Daily Archives: March 31, 2016
The translation of the eponymous Flower is correct, and it is as follows:
So that faith can exist, it needs the evidence of the empty tomb.
It is necessary, like Peter and John, to lose one’s own artificial certainties:
then you will have the courage to enter into the void.
It is necessary that we find the courage to enter into the “grave of God,” which we built as the alleged possession of the truth.
The faith in the resurrection in and with Christ is the basis for the emptiness of ourselves.
This is somewhere between creepy and drunk. It is, also, vaguely menacing, and this is probably the right reading of the situation.
Peter and John did not have any artificial certainty. You can’t live in contact with Jesus and get out of this nothing more than “artificial certainties”. Their faith might not have been perfectly strong, but they did have true faith rather than an artificial one, and true certainties rather than alleged ones. One cannot avoid to think that the “artificial certainties” here is the belief that the Church does not change her Truths, and that exactly this is the message the poor members of the FFI, males and females, must take home from the Creepy Commissioner and his two Creepy Helpers.
Then there are the reference to the “void”, and the “emptiness”. This does not mean much, and sounds more than vaguely a-religious, as if it were atheism in code. Nor can you confuse this as the “emptiness” of which saints have spoken.
This is an emptiness that does not lead to God, but to a void. A void to enter which certainties now seen as “artificial” must be abandoned. It is as if an atheist would invite you to lose your faith and embrace the nothingness and absurdity of it all, because it is the brave thing to do.
Another reading is possible: “dear FFI friars and sisters, forget your old world and get ready for a brain washing. But please let me say this in a veiled and very confused way, because I am told one can make a wonderful career by just sounding stupid”.
I notice in the wording a kind of tribute to the nuChurch: the childish wannabe intellectualism, the desire to be innovative and forward thinking, the half-baked theology of nothing. If it sounds like the words of a drunken man, it is because it sounds like Francis.
It’s the way nuChurch speaks. They have no faith in them, and this is why they speak words without faith.
Creepy. Smelling of alcohol. Vaguely menacing. And, frankly, rather stupid.
A long, long rant from Mother Angelica, courtesy of reader Olga Abounader, has certainly deserved a place here.
You notice that what she says is undoubtedly Catholic (she also says “you have the right to etc.”. I assume she is peaking from the merely legal point of view). You also notice that she has lost her patience.
Mother Angelica speaks about liberal clergy (particularly nuns) and she is clearly sick of them. “Your religious orders are going down. You don’t have vocations. And you don’t even care. Your whole purpose is to destroy”.
Mother is really angry, and rightly so. She has every right to be angry. Her anger is a righteous one. Her anger is also – and openly so – politically incorrect, and openly non-inclusive. She laments – interestingly – that they (even good Catholics) have been “obedient to a destructive force”. She makes a statement, and does not care whether we like it or not. Beautiful.
Yes, I know, there is a whiff of V II here. But one could still rely on a JP II much more strongly than he can rely on a Francis, a man who has all the shortcomings, bar none, that Mother laments. To call JP II “wondrous” is certainly more than a tad overrated; but in those times, and with all his mistakes, the Pope was still Catholic.
“We have swallowed this now for thirty years”, says the saintly nun. One wonders. It is sad that she, like many others, did not see that the problem lies in V II itself, rather than in something running, in a way, parallel to it. Even saintly nuns make mistakes.
It is interesting that you can listen again to all the rebukes she addressed to the liberal church and notice that all of them, bar none, obviously apply to Francis.