Monthly Archives: August 2015
I have already written a blog post about the Novus Ordo and us. As the work has already been made, I suggest that you follow the link and read there, if you are interested.
Today, I would like to expand (not a little) on one or two aspects of the matter. Please note I do not want to be polemical towards anyone, and respect the views of sincere Catholics in defence of Tradition. At the same time, I think I must speak on the matter.
If you think that the Novus Ordo is offensive to God, and therefore a well-instructed and devote Catholic has no obligation to attend such a Mass and actually should avoid it, I cannot avoid the following conclusions from the reasoning:
- That the Church that Christ founded failed to, was unable to, or refused to give the faithful a Mass to which a well-instructed Catholic should attend in pretty much 99.99% of the cases between the end of the Sixties, and the Indult.
- That the Church that Christ founded was, after the Indult and slowly more so since Summorum Pontificum, able to provide a very small percentage of Masses to which a well-instructed Catholic should attend. All the rest was and is good for the Catholic Helots at best, and only because they can’t see the evil in it.
We can, in both cases, add the SSPX masses to the percentage, because like many others I am unable to consider the SSPX in any way, shape or form less than 100% Catholic. Still, the conclusion remains the same: if you follow this reasoning, the Church has been unable to function as Church for those well-instructed Catholics, who have therefore been free from the obligation to attend to Mass – and consequently deprived of the Sacrament every time they would have received – in something similar to 100% of the cases for more than a decade, and something not very far away from that afterwards.
This is, if you ask me, a very dangerous reasoning. It says that the Church has failed in being the Church, on a global scale; that she was unable to work as such. If we follow this train of thought she has, during the last five decades or so, allowed the uneducated masses (a difficult concept, this: in the first times after the Council the masses were rather well educated; the decadence set up only in the following decades) to fulfill a mass obligation in a way that is offensive to God.
This dangerous reasoning must perforce lead us to create, as it were, two churches: the Church of all times, which produced Masses the faithful had to attend to; and this strange “other ” church, “the church of Paul VI”, which is so radically different from the other church that she can’t even manage to celebrate a Mass to which alert, properly instructed Catholics should attend. A church so bad that… the first precept of the Church does not apply to her.
We are, here, clearly sliding toward Sedevacantism, then this “poisoned church” – poisoned to the point of not being factually able to produce anything but a poisonous Mass – can and, at this point, probably should be questioned in her legitimacy as the Church of Christ, from the Pope down.
I allow myself to propose a different reading; a reading that has, in my eyes, the immense advantage of making my thinking coincide with the reality I see around me, that is: with the Catholic Masses celebrated – most of them, reverently – by the Church; in addition, this other reading coincides with the fact that this Church must, if she is to be considered the Church, still be able to produce Masses and Sacraments for the faithful which a good, well-informed Catholic should take part to; a Church, in other words, still able to bind us to her precepts instead of making of them a mockery for everyone who is smart and educated enough in catholic things to see how bad she is.
A Church dissolved in thin air – not in her existence as Church, but in her ability to work as such – for the work of one Pope does not really look like the Church to me. It seems as if this kind of church were if not defectible, at least extremely collapsible, able to almost disappear from the face of the earth as the provider of Masses for the real Catholics, and all this in a handful of years. It would become, at such lightning speed, the provider of Masses which: a) are perfectly valid, and 2) result in a true Consecration, but at which 3) I, a well-instructed Catholic, should not take part, deciding for myself that I am too well-instructed for the Sunday mass obligation to apply to me.
This seems utterly illogical to me. It seems to me that if a Mass were a grave offence to God, God would not – as it is the case in the case of grave offence – grace this Mass with a valid Consecration. But if the valid Consecration is there, it seems to me that the Mass – sub-optimal and second-class as it is – is good enough for Him. And if it is good enough for Him it is good enough for your humble correspondent, too.
A merciful God allows – following the image used in the other post – that wine be substituted for Coca-Cola, and still does not take distance from us. I for myself will then stay near to Him. But it’s coca-cola, not poison. It’s a valid Mass with a valid consecration. It’s still – theologically and sacramentally – the real thing, badly executed.
In saying so I do not think that I am being truly ignorant, much less deliberately evil. I give an answer to a terrible dilemma that seems to me the one most aligned with what the reality I see around me (that there are worldwide valid masses, and a worldwide mass obligation), and with what it seems to me very natural, and very Catholic, that the Church would want me, the poor layman, to do: obey and suffer. May the priest think differently – and I myself will even praise him for it – I cannot find any reason to say that I have the same choice, because if I do so I declare that the church has, to 99%, ceased to exist as we all know and see her.
I remember reading the words of Padre Pio, to the effect that the Church must be loved even when She kills us (as someone always asks I prevent the question, and answer that I think it was here; but no guarantee). It seems to me that the Sacrament should be adored, and the Body of Christ partaken in, and our duties complied with, even when this happens in a very sub-optimal, second-class manner. It seems to me that I will know when I die why Christ allowed that His own Church should fail to offer to Him the most reverent of Masses, but that at the same time it is not for me to refuse which Mass He, in His Providence, should decree that I, a wretched sinner, must suffer in expiation of my manifold sins. It seems to me that I have deserved this Mass, because in my wretched sinfulness I myself have put – through my Original Sin, of course – Christ on that very Cross, and if I am given the enormous privilege of receiving Him it is not for me – provided, of course, the consecration took place – to say that not only I will not approach the altar (I have no obligation to do so more than once a year, and might have many reasons not to do so anyway), but I will stay away from the Mass altogether. A Mass, mind, that I know valid, and resulting in the miracle of the Consecration every time, and to which I know I do have an obligation to attend.
I allow myself to say it once again: I do not see the NO as offensive to God, but I do not think that I am being ignorant. I do not think that I am being evil. I think that I am applying common sense, and I claim for myself the right to do what every generation of Catholics before me did: fulfill my obligation by going to a valid Mass, where I can at least witness – if I do not want to partake in it – the greatest miracle on earth, every time, and a gift that Christ still gives to us, still gives to us!
And no, it is not about my spiritual gifts. It is not about how how I feel. It is not about me in any way. It is about what I am told to do.
I want to die doing what the Church tells me to do whenever this is not in contrast with what the Church always told us to do. Mass obligation is a precept of the Church. The Mass is valid. The Consecration takes place. Case closed.
But what about love? Should there not be an overarching principle at work here?
The reasoning seems strange to me. Christ comes to me in the form of the Blessed Sacrament and I should, out of love, refuse to even witness this greatest of miracles of love? Which of God’s gifts should I ever refuse out of … love for Him? What does God say to the well-instructed Catholic: “Here is my body, please stay away from it?”
I allow myself to offer another example of love. Think of the old woman who came home from the new Mass at the end of the Sixties and cried tears of sorrow, but still went to Mass. She knew how to show her love.
We suffer and we obey. We give our suffering to the Lord. If we think the Mass is so horrible that Christ does not come in the form of a valid consecration, we avoid that Mass. If He is there, we want Him to find us! Crying if needs be, but there!
We find the most reverent mass we can. If we are lucky, we might have a TLM (Yes, SSPX too! What a blessing!). But if not, we think of the old woman above, and we love Christ exactly as she did.
I have the greatest respect – again, refer to the linked post – for those priests who consider it impossible for them to celebrate such a Mass as the Novus Ordo. But the reasoning cannot apply to the laity, because it would lead 99% of them to contravene to the obligation to attend Mass, and would lead to the absurd conclusion of a Church individually declared incapable to properly work as such, as described above.
I do not think this is a rational position. Rather, I consider this position a very dangerous one.
Very noble, and very interesting blog post from Tantumblogo at the Blog for Dallas Area Catholics. The blog post is a suffering, but rather cold-headed analysis of everything that has gone wrong with CMTV in the last… present Pontificate. I think the time spent reading the post will be time well spent.
I want to attract your attention on a rather interesting revelation made by Tantumblogo. The emphases are mine.
The amazing thing is, privately, CMTV staff are totally willing to bash the living crap out of Pope Francis! In fact I’ve heard some of the key players at CMTV say things regarding Pope Francis (privately) that go much beyond anything I or many others have written. But because they’ve gotten totally twisted off on this notion of “never criticize the pope publicly, no matter what,” and the complimentary notion that any criticism of the Pope will cause huge numbers of souls to “fly” to the SSPX, they refuse to broach this belief in public.
I had to smile at reading the paragraph. So, CMTV staff are willing to bash the living crap out of Pope Francis, uh? Of course they do! It confirms to me what I have always thought: that with all their mistakes – I do not think here principally of the SSPX, but of the insults to John Vennari, Christopher Ferrara, Michael Matt and Louie Verrecchio; insults for which, as far as I know, there has never been an apology – these “key players at CMTV” do love the Church. And if you love the Church, you will bash & Co, & Co.
But then again I reflect on this: that those who do so most certainly do so because they see in Francis a danger for the salvation of souls, and a wound in the body of the Church. No other motive – and certainly not personal antipathy – would justify such a behaviour.
But then one wonders how this behaviour can be deeply felt, and the consequences of it not drawn. If Francis is a danger for the salvation of souls – and it must be, for them to bash etc. – why would they not publicly warn about this danger? And if this danger is seen and nothing is done in public, those who bash privately should ask themselves what it is with being accessory to another’s sins through, erm, well, silence, and whether they are working for the right organisation.
It is hard to wake up in the morning and hope the radio will announce that the pope has died. But every day that the radio does not make the announcement Francis contributes to more souls being lost. Therefore, I repeat my invitation to the readers to pray for the end of this scourge: through conversion if can be, and through resignation or a painless death otherwise. This is – perhaps bar the resignation, which is a newer fashion – what pious Catholics before us have done. We should take an example from them, stop making of human life our god, and start realising that a Pope unrelentingly working against Christ deserves to have the living, if metaphorical, shit bashed out of him every day his disgraceful pontificate goes on.
Sandro Magister has the figures, and Father Z has the text.
In occasione della centesima udienza generale [On the occasion of the 100th general audience] del pontificato di papa Francesco, mercoledì 26 agosto, la prefettura della casa pontificia ha comunicato che a questi cento appuntamenti hanno preso parte in totale 3.147.600 persone, così distribuite anno dopo anno:
– 1.548.500 i presenti alle 30 udienze del 2013,
– 1.199.000 i presenti alle 43 udienze del 2014,
– 400.100 i presenti alle 27 udienze del 2015.
Questo significa che anno dopo anno la media dei presenti a ciascuna udienza è stata la seguente: [the average at each audience]
– 51.617 persone nel 2013,
– 27.883 persone nel 2014,
– 14.818 persone nel 2015.
Quindi ogni nuovo anno con la metà di presenze dell’anno precedente. [Each year, half the number of the year before.]
Nè le vacche magre sembrano scongiurate, visto che alla centesima udienza di mercoledì scorso è stato comunicato che sono accorsi solo “in più di diecimila”. [at the 100th there were “more than 10K”]
O my. Francis’ popularity is going down faster than the Ukrainian economy. It’s more than a crisis, it’s an outright meltdown.
The sad thing is that I do not think the rejection comes out of a newly found orthodoxy. More likely, it’s just that Generation Dalai Lama loves being excited and praised by new people every now and then.
Francis always telling them how good they are in their fornication, abortion, sodomy, and assorted sinfulness has tired them already. They are now looking for the next exciting guy who amuses them making things he is not supposed to do. I suggest that the Queen starts dancing the Macarena with Prince Philip. That would keep Generation Stupid occupied for an entire week.
Father Z has some other, very dry observations:
The square is emptier and emptier.
And it’s not because of the general secularization.
Romans aren’t going either, so it isn’t the economic slump.
No, it isn’t the economic slump. And it’s not the cold or the rain. It’s even summer, for crying out loud.
It’s that if you make of yourself the Miley Cyrus of the Catholic world, at some point your fans will abandon you for the next twerking slut.
The shocking tale of the genocidal madness of the likes of Planned Parenthood and StemExpress keeps presenting us with ever new sides of the unbelievably cruel, heathenish world we are living in.
In a new, not very funny phone call we are informed some of the Nazi scientists are having “meltdowns”, and “freaking out”, at being confronted in a too clear manner that they are dissecting babies in best Nazi Scientist Trafition. However, in that retarded English typical of so many adults Americans nowadays we are told that many of those scientist are not disinclined at all to be Nazi Scientists in principle, provided they are not confronted with the reality of their being Nazi Scientists in actual fact. “Please bone the baby for me” – they say to StemExpress like you would say to your butcher – “I am a tad impressionable in these matters, you know…”. Then, the Mad Order of Things is re-established, and Nazi Scientist can go home without unpleasant images of real limbs of real babies in his mind.
I do not have adjectives for this anymore. It seems to me a Nazi Scientist was far more honest than these people, in that he had the honesty of knowing what he was doing and did not foolishly try to hide it from himself. Nor can the excuse be made that Modern Nazi Scientist thinks what he does is necessary to create a better world, then this is a common traits of most genocidal criminals from Hitler to Stalin, and from Pol Pot to Obama.
No. The Nazis are among us. They reach levels of cruelty and lack of humanity that normal, humane people cannot even imagine.
But they do so in a very sensitive manner, and – in contrast to their Nazi teachers – prefer to have their baby boned.
The blog “the tenth crusade” has an article whose content I do not feel I should entirely approve – the part about the SSPX I most certainly do not approve -, but which, besides its undoubted intrinsic merits, contains a wonderful digression as follows:
This is really the crux of the problem with Pope Francis, isn't it?
His conduct is that of the typical pastor who wants to bring in the heretics to teach our family, and when we point out the spiritual malpractice, he's written a book of insults to give witness to our children that we are antiquated sourpusses who can't enjoy a little clapping fornication. He has shipwrecked thirty years of catechesis in the family and parishes trying to help us navigate through the clapping fornication they are drilling into children at schools and the culture. On top of the bozo the clown act, he is surrounding our children with the clapping fornication show and culture of death and applauding it on the sidelines.
An absolute shipwreck that will take a generation to recover — some of our own children will be swept away and he's fixed it so there is little we are able to do.
Truly beautiful digression. It shows another devout Catholic for whom it is natural, speaking of orthodoxy and heresy, to say that Francis is heretical, insulting to Catholics he hates, very clearly approving of the culture of death and, in a word, pretty much Bozo the Clown. The entire digression flows so naturally, the comparison with the heretical priest is so vivid, the clown comparison so obvious, the knowledge of the reader of the Pope's heresy so naturally understood, that no one is aware of any logical jump of any sort. If you talk of heretics within the Church, Francis obviously comes to mind.
The pope is compared to Bozo the Clown. You know the comparison is very fitting. If thousands of blogs like this had written thousands of comparisons like this one, I cannot imagine that we would be where we are now, politely awaiting to see what kind of havoc Francis will wreak in October.
But I suppose politeness, and not be seen as aggressive, must come first, and truth second. If Francis truly goes nuclear in October there will still be time for more polite disagreement.
If you hate Catholicism, but can't say it out loud, you will find one thousand and one ways to send the message that Catholicism is a wise choice at best, and oppressive machine at worst. You will, most importantly, always convey the impression that there is nothing particularly right in Catholicism, much less that everything that is not Catholic is wrong.
You can accept a crucifix with a hammer and sickle, mock those who count their rosaries, or simply explain to the half-asleep that Catholicism is this or the other, which is exactly the contrary of what your Grandma always thought it was.
Suddenly everyone is good in his own way, and we must admire all of them because the Pope, in his vast mercy, either promotes or does not criticise them. Other religions, heresies, no religion at all. If one follows his conscience, who is he to judge?
We now know of another way.
The Council in Rome decides to dedicate a square to Martin Luther.
Jimmy Carter is, as most of you know, pretty much about to meet his Maker. Or not, as the case may be.
I will, here, charitably shut up about his disastrous Presidency, the like of which we could witness again only if some U.S. Born Bergoglio became President of the Unites States. I will focus instead on Mr Carter utterly and completely satanical “view” of Christianity, and on the probable consequences for him if we were to die as stupidly as he has always lived.
Christianity has one clear mark, that was its distinctive trait from the start: it never allowed anyone to cook his own homemade Christian soup. You are told what Christianity teaches, and you have no excuses for believing something different from it. If you do, you can't hide behind your finger stating that you are oh so pious, and in such good faith. You aren't, and you aren't. All the rest is poppycock. Therefore, if you state that Jesus would approve of so-called “gay marriage” you are an enemy of Christ whatever your disgusting show of pretend Christian piety; and you will not fool anyone, least of all Christ.
In the case of our own US Jimmy Dismal, the following applies:
1. There is no doubt whatever Christianity was brought to the man.
2. He defies Christianity openly.
3. He does so, inter alia, in a matter concerning natural law.
4. He dares to proclaim his scandal publicly.
5. He dares to call his scandal ” Christian”.
Please do not even start to say that the poor man has been badly advised, or has forgotten, or had a sad childhood, or has eaten too many peanuts, or is too stupid to understand anything. Jimmy Carter is undoubtedly an idiot, but not of the retarded type. Rather, he is an idiot like Francis is an idiot: so much a prisoner of his arrogance that he thinks he can challenge God and get away with it. He is a fool, not a demented person.
Plus (and that would be number 3) sodomy is, like all perverted acts, against natural law. Even a heathen would not have any justification for stating that Our Lord would approve of so-called “gay marriage”. But when one makes such statement who perfectly well knows why Sodomy is called that way I see satanical arrogance at work.
Jimmy Carter is about to meet His maker as an openly satanical caricature of Christianity, blaspheming the name of the Lord in ways that no generation before this one would have tolerated since the West became Christian. What to do, then?
We should pray for his eternal soul, of course; because idiot as he is, his soul has infinite value in the eyes of the Lord. But we should also very drily reflect what is very probably going to happen to the man if he dies unrepentant; because whilst we can never know with ultimate certainty, a Christian isn't supposed to be so incurably stupid as to think that a tool like Jimmy Carter is not looking for damnation with the outmost zeal. Those who do so ignore the very stern warning of our Lord about keeping His commandments exactly as Carter ignores the stern warning God gave to us when Sodom was destroyed.
I invite you once again to overcome your natural and perfectly justified sense of aversion, disgust and sheer contempt for the man, and to pray for his immortal soul; then we are Christians, and we pray even for the enemies of Christ, that they may die in friendship with Him. But don't be surprised if you also shiver at the idea of how the man, and very many like him, have been deceived by Satan to this point of sheer blind arrogance, of hypocritical total revolt.
Make no mistake: no one can call himself a friend of Christ who spits on his face as Carter does, all the while claiming to be on his side.
Pray for him, then.
This, my dear readers, is one of the rare occasion when I link to a (quality) Sedevacantist site. I do not need to repeat here (but I do it anyway) that Sedevacantism is wrong, you might endanger your soul if you follow it, and I will continue to delete any comment even vaguely smelling of Sedevacantism, because in this blog we prefer to deal with reality – however unpleasant – rather than fabricating a reality of our own for our own reassurance.
