacy he betrays.

If Francis’ senseless rants were met every time with open laughter and public ridicule, they would end very soon. The fuel of his heretical engine is vanity. Destroy his agenda, and he will cease to be a danger. Destroy him in his vanity, and you will destroy his motivation to be a danger in the first place.

This man, whilst still being the Pope, defies every expectation of what a Pope is supposed to be. It is an entirely new situation, a completely new ball game. Our answer to him must be as unprecedented in its harshness as he is unprecedented in the scale, variety and public diffusion of his attacks to Catholic orthodoxy.

Yes, I am a proud Reactionary.

And I think this papacy must be nuked.

M

Posted on February 15, 2015, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink. 10 Comments.

  1. Another good direct-to-the-point commentary…thank you.

  2. 3littleshepherds

    So long ago, in 1986, Archbishop Lefebvre asked “Where are the Machabees?”. He begged the Cardinals to stand up and to defend the honour of the Church against the Assisi scandal. The Cardinals wimped out. Cardinal Oddi said he saw them put buddah on the altar and incense it and he said he was scandalized but that he did not protest!
    Catholics have for too long been Vorislike. We need to get rid of this ridiculous sentimentality towards the Pope. It’s a sentimental respect that enables the Pope to continue to ruin the Church.

  3. Mr. M, there seems to be a bit of line drawing here. Voris draws the line on loyalty to the Pope (as opposed to the concept of the Papacy). You draw the line, quite understandably, on sedevacantism. But if Bishop Athanasius Schneider is right, and we in fact ARE in the 4th great crisis of the Church (and I’m thinking that you and I both think that he is), isn’t all this a lot of “angels dancing on the head of a pin”? Frankly, I’m in no mood any more to debate or discredit potential allies is the fight to retake the Church from the forces that occupy it, in the end Arians all, whatever name they may call themselves. If the sedevacantists are struggling for an explanation for the “takeover” of the past 100-150 years or so (yes, I think it’s been that long) that allows them in their own minds to reconcile Vatican I to the “situation on the ground,” then so be it. They’re not Arians; then they’re allies. Heck, there seems to be some good cannon law on the side of the argument that the last papal election was not validly conducted. I’m certainly not in a position to say we have enough facts to conclude one way or the other. So what if Voris thinks the SSPX goes too far in refusing “full communion” with this Pope on the terms offered during the last pontificate while attempting to exercise full clerical function. Okay. I don’t agree with Voris, but he’s not an Arian. In fact, Voris never goes so far as to say that the SSPX refusal to accept the Benedictine terms was actually, doctrinally, wrong. I’m guessing that, if pressed, Voris would agree with Verrecchio that no “non-Arian” would sign a document, under oath, that all of the tortured formulations of Nostra Aetate or Lumen Gentuim are consistent with Holy Tradition. This is WAR, here. Total war. Do you think the other side gives one hoot about distancing themselves from trannies, homofascists, communists, socialists, abortionists, freemasons, etc.? Hardly BLEEPIN’ likely. “If they seek God in good will….” So, no. No one who loves the Authentic Magesterium as articulated by Bl. Pius IX, Leo XIII or St. Pius X gets thrown under the bus. Get on board. We need all the hands we can get. The Arians are far more numerous, and the prince of the world and all his minions are fully supporting them.

    • The post is far too long, but for this time I let it pass. I am assuming here you are not a Sedevacantist.

      No, the matter is very important, and Voris understands why. Sedevacantist are denying the existence of a visible Church as we know it, the SSPX and us don’t. Whilst the Sedes are on the “right” side of the debate, they do have the wrong solution. The SSPX is on the right side, and has the right solution. Voris, OTOH, has a line drawing that is in blatant contradiction with logic.

      Voris accuses them of being in Schism, not heretics. Let us not create another straw man here.

      As to the Arians, Voris fails to say why Athanasius was not a schismatic, and the SSPX is. You fail in that, too. The problem is not whether Voris is Arian.

      The admission that you say Voris would make has not been made. If it were made, it would completely exculpate the SSPX. You are making for him a reasoning he does not make. He says they are in Schism.

      The Sedes are, objectively, on the right side of the V II controversy. But they are dangerous for the salvation of souls. I have some understanding for their suffering, but I do not think they should have any space here. The Trendies don;t get any space, either.

      M

  4. Isn’t it probable that most of the hysteria surrounding the proclamations of modern popes is due to the instant “reporting” by the media, and subsequent “analysis” by the blogosphere? That is, the earlier popes would also have been cause for alarm. Also, how does the SSPX and Vatican II issues, differ from the Old Catholics who saw Vatican I as too “modernizing?”

    I’m a lifelong dedicated Catholic who is pained by this infighting which has exploded in the internet age.

  5. Dear M,

    Every now and then, I think of this scene from the movie The Outlaw Jose Wales, and believe this is the attitude we traditionalists must have in this age: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yid-CW-O9Qw

    Keep up the good fight!

  6. I was not speaking of historical pronouncements and documents. I’m talking of spoken words, reported and often over analyzed, that were given in a variety of situations.

    • I am also talking of spoken words.
      Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII lived in the age of the radio. Nothing prevented them from having a daily homily at the radio.
      I am sure every word of them would have been perfectly orthodox however long analyzed. But it is not even that.
      Mindful of the papacy more than their own popularity, these Pope did not give any occasion for any abuse of whatever words they spoke.
      Their intervention were few, carefully prepared, and always 100% orthodox.

      Quite the opposite of what happens with Francis, who knows he lives in an even more globalised era and can’t avoid opening that ignorant mouth of it every time he well pleases.

      M

%d bloggers like this: