Author Archives: Mundabor
Three years ago yesterday, Pope Benedict stunned the world announcing his abdication.
I have written often that I do not believe in any conspiracy theory, and that this fabrication of abstruse hypotheses is always the ideal way for the very grumpy to create a bespoke reality for themselves. I am, also, fully persuaded that Benedict would not lie, and did what he did exactly for the reasons he said: the desire to have a strong Pope rather than a frail one in times in which a strong man – which he, alas, knew he wasn’t – was necessary.
The intention was, if you ask me, perfectly fine. The man had seen JP II in his last years, and I agree with him the Papacy does not deserve that. You can talk as much as you want about the sacredness of the papal office, but if the sacred office ends up exercised by other people who have not been elected Pope I have a problem with that, too. I still commend the courage, and approve of the intention. It is my personal forecast that as medicine advances and the number of Popes living, but unable to exercise their office properly, increases, so will the abdications. And let us remind ourselves that an abdication is not sinful at all, if done with the right intention, for the good of the Church.
However, it seems to me that Benedict was very naive, and was duped by his own people. His abdication can only have been the fruit of a gross misreading of the intentions and general quality of the cardinals he entrusted with the task of choosing his successor. I cannot imagine the man would have abdicated unless reasonably sure that his successor would have continued his work. And if his successor had continued his work, no one would spend great quantities of ink about his resignation now.
No, what I think has happened is something very simple: the man thinks he has the “right” conclave, and the conclave will pick a man he sees as ideal continuation of his work. Someone like Scola, say. He does not expect a man of almost eighty, and already defeated once, to be in any way papabile. He probably thinks a sufficient number of Cardinals think and feel like him, and will do what is natural to them.
Here we see a constant of Benedict XVI as well as of JP II. They were rather too innocent – in the wrong way – and easily duped by cunning schemers. Some of the most disastrous episcopal appointments of the modern Church are Benedict’s appointments or Benedict’s promotions. Clearly, as we now know, the same applied to Cardinals.
Benedict always seemed to me, to use the English expression, “too clever by half”. He thought he had achieved the right balance between senseless “liberalism” and a conservatism he felt could damage the Church. He thought he and his successors would slowly, but surely lead the Church on the right path, without great strife and controversy (let us remind ourselves: the years of Benedict were already seeing a clear rise in vocations). He thought himself smart enough for a dangerous balancing act, and a balancing act which – from the perspective of us Traditionalists – is sinful, because heavily compromising with Truth in the first place. Still, he thought he could pull this rabbit out of his hat, and resigned confidently believing his work would have been continued.
Otherwise, he would not have resigned, and I think it very offensive to the old man to state he would simply think “I have had enough now, just let me have a quiet retirement”.
Benedict was duped, big time. He failed to read both the evil intent and the incompetence of too many Cardinals. He thought he was maneuvering brilliantly, and he was leading the barque of Peter towards very dangerous rocks. He just did not see it coming. Again: too clever by half.
Benedict is now punished by a just Lord, and forced to see his work raped every single day. A fitting punishment, if you ask me, for believing that a balancing act can be achieved between the right and the wrong Church.
Sanity is achieved by expunging insanity. There can be no compromises. Try to walk this (evil) tightrope, and you may end up with Bergoglio.
Depending on how long the Evil Clown remains Pope, and barring the intervention of the Holy Ghost, Benedict’s massive misjudgment of the conclave he would leave behind may have consequences for many decades to come. Already a libtard like Tagle is advertised around as probable successor. God forbid such a disgrace is inflicted on the Church!
Benedict’s intentions were certainly good. Good, I mean, as far as a V II Pope’s intention can be good. But you see, V II is bad, and there can be no good way of going around doing bad things.
I wonder if he realises it now. But I am afraid he will die a V II Pope.
Pray for Benedict. The Pope who was duped.
Courtesy of reader Akita, I received a link to a short Remnant article based on the cartoon you see above. The title means “Padre Pio arrives in Rome”.
Very funny, and very true!
Enjoy, and try not to spill the coffee….
And it came to pass yours truly directed his unworthy person toward the local church at lunchtime, in order to attend the Ash Wednesday Mass.
A huge queue (up to the end of the block) had formed itself outside of the building. As I went in, I noticed another huge queue had formed the other side of the entrance.
The Church had not one, but three masses at lunchtime, plus morning and evening. Obviously all packed.
At the end of my mass, we were made to go out from the fire exit to facilitate the entrance of the “huge crowd waiting outside” for the next one (so the priest, verbatim).
If it had not been for the Mass (which was reverent, but strictly NO) I would have fancied myself in 1957.
Those attending – working in a busy business district – were exactly the kind of people Francis bashes all the time: the well employed, going about their busy lives, almost all in suit and tie. They had nothing of “periphery” in them, nor was any sheep stink to be detected. They are the one supposed to be tepid, bashing in their own securities, and all that Francis rubbish we all know.
The interesting thing is that I attended the same Ash Wednesday mass in the same church some years ago, and there was absolutely nothing of the sort. Absolutely.Nothing.Of.The.Sort.
Now, let us make a little analysis here: is this the Francis Effect?
Clearly not. If Francis had such an effect on the crowds p, they would flock to Rome in droves before, during and after any Holy Year you can or cannot imagine. But they don't, and they actually seem to carefully avoid the place (the smoke of Satan stinks a lot after all).
What might, then, be happening? If you ask me, and unless this is an isolated episode, what is happening might be simply Providence. More and more people, of the more educated – and therefore informed – class, receive an echo of the controversies surrounding Francis; and this gives them a warm feeling of persistence of good values, a consoling, cosy sensation of “good things that won't go away”; and in time, this teanlates – with God's grace – in curiosity, and then interest, and then trial, and then regular practice.
Your humble correspondent could not hide a triumphant feeling, a total exhilaration at being out in the cold, queueing, and reminded of the packed churches of his early, blessed childhood in a Country where the Only Church was the State Religion. One tear, or three, of the purest joy might have escaped his old and tired, far too emotional eyes.
Today I was so proud of being a Catholic. So proud, that for forty minutes I almost forgot the Evil Clown and his band of thieves. It was exhilarating.
Bad Popes may come and go. They can inflict much damage.
But boy: the Church is – without a shadow of a doubt, and in a very visible way – the toughest shop on Earth.
It is difficult not to be impress by the numbers, or pleased at what they mean.
It is not only that the Traditionalist plant is strong. It is, more tellingly, that these young seminarians know that they are choosing to be priests in a much different environment that it was thinkable only one decade ago. To them, persecution is more than a vague possibility. It is, if things continue to go on this way, a factual certainty.
And yet, God inspires them to give their lives to Him, uncaring of consequences, and very probably the more motivated because of them.
The good tree gives good fruits. What is Francis' tree producing besides a fluffy new world religion, environ-mentalism, socialist kindergarten talk and illegal Muslim immigration?
As the corrupted mainstream V II withers and dies, the remnant grows strong and ready to give battle.
In your charity, consider saying your rosary of today for these brave souls.
And so the remains of Padre Pio came to Rome, and attracted the kind of crowd Francis alone could only dream of. Rorate has the photo; which, as they say, is more worth than thousand words.
Still, I feel I should say a word or two anyway.
What is more Anti-Francis, more old-style Catholicism, more – ahem – rosary-counting than a mass of faithful gathering to see the mortal remains of a Saint? Isn't this exactly that kind of activity the progressivists a la Francis should slam as “ossified”?
How desperate is the man, if he must try to save himself from total loss of face with the help of the Catholicism he hates?
I have written a couple of days ago that a big affluence was likely, though it could have been that people stay home in order not to allow Francis to shine out of the reflex of Padre Pio's light. Possibly both things are happening at the same time, but there is no denying the energy that has been mobilised is exactly the one that Francis tries to quench all the time. The faithful seem not to care whether Francis can get some golden dust out of all this glory. They might well be right.
There is no way this success can be attributed to FrancisChurch.
Actually, it might well be a reaction to it. Veiled for now, but who knows how much more vocal in future.
Francis can't hide his failure behind the love for Padre Pio. Not even at Patheos would they believe such nonsense (what they tell you is a different matter altogether).
The Emperor has no clothes, no brains, no face, and no manners. The contrast between the bankruptcy of this Unholy Year and this eruption of traditional Catholic devotion is brutal.
Thank you, Padre Pio, for exposing the man so well.
And it came to pass the body of Padre Pio is going to be transported to Rome in a 500km travel also stopping at Pietrelcina, his birthplace.
Clearly, there is some hope among the people at the Vatican that the strong devotion of the Italian people for this greatest of modern Saints will revive the affluence of pilgrims, thus saving – as far as it goes – Francis' face.
Alas, I see a little problem with this.
Padre Pio was the very embodiment of everything Francis hates. Whenever Francis criticises the old, rigid, legalists, strictly “by the rule” Catholics, you know they all have Padre Pio as their champions, and Padre Pio would have been proud, not ashamed, of them. Padre Pio is the perfect anti-Francis.
I also note that Padre Pio was very known to – in Francis' words – “obsess” about homosexuality and communism. There is no doubt Padre Pio loathed the fake priest in the style of Bergoglio, and was horrified by Vatican II. He famously said he hoped to die before being put in front of the choice whether to celebrate the Novus Ordo or disobey (he was later exempted, like many other old priests). In short, Padre Pio is all that Francis hates, and Padre Pio would have loathed all that Francis is and does.
I do not know whether the pilgrims will run to see Padre Pio, though I think it probable. I can well imagine many will stay home in order to avoid their devotion for the holy man being abused by Francis as his own success. However, the love for Padre Pio is very strong in Italy, and San Giovanni Rotondo is still a fairly isolated place in the middle of the mountains in Southern Italy.
Be it as it may, this is not Francis having any traction.
This is Francis trying to shine out of Padre Pio's light.
And it came to pass the Evil Clown launched this beautiful initiative, the Year of False Mercy, with only months of notice. After that, he proceeded to complain that the city was not ready for the event – never mind the short notice – and much more would have to be done to prepare the city for the predictable onslaught of the Adoring Crowds.
The crowds never came. They are simply nowhere to be seen. The city now chooses to retract the emergency that should never have been and lifts the ban on snacks vendors’ vans in the strategic points of the Vatican on most days. Not exempted remain only those days in which the Commissario (Rome is under a Commissioner at the moment; long story…) is obliged – both for a problem of etiquette and to avoid the accusation of being rash if the unforeseen should happen on a couple of occasions – to believe that there might be some sort of crowd, at some point, after all.
It truly is funny. The man has made such a noise about the necessity of being ready. He has warned about the pilgrims flocking to see the Freak Wonder of Circus Bergoglio, the Heretical Pope Surrounded By Homos.
Alas, nowadays the real Catholics are asking St Michael to be protected from the man, and the fake Catholics have decided that there is no point in flying to Rome to hear the same fluff they can hear pretty much everywhere, from pretty much everyone, but with a loss less rambling.
Better go to Vegas, no?
The snack van owners can now rejoice (so to speak) for their ability to not sell their snacks to vast, totally absent crowds. The flop is more or less officially declared. Pope Francis looks like an idiot.
Eh, wait. I know why…
You never, ever hear such statements in European politics. To the vast majority of them God is an embarrassment, and those few who think the other way refrain from such open statements of allegiance. Ted Cruz does not refrain, and he seems not to care in the least that he will be soon be portrayed as the devil (a devil they don’t like; the real one they do like) by the libtard dominated media.
It is worth mentioning that the incipit of Cruz’ speech was edited in other mainstream US media, and I had to watch the proto-communist “Guardian” to find it unedited. I don’t buy the editorial necessity of cutting God away from the victory speech of a very Christian candidate. It goes to show how bad it is when you are afraid of having God mentioned.
This is a great start for Cruz, who went on to get a record victory in a state in which the polls had given him consistently trailing Trump. Here’s hoping that he will limit the damage in secular New Hampshire, and then go on to sweep the delegate-rich South in March and April.
I want to mention (though you might have forgotten altogether) that Jeb Bush still hasn’t retired from the race, and is now defending a solid 3% in the polls. Wasted money. Rick “Bruce Jenner is a woman” Santorum is not even on the radar screen, and at this point he might well even renounce to the announcement that he is suspending the campaign as no one would take notice anyway. Learn the lesson, Ricky boy: Christians want a leader who puts his mouth where his faith is. Start politicking and courting the other side, and you will discover there’s a price to pay. The freshest Republican candidate of 2012 is the biggest idiot of 2016, blinded by ambition the very moment he thought he had a real chance and doomed since.
On the Evil Side, things are happening I (and, I am sure, many others) did not consider possible just a month ago. As I write this we do not even know who has won on the side of the Libtards. A 74 years old, clearly socialist, entirely “protest” candidate is almost robbing Hillary of the victory. The man seems to be a catalyst for the adolescent rage of the stupid, the young, and the professional angry. An old man for the pimple-plagued; but also, it seems, another result of the refusal of the Democratic grassroots to have a candidate imposed on them from above, and who had his path cleared for her so that no electable alternative was available. It turns out the voters chose, in great numbers, the unelectable one. What a dream scenario (albeit a still unrealistic one) if the race were to be Cruz against Sanders, a bit a remake (though Reagan was an incumbent) of the Reagan vs Mondale massacre in 1984.
Talking about the past, let me say that I felt 35 years younger this morning. This reminds me of the winter and summer of 1980, when I was a teenager watching from the other side of the ocean a candidate that, for European standards, seemed just landed from Mars aggressively take on the defeatism, cowardice, and outright incompetence of a stupid libtard elite and go on to a glorious victory in November.
It seems that whenever the United States plunge into a spiral of stupidity, the good Lord helps them (we shall see whether directly in 2016) to get back on their feet and recover sanity after paying the price of their own reckless idiocy. Let’s hope this will be the story of 2016.
To God be the glory, indeed.
Rorate Caeli has interviewed Bishop Athanasius Schneider. The text is here.
What I will do is to report the text in its entirety, adding here and there my own comments. Rorate emphases have been kept, in black bold. My own emphases and observations in red. Some words of comment at the end.
POST-SYNOD CHURCH & UNBELIEVERS IN THE HIERARCHY
Rorate Caeli: In the recent Synod, we will not know the legal impact it will have on the Church for some time, as it’s up to Pope Francis to move next. Regardless of the eventual outcome, for all intent and purposes, is there already a schism in the Church? And, if so, what does it mean practically speaking? How will it manifest itself for typical Catholics in the pews?
H.E. Schneider: Schism means according to the definition of the Code of Canon Law, can. 751: The refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with those members of the Church who are submitted to the Supreme Pontiff. One has to distinguish the defect in belief or heresy from schism. The defect in belief or heresy is indeed a greater sin than schism, as Saint Thomas Aquinas said: “Unbelief is a sin committed against God Himself, according as He is Himself the First Truth, on which faith is founded; whereas schism is opposed to ecclesiastical unity, which is a lesser good than God Himself. Wherefore the sin of unbelief is generically more grievous than the sin of schism” (II-II, q. 39, a. 2 c).
The very crisis of the Church in our days consists in the ever growing phenomenon that those who don’t fully believe and profess the integrity of the Catholic faithfrequently occupy strategic positions in the life of the Church, such as professors of theology, educators in seminaries, religious superiors, parish priests and even bishops and cardinals.[Beautiful first salvo. You are left in no doubt the rot sits pretty high]. And these people with their defective faith profess themselves as being submitted to the Pope.
The height of confusion and absurdity manifests itself when such semi-heretical clerics accuse those who defend the purity and integrity of the Catholic faith as being against the Pope – as being according to their opinion in some way schismatics. For simple Catholics in the pews, such a situation of confusion is a real challenge of their faith, in the indestructibility of the Church. They have to keep strong the integrity of their faith according to the immutable Catholic truths, which were handed over by our fore-fathers, and which we find in in the Traditional catechisms and in the works of the Fathers and of the Doctors of the Church.
Rorate Caeli: Speaking of typical Catholics, what will the typical parish priest face now that he didn’t face before the Synod began? What pressures, such as the washing of women’s feet on Maundy Thursday after the example of Francis, will burden the parish priest even more than he is burdened today?
H.E. Schneider: A typical Catholic parish priest should know well the perennial sense of the Catholic faith, the perennial sense as well of the laws of the Catholic liturgy and, knowing this, he should have an interior sureness and firmness. He should always remember the Catholic principle of discernment: “Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus”, i.e. “What has been always, everywhere and from all” believed and practiced.
The categories “always, everywhere, all” are not to be understood in an arithmetical, but in a moral sense. A concrete criterion for discernment is this: “Does this change in a doctrinal affirmation, in a pastoral or in a liturgical practice constitute a rupture with the centuries-old, or even with the millennial past? And does this innovation really make the faith shine clearer and brighter? Does this liturgical innovation bring to us closer the sanctity of God, or manifest deeper and more beautiful the Divine mysteries? Does this disciplinary innovation really increase a greater zeal for the holiness of life?”
As concretely to the innovation of washing the feet of women during the Holy Mass of the Last Supper on Holy Thursday: This Holy Mass celebrates the commemoration of the institution of the sacraments of the Eucharist and the Priesthood.Therefore, the foot washing of women along with the men not only distracts from the main focus on Eucharist and on Priesthood, but generates confusion regarding the historical symbolism of the “twelve” and of the apostles being of male sex [read here: Francis generates confusion regarding both the Eucharist and the male priesthood]. The universal tradition of the Church never allowed the foot washing during the Holy Mass, but instead outside of Mass, in a special ceremony.
By the way: the public washing and usually also kissing of the feet of women on the part of a man, in our case, of a priest or a bishop, is considered by every person of common sense in all cultures as being improper and even indecent [read here: only a lewd Pope could behave as Francis does]. Thanks be to God no priest or bishop is obliged to wash publicly the feet of women on Holy Thursday, for there is no binding norm for it, and the foot washing itself is only facultative.
PRIESTLY FRATERNITY OF ST. PIUS X (SSPX)
Rorate Caeli: A non-typical situation in the church is the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Why does Your Excellency think that so many Catholics are afraid of the SSPX or anxious about any association with it? From what Your Excellency has seen, what gifts do you think the SSPX can bring to the mainstream Church?
H.E. Schneider: When someone or something is unimportant and weak, nobody has fear of it. Those who have fear of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X ultimately have fear of the perennial Catholic truths and of its demands in the moral and the liturgical domain.
When the SSPX tries to believe, to worship and to live morally the way our fore-fathers and the best-known Saints did during a millennial period, then one has to consider the life and the work of these Catholic priests and faithful of the SSPX as a gift for the Church in our days[yours truly says this a lot] – even as one of the several instruments which the Divine Providence uses to remedy the enormity of the current general crisis of the faith [ remember Francis’ claim in 2013 that “the Church never had it so good”, or the like?], of the morals and of the liturgy inside the Church.
In some sectors of the SSPX there are, however, as it is the case in every human society some eccentric personalities. They have a method and a mindset which lack justice and charity and consequently the true “sentire cum ecclesia,” and there is the danger of an ecclesial autocephaly and to be the last judicial instance in the Church. However, to my knowledge, the healthier part corresponds to the major part of the SSPX [ I have said this often] and I consider their General Superior, His Excellency Monsignor Bernard Fellay, as an exemplarily and true Catholic bishop. There is some hope for a canonical recognition of the SPPX.
THE SYNOD AND PAPALOTRY [PAPOLATRY?]
Rorate Caeli: Back on the Synod, while focusing on tradition, does Your Excellency believe that the changes in the Roman liturgy post-Vatican II contributed to the current crisis in the Church, the crisis of marriage, the family and societal morality in general??
H.E. Schneider: I wouldn’t affirm this in such a way [ alas, the Bishop does not take the bull by the horns]. Indeed the very source of the current crisis in the Church, the crisis of marriage, of the family and of the morality in general is not the liturgical reform, but the defects in faith, the doctrinal relativism, from which flows the moral and liturgical relativism [I disagree. Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi. The rape of the liturgy is what allowed the rise of secular thinking within and without the Church in the first place] For, if I believe in a defective manner, I will live a defective moral life and I will worship in a defective, indifferent manner. It is necessary first to restore the clearness and firmness of the doctrine of faith and of morals in all levels and, from there, start to improve the liturgy [or you can allow the liturgy to help you in your work of reestablishment of orthodoxy]. The integrity and the beauty of the faith demands the integrity and the beauty of one’s moral life and this demands the integrity and the beauty of the public worship.
Rorate Caeli: Still on the Synod, it is clear to those with eyes to see that Pope Francis caused confusion instead of clarity in the Synod process, and encouraged a turn toward rupture by elevating the role of Cardinals Kaspar and Danneels, Archbishop Cupich, etc. What is the proper attitude a Catholic should have towards the pope in these troubled times? Are Catholics obliged to make their views known and “resist” as Cardinal Burke said in an interview last year with us, even when their views are critical of the pope?
H.E. Schneider: [Nota bene! The Bishop does not spend a word to counter the premise: that Pope Francis caused confusion and promoted a rupture!] For several past generations until our days there reigns in the life of the Church a kind of “pope-centrism” or a kind of “papolatria” which is undoubtedly excessive compared with the moderate and supernatural vision of the person of the Pope and his due veneration in the past times. Such an excessive attitude towards the person of the Pope generates in the practice an excessive and wrong theological meaning regarding the dogma of the Papal infallibility.
If the Pope would tell the entire church to do something, which would directly damage an unchangeable Divine truth or a Divine commandment, every Catholic would have the right to correct him in a due respectful form [“evil clown” and “evil ass” are certainly acceptable for Francis], moved out of reverence and love for the sacred office, and person of the Pope. The Church is not the private property of the Pope. The Pope can’t say “I am the Church,”[ Rumour has it Francis went very near to saying just this when he got the conniptions about the “13 Cardinals letter”] as it did the French king Louis XIV, who said: “L’État c’est moi.” The Pope is only the Vicar, not the successor of Christ.
The concerns about the purity of the faith is ultimately a matter of all members of the Church, which is one, and a unique living body. In the ancient times before entrusting to someone the office of a priest and of a bishop, the faithful were asked if they can guarantee that the candidate had the right faith, and a high moral conduct. The old Pontificale Romanum says: “The captain of a ship and its passengers alike have reason to feel safe or else in danger on a voyage, therefore they ought to be of one mind in their common interests.” It was the Second Vatican Council, which very much encouraged the lay faithful to contribute to the authentic good of the Church, in strengthening the faith.
I think in a time in which a great part of the holders of the office of the Magisterium are negligent in their sacred duty [woah!], the Holy Spirit calls today, namely the faithful, to step into the breach [woah, again! Faithful catholics against a great part fot the holders of the office of the Magisterium!] and defend courageously with an authentic “sentire cum ecclesia” the Catholic faith.
TRADITION AND ITS ENEMIES FROM WITHIN
Rorate Caeli: Is the pope the measure of tradition, or is he measured by tradition? And should faithful Catholics pray for a traditional pope to arrive soon?
H.E. Schneider: The Pope is surely not the measure of tradition, but on the contrary.[death blow to all those Patheos-style blogs constantly inviting us to shut up, because the Pope has spoken]. We must always bear in mind the following dogmatic teaching of the First Vatican Council: The office of the successors of Peter does not consist in making known some new doctrine, but in guarding and faithfully expounding the deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles (cf. Constitutio dogmatica Pastor aeternus, cap. 4).
In fulfilling one of his most important tasks, the Pope has to strive so that “the whole flock of Christ might be kept away from the poisonous food of error” (First Vatican Council, ibd.). The following expression which was in use since the first centuries of the Church, is one of the most striking definitions of the Papal office, and has to be in some sense a second nature of every Pope: “Faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith” (First Vatican Council, ibd.).
We must always pray that God provides His Church with traditional-minded Popes.[which, obviously, could not be the case] However, we have to believe in these words: “It is not for you to have knowledge of the time and the order of events which the Father has kept in his control” (Acts 1: 7).
Rorate Caeli: We know there are many bishops and cardinals – possibly the majority – who want to change the Church’s doctrinal language and long-standing discipline, under the excuses of “development of doctrine” and “pastoral compassion.” What is wrong with their argument?
H.E. Schneider:[Again! The Bishop does not oppose with one word the sadly true, but enormous statement that “there are many bishops and cardinals – possibly the majority – who want to change the Church’s doctrinal language and long-standing discipline”]. Expressions like “development of doctrine” and “pastoral compassion” are in fact usually a pretext to change the teaching of Christ, and against its perennial sense and integrity, as the Apostles had transmitted it to the whole Church, and it was faithfully preserved through the Fathers of the Church, the dogmatic teachings of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Popes.
Ultimately, those clerics want another Church, and even another religion: [so: what is the reader to do with the countless invitations of the Evil Clown to ditch the “old rules” and be guided by “the spirit”?]. A naturalistic religion, which is adapted to the spirit of the time. Such clerics are really wolves in sheep’s clothing, often flirting with the world. Not courageous shepherds – but rather cowardly rabbits [though, mind, they do not breed like them…].
ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH
Rorate Caeli: We hear a lot about the role of women in the Church today – the so-called “feminine genius.” Women obviously have played a critical role in the Church since the beginning, starting with the Blessed Virgin Mary. But liturgically, Christ made His position crystal clear, as have pre-Conciliar popes. Does Your Excellency believe that female involvement in the liturgy, whether it’s women taking part in the Novus Ordo Mass or girl altar boys, has played a positive or negative role in the Church the last four decades?
H.E. Schneider: There is no doubt about the fact that the female involvement in the liturgical services at the altar (reading the lecture, serving at the altar, distributing Holy Communion) represents a radical rupture with the entire and universal tradition of the Church. Therefore, such a practice is against the Apostolic tradition. [OK. Such a practice would not have been possible without the new Mass, either].
Such a practice gave to the liturgy of the Holy Mass a clear Protestant shape and a characteristic of an informal prayer meeting or of a catechetical event. This practice is surely contrary to the intentions of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council [not really: they all went back to their dioceses and looked in silence as the demolition went on in earnest]. and there is not in the least an indication for it in the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy [very true, but the Bishops tought it best not to say anything about it].
THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS
Rorate Caeli: Your Excellency is well known for celebrating the traditional Latin Mass in many places around the world. What does Your Excellency find to be the deepest lessons learned from saying the Latin Mass, as a priest and as a bishop, that other priests and bishops may hope to gain by saying the traditional Mass themselves?
H.E. Schneider: The deepest lessons I learned from celebrating the traditional form of the Mass is this: I am only a poor instrument of a supernatural and utmost sacred action, whose principal celebrant is Christ, the Eternal High Priest. I feel that during the celebration of the Mass I lost in some sense my individual freedom, for the words and the gesture are prescribed even in their smallest details, and I am not able to dispose of them. [note here: the same libtard who gets all excited when he speaks of exactly the same traits in the highly ritualised, Buddhism-influenced Japanese Tea Ceremony is horrified that the Church should do the same, but with an infinitely worthier purpose] I feel most deeply in my heart that I am only a servant and a minister who yet with free will, with faith and love, fulfill not my will, but the will of Another.
The traditional and more than millennial-old rite of the Holy Mass, which not even the Council of Trent changed, because the Ordo Missae before and after that Council was almost identical, proclaims and powerfully evangelizes the Incarnation and the Epiphany of the ineffably saintly and immense God, who in the liturgy as “God with us,” as “Emmanuel,” becomes so little and so close to us. The traditional rite of the Mass is a highly artfully and, at the same time, a powerful proclamation of the Gospel, realizing the work of our salvation.
Rorate Caeli: If Pope Benedict is correct in saying that the Roman Rite currently (if strangely) exists in two forms rather than one, why has it not yet happened that all seminarians are required to study and learn the traditional Latin Mass, as part of their seminary training? How can a parish priest of the Roman Church not know both forms of the one rite of his Church? And how can so many Catholics still be denied the traditional Mass and sacraments if it is an equal form?
H.E. Schneider: According to the intention of Pope Benedict XVI, and the clear norms of the Instruction “Universae Ecclesiae,” all Catholic seminarians have to know the traditional form of the Mass and be able to celebrate it. The same document says that this form of Mass is a treasure for the entire Church – thus it is for all of the faithful.
Pope John Paul II made an urgent appeal to all bishops to accommodate generously the wish of the faithful regarding the celebration of the traditional form of the Mass [ but he still kept the TLM hostage of every evil bishop]. When clerics and bishops obstruct or restrict the celebration of the traditional Mass, they don’t obey what the Holy Spirit says to the Church, and they are acting in a very anti-pastoral way. They behave as the possessors of the treasure of the liturgy, which does not belong to them, for they are only administrators.
In denying the celebration of the traditional Mass or in obstructing and discriminating against it, they behave like an unfaithful and capricious administrator[hey: who are you to judge?] who – contrary to the instructions of the house-father – keeps the pantry under lock or like a wicked stepmother who gives the children a meager fare. Perhaps such clerics have fear of the great power of the truth irradiating from the celebration of the traditional Mass. One can compare the traditional Mass with a lion: Let him free, and he will defend himself.
RUSSIA NOT YET EXPLICITLY CONSECRATED
Rorate Caeli: There are many Russian Orthodox where Your Excellency lives. Has Alexander of Astana or anyone else in the Moscow Patriarchate asked Your Excellency about the recent Synod or about what is happening to the Church under Francis? Do they even care at this point?
H.E. Schneider: Those Orthodox Prelates, with whom I have contact, generally are not well informed about the internal current disputes in the Catholic Church, or at least they had never spoken with me about such issues. Even though they don’t recognize the jurisdictional primacy of the Pope, they nevertheless look on the Pope as the first hierarchical office in the Church, from a point of view of the order of protocol.
Rorate Caeli: We are just a year away from the 100th anniversary of Fatima. Russia was arguably not consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and certainly not converted. The Church, while ever spotless, is in complete disarray – maybe worse than during the Arian Heresy. Will things get even worse before they get better and how should truly faithful Catholics prepare for what is coming?
H.E. Schneider: We have to believe firmly: The Church is not ours, nor the Pope’s. The Church is Christ’s and He alone holds and leads her indefectibly even through the darkest periods of crisis, as our current situation indeed is.
This is a demonstration of the Divine character of the Church. The Church is essentially a mystery, a supernatural mystery, and we cannot approach her as we approach a political party or a pure human society. At the same time, the Church is human and on her human level she is nowadays enduring a sorrowful passion, participating in the Passion of Christ.
One can think that the Church in our days is being flagellated as our Lord, is being denuded as was Our Lord, on the tenth Cross station. The Church, our mother, is being bound in cords not only by the enemies of Christ but also by some of their collaborators in the rank of the clergy, even sometimes of the high clergy [powerful statement].
All good children of Mother Church as courageous soldiers we have to try to free this mother – with the spiritual weapons of defending and proclaiming the truth, promoting the traditional liturgy, Eucharistic adoration, the crusade of the Holy Rosary, the battle against the sin in one’s private life and striving for holiness.
We have to pray that the Pope may soon consecrate explicitly Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, then She will win, as the Church prayed since the old times: “Rejoice O Virgin Mary, for thou alone have destroyed all heresies in the whole world” (Gaude, Maria Virgo, cunctas haereses sola interemisti in universo mundo).
Summa Summarum, it seems to me that we can say this: the Bishop has given a wonderful witness of Catholic faith, and a clear message to confused Catholics. He has obviously gone so far as prudence would suggest him to go.