Capito? Very well..
The article merits the very rare honour of a mention on this blog because of its very extensive, and very catholic explanation of what a Catholic is supposed to do or not do in time of heresy or emergency, or when the enemy tries to strike at the foundation of Truth.
I leave you to read for yourself the parts concerning:
- the “uncharitable” words of Our Lords. Words which, if written today in a catholic blog, would attract all kind of accusations of being uncharitable, inflammatory, and utterly counterproductive.
- the distinction between right criticism and contumely, a concept utterly lost in the Patheos-like blogosphere.
- further proof of “uncharitable” words from the Old testament.
- The necessary requirement that the accusations be truthful.
After you have perused the first parts, I will attract your attention on the last one: the retaliation ad hominem in the face of enemy attack.
Here, I leave the word to the author, Father Felix Sarda Y Salvani. I liked the emphases, and kept them.
CHAPTER 21 Personal Polemics and Liberalism
“It is all well enough to make war on abstract doctrines” some may say, “but in combating error, be it ever so evident, is it so proper to make an attack upon the persons of those who uphold it?” We reply that very often it is, and not only proper, but at times even indispensable and meritorious before God and men.
The accusation of indulging in personalities is not spared to Catholic apologists, and when Liberals and those tainted with Liberalism have hurled it at our heads, they imagine that we are overwhelmed by the charge. But they deceive themselves. We are not so easily thrust into the background. We have reason–and substantial reason–on our side. In order to combat and discredit false ideas, we must inspire contempt and horror in the hearts of the multitude for those who seek to seduce and debauch them. A disease is inseparable from the persons of the diseased.
The cholera threatening a country comes in the persons of the infected. If we wish to exclude it, we must exclude them. Now ideas do not in any case go about in the abstract; they neither spread nor propagate of themselves. Left to themselves–if it be possible to imagine them apart from those who conceive them–they would never produce all the evil from which society suffers. It is only in the concrete that they are effective, when they are the personal product of those who conceive them. They are like the arrows and the balls which would hurt no one if they were not shot from the bow or the gun. It is the archer and the gunner to whom we should give our first attention; save for them, the fire would not be murderous. Any other method of warfare might be Liberal, if you please, but it would not be common sense.
The authors and propagators of heretical doctrines are soldiers with poisoned weapons in their bands. Their arms are the book, the journal, the lecture, their personal influence. Is it sufficient to dodge their blows? Not at all; the first thing necessary is to demolish the combatant himself. When he is hors de combat [“out of the fight”], he can do no more mischief.
It is therefore perfectly proper not only to discredit any book, journal or discourse of the enemy, but it is also proper, in certain cases, even to discredit his person; for in warfare, beyond question, the principal element is the person engaged, as the gunner is the principal factor in an artillery fight and not the cannon, the powder, and the bomb. It is thus lawful, in certain cases, to expose the infamy of a Liberal opponent, to bring his habits into contempt and to drag his name in the mire. Yes, this is permissible, permissible in prose, in verse, in caricature, in a serious vein or in badinage, by every means and method within reach. The only restriction is not to employ a lie in the service of justice. This never. Under no pretext may we sully the truth, even to the dotting of an “i'” As a French writer says: “Truth is the only charity allowed in history,” and, we may add, in the defense of religion and society.
The Fathers of the Church support this thesis. The very titles of their works clearly show that, in their contests with heresy, their first blows were at the heresiarchs. The works of St. Augustine almost always bear the name of the author of the heresy against which they are written: Contra Fortunatum Manichoeum, Adversus Adamanctum, Contra Felicem, Contra Secundinum, Quis fuerit Petiamus, De gestis Pelagii, Quis fuerit julianus, etc. Thus, the greater part of the polemics of this great Father and Doctor of the Church was personal, aggressive, biographical, as well as doctrinal–a hand-to-hand struggle with heretics, as well as with heresy. What we here say of St. Augustine we can say of the other Fathers.
Whence do the Liberals derive their power to impose upon us the new obligation of fighting error only in the abstract and of lavishing smiles and flattery upon them? We, the Ultramontanes, will fight our battles according to Christian tradition and defend the Faith as it has always been defended in the Church of God. When it strikes, let the sword of the Catholic polemist wound, and when it wounds, wound mortally. This is the only real and efficacious means of waging war.
A disease is inseparable from the person of the diseased. Francis is an Evil Clown because he is a heretic and enemy of the Church, and for no other reason. I don’t know the man. As far as I know he could have died in Buenos Aires without myself and countless bloggers even becoming more than vaguely aware of his existence. But I know the heretic. Now that is the problem.
Very often, says the author, it is indispensable and meritorious before God and men to attack those who uphold error. I suggest that one reflects ten thousand times before doing so with a Pope. But I also suggest that he reflects, with the same intellectual honesty and fear of the Lord, whether the heresy upheld by the very pope does not make the pope infinitely more worthy of personal attack and mockery than anyone else. Then at some point you will have to decide what is more important to you, Christ or Francis; and in front of such unprecedented attack I do not think Christ will look very mildly on you if you think you can sit on the fence and content yourself with “on the one hand” and “on the other hand”.
The situation of a pope constantly and publicly attacking the faith is unprecedented. Un.pre.ce.den.ted. Christ and His Truth are always the same. Choose this day to Whom your allegiance goes, and do not think being a pansy will bring you anywhere. Christ did not come bringing pansies. He came with a sword.
We must inspire contempt and horror in the heart of the multitude. The multitudes aren’t very impressed if you write that, with all due respect, you think that the words of the Holy Father have been, perhaps, and how shall you put it, a tad imprudent. This is going to go exactly nowhere, though it might make you feel better in the moment.
The reader must have the reality smashed in front of his face. Contempt and horror. That’s the way.
It is not enough to criticise the cannon. The gunner must go down. If you can look at the last two and a half year and not understand who the Chief Gunner is, I smell reprobation in you. Amazingly, an army of bloggers very well know who the Chief Gunner is. But they think they are fine with writing that the cannon is very bad, but the “holy” gunner is probably just badly advised, and they are sure he is the holiest of men.
Is it permissible, then, to aim at the gunner?
“Yes, this is permissible, permissible in prose, in verse, in caricature, in a serious vein or in badinage, by every means and method within reach”.
Amen. Read it again. And again. What shall we do: look at heresy advance and oppose our polite disagreement?
“When it strikes, let the sword of the Catholic polemist wound, and when it wounds, wound mortally. This is the only real and efficacious means of waging war”.
Look! A man! Not one of those polite pansies of the “I wish our dear pope Francis would talk less to the journalists” sort.
We are in the middle of a war against heresy, in which the Pope sides with the heretics and leads their army. The sooner you get this, the sooner the huge cognitive dissonance in your brain will dissolve and make place for a clear understanding of reality.
Reality is shouting at us in the face. It says that there obviously is a Pope, and that this Pope is a heretic (as happened in the past already). What is different today is that the Pope’s heresies travel around the word in hours, and they basically never stop coming in one form or another. Today’s papal heresy is more dangerous than any heresy of the past, with the possible exception of the Arian one. Today’s heresy is both far more pervasive and far more insisted than the ones of the past. It is also more dangerous, because whilst the man will never fool a properly instructed – or even serious and sincere – Catholic, he will create a cultural ripple effect that will spread very wide, and countless atheists or indifferent people will take it as a matter of simple truth that the church “changes” and wants to “steer a new course” on adultery, fornication, sodomy & Co, like any political party or protestant sect. This equates to neutering the message of the Church for everyone who does not know it already. It’s the perfect de-evangelisation tool. Satan at work all right.
Look at reality. Realise that you cannot shape your own world at your own liking. Face the reality of an Evil Clown as Pope.
And then take your sword and your rosary, and fight as bravely as you can.
You don’t want to die and say: “I wanted to be polite”. You want to die and say: “I saw the evil, and I called it with its name”.
Let the sword wound mortally.
Athanasius was excommunicated. He continued his job, uncaring. More than that – and something I seldom read about – he and St. Eusebius started appointing bishops of their own, again ignoring the Pope. The bishops they appointed – and I read about that seldom, too – were not bishop without territorial jurisdiction, like the SSPX one. They were bishops in charge of a diocese all right. Nor can it be said that in that world of difficult communications the Pope might not have had control of certain territories. Firstly, it is poppycock (communications in the Roman Empire were, like all the rest, stunningly efficient), secondly it is neither here nor there, because the fact remains that Athanasius and Eusebius clearly appointed those bishops without caring a bit of what the Pope thought about it. He could approve them if he wanted to. If he did not like them, though luck.
To make a modern comparison, it is as if the SSPX appointed the new archbishop of Chicago without either asking or caring for what Francis says, and the Catholic faithful of Chicago accepted this appointment as a matter of course, fully uncaring of Francis’ more or less sensible thought on the matter.
Let us, then, now pose the “Athanasius question”: did those Bishops have jurisdiction? Could they hear confession, administer the Last Rites, marry their sheep? And could the priests appointed by them do the same?
If yes, why? If not, why not?
It is very tricky, the Athanasius question. There is no doubt whatever Athanasius was a Lefebvre on steroids. There is also no doubt there was no precedent for the situation in which Athanasius found himself, whilst the SSPX has the shining example and illuminating precedent of… Athanasius. We know as a fact that Athanasius refused to obey to the point of incurring excommunication, did not recant after receiving it, appointed bishops of his own, and really did not care what Patheos would have said.
Therefore, if you follow modern mainstream V II conservatism Athanasius and his brave men had no jurisdiction, those sacraments were not valid, etc. If, however, we accept the principle that when those at the top behave like heretics the tough Catholics begin to play then we must apply the same reasoning to the 100%, 2k years-certified SSPX.
There is no doubt in my mind that the second applies. Every now and then, the Church loses her mind from the very top. It is then the task of a handful of very tough Catholics to simply keep doing what they have always done, safe in the certainty of their orthodoxy because… they do what Catholics have always done. There is no better guarantee of orthodoxy, and no better litmus test of Catholicism.
Athanasius did not know when sanity would come back. Nor did he ever care. He kept doing the Catholic thing and if the entire world derides him, so be it. Athanasius knew he might have to die in the middle of rampant, apparently triumphant heresy. He did not care for that, either.
Truth is truth. How many people refuse to follow the truth is ultimately irrelevant. If the Pope sabotages the truth, then he will be punished more harshly unless he repents, but sabotage it still is.
Truth is truth. It does not depend of from the rank of those who spread lies.
So: Athanasius disobeyed to the Pope. What say you? Athanasius appointed bishops, and bishops with territorial competence, fully ignoring the Pope. Schism? Athanasius decided to disobey and to die, if needs be, excommunicated for being (far) more Catholic than the Pope. What is the difference with Archbishop Lefebvre?
Why, why all those semi-conservative legalists apply all their clerical rigidity to Archbishop Lefebvre, and forget all of it when they speak of Athanasius? Was Athanasius schismatic in the moment, and Catholic only after victory? Or was he, as logic commands, 100% Catholic all the time?
The Athanasius question cannot be easily avoided. It stares at us straight in the face every time we compare Athanasius’ “disobedience” to Lefebvre’s. It has no other answer than this: no heresy can be acceptable because it’s promoted or protected or encouraged from the very Pope, and those who defend orthodoxy are right even when the pope excommunicates them.
In times of great turmoil, God sends us great men.
Thank God for Athanasius, and for Archbishop Lefebvre.