However, I miss two important elements that I would have very much liked to read: the mention of the “Syllabus of Errors” concerning V II, an original idea of this very Bishop, and a word of condemnation – polite perhaps, but clear – of light shows, communion given to protestants and blasphemous one wold religion videos. The Bishops seems to make the same mistake of most others: V II good, everythign that has happened from that very moment bad.
A bit like saying: Hiroshima Bomb good, devastation bad.
Still, it’s a good day when an interview like this is published.
We still have Catholic bishops. Let us pray they will have the prudence, and the courage, to fight the battles in front of them in the best of ways.
The photos you see here (if you know Rome you have an idea of the vastness of the Circo Massimo, and it appears many preferred to remain in the outer spaces to avoid being packed inside) should be a joy for every Catholic heart young and old.
This huge gathering took place without any sponsoring of or encouragement from the Vatican.
I will be frank here, and at the cost of appearing defeatist I must state that I have no realistic hope that Italy will avoid going down the slippery slope of institutionalised and, one day, encouraged, sexual perversion. But events like these show how deeply sanity is eradicated in very many Italian minds.
This was achieved with a de facto boycott from the Vatican. Imagine what would have been possible if there had been Catholics at the top of the Barque.
May those at the Vatican, whatever the colour of their cassock (for those who still wear one), pay the ultimate price for their complicity with evil if they die unrepentant.
It does not matter how many battles get lost on the day; one day, with the help of the Blessed Virgin, both the Church and my beloved Country will go back to sanity.
Alas, I doubt that I will see that day.
The news reaches us from Rorate Caeli that a) the apostolic exhortation following the Synod will be released within march, and b) the main contributor will be the not at all manly chap you see in the photo above.
Fernandez is known as liberal beyond the point of heresy, and his publications and interviews have already caused scandal in the past (I might have written about it, if I had the time). Of course, being one of those chaps who hate everything of Catholicism he is very thick with our very own Francis, and it is therefore no surprise the Evil Clown has given him the task to write the lurv-fest manifesto.
Now, the damage will be noticeable, but still contained if the apostolic exhortation will limit itself to the usual rhetoric about lurv. Much worse it will become if Francis will dare to insert in it statements in obvious contrast with Natural Law (and the reported link states it will, barring intervention from the CDF as this is an official Vatican document). Much, much worse will this become if Francis goes to the extreme point of introducing actual, concrete measure measures facilitating, the sacrilege of communion for adulterers or any form of benediction of perverts’ “couples”, or the like.
Three months ago I would have told you that, if the last scenario were to occur, all hell would break loose. This after Francis had been successfully stopped by an unseemly and not very brave, but undoubtedly effective “rubber wall” at the Synod.
Now, I begin to have my doubt that this would happen. Since the end of the Synod we have assisted to events (like the “world religion light fest”, the “world religion FrancisVideo” and the communion sacrilegiously given to Protestants in the Vatican to mention only three, and I am still neglecting the new rules about the washing of the feet at Maundy Thursday’s Mass) that have caused nothing like the minimum amount of clerical scandal and opposition that would have allowed me to sleep well. I know, none of this is magisterial in the proper sense, but when all you see is silence from our Bishops and Cardinals then you wonder whether these people are picking their battles, or picking their nose instead, as Francis continues with a relentless barrage of heresies and blasphemies.
I wish I could be more optimistic. I normally am. But the aftermath of both the light show and the video (not to speak of the sacrilege in the Vatican) have frankly scared me. Methinks, the decision of Francis to allow the Proddies to receive communion (as I write this I have news of one, yes, one bishop condemning this) might have been the result of his feeling emboldened by the lack of clerical flack after the previous events.
We will see what the future brings. We stay strong in the faith, then Francis isn’t the faith, merely an evil clown. We accept this Pontificate as God’s punishment for the immense presumption of wanting to remake the Church in the image of.. man ongoing since 1963. We resign ourselves to die in an age of confusion, but to die without any confusion at all in our hearts and minds. We keeping fighting the good fight; a fight which, as we all known, is already won, no matter what the appearances in this vale of tears.
The Catholic Truth is as shining now as it always was. Alas, now it is shining by contrast with heresy, but it is shining still. She is still there, unaltered and unalterable by any evil pope, or any of his less than manly minions.
Stay strong. Pray more. Do penance. Begin to recite the daily Rosary. Pray frequently to St Michael. Defend proper Catholicism whenever and wherever you can (smartly and prudently) do so. Keep battling.
Old asses die, and become glue. This particular old ass might well have a much worse destiny.