Author Archives: Mundabor
Most of my readers are certainly familiar with the concept of supplied jurisdiction, so I will waste time on this. I would like, however, to make some considerations for the “legalist” crowd.
So, you think the SSPX has no supplied jurisdiction, and any confession or marriage celebrated by them is not valid. Why would you, then, go to confession by them after the 8 December and for around one year afterwards? Why would you go to confession to people you consider abusing their priestly role by doing things they are explicitly not allowed to do, and even deceiving the sheep about the validity of their confession or their marriage?
Apart from very rare, rather extreme examples, in which I believe the SSPX priest has jurisdiction even for the Vatican (say: man about to die, no Novus Ordo priest around for the Last Rites) the answer can only be one: because they are so beautifully, authentically Catholic.
Which, truly, answers the question about the supplied jurisdiction once and for all. These are perfectly Catholic priests doing nothing else than perfect (ahem, almost perfect if you ask me) Catholic work. There can be no doubt on their being 100% orthodox. There can be no doubt on their obedience to ecclesiastical authority whenever this does not contravene to a higher loyalty, the one to God. There can be no doubt the metre with which the SSPX measures this higher loyalty is nothing else that Catholic tradition in its purest form, as opposed to the orgy of Neomodernism (or worse) en vogue in Rome.
How can you, therefore, say that these disobedient people are your example of Catholicism, which is, in the end, obedience to the Lord? Are they being obedient to the Lord? Then they most certainly have supplied jurisdiction. Are they not obedient to the Lord? Then you should not approach them during the Year of False Mercy.
Ecclesia Supplet. When a Catholic is not allowed by his bishop or his Pope to do the Catholic thing, he does it nevertheless, with many greetings to the Pope or bishop. Athanasius did it, Eusebius did it, and Marcel also did it. I am pretty sure many others simple priests found themselves in similar situations and did the right thing, particularly during the Arian troubles, because I can't imagine that there weren't many priests ready to say exactly this: Ecclesia supplet. If you are a truly Catholic priests, and your bishop tells you that you must recite a different Creed at Mass – because some of the pewsitters might be offended by the old one – you know exactly what directions you will give to him, and that's that.
The SSPX have supplied jurisdiction, or they haven't. If they have, you certainly don't need Francis to tell you what they can or cannot do. If they cannot they are at least disobedient and probably gravely sinful people, and then you should avoid them anyway.
Pope Francis has addressed the faithful in preparation of the upcoming Year Of False Mercy, instituted from him in order to sabotage Catholic doctrine in every way he can whilst looking oh so pious himself.
The address contains this and that, and is rather uneventful for most of its course. The only difference with Francis' usual allocutions is that one can actually understand what he is talking about; a sure sign, this, that the text has been written by someone else.
However, there is a big surprise in the end:
A final consideration concerns those faithful who for various reasons choose to attend churches officiated by priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X. This Jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one. From various quarters, several Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice, combined however with an uneasy situation from the pastoral standpoint. I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity. In the meantime, motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful, through my own disposition, I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins.
This is big news from a Pollyanna perspective, and as newspapers go. From December and for one year every devout, rosary-counting Catholic who has scruples in that sense will be able to go to confession to an SPPX chapel, safe in the knowledge that that master of Orthodoxy, Francis, might look on him with less hate than usual because of… mercy.
I do not trust this. I do not trust the time, I do not trust the motives, and most importantly I do not trust the person. I fear Francis even when he bears gifts, because a scheming and heretical pope cannot have in mind anything good for Catholicism.
I do not trust the time and the motives, because it seems to me that Francis is opening the war on the sacraments with a manoeuvre aimed at disorienting his enemy. He is “merciful” to the SSPX: how will the conservative Catholics, then, be angry at him when he is “merciful” to adulterers? I smell a huge German rat here, and whilst many German bishops will feign mock opposition or even mock indignation, I am pretty sure they all know where this is going to end, and will play the game for all they're worth. Adultery is well worth an SSPX confession, and they will now shout even louder that once Francis is “merciful” to the “schismatic” SSPX ( I know, I know… slander and false accusations never get old) how can he refuse “mercy” to the oh so acutely suffering concubines and perverts?
But most importantly, I do not trust the person. Not for one second will I think that Francis has suddenly become an orthodox Catholic. Please understand that Francis is not pursuing a less heretical agenda today than he was yesterday. He will not start today to like the rosary-counting Catholics he so much despises. The Evil Clown that went to bed yesterday evening is the same that woke up this morning. Of course he is throwing a bone to the conservative crowd before he serves the sacrilegious entree to his heretical followers, or at least tries to let them have as much of the dish as he can.
I can hear the Pollyannas already, all excited at how oh so comprehensively merciful this Pope is. They are being fooled.
You recognise the orthodox pope from his orthodox actions. This one isn't an orthodox Pope. Therefore, I do not trust his actions even when they would appear in the interest of orthodoxy.
“You are so mistrustful!”, the one or other will say.
“You are so thick!”, will my answer be.
I fear Francis, even when he comes bearing gifts.
The old commenters are generally very good in keeping their comments within the due boundaries. For the others and the new commenters, some words of advice.
I cancel all those comments which:
- are too long
- are not to the point of the blog post
- post links without explanation and presentation of the material posted, such that I cannot be absolutely sure the content is 100% orthodox even if I do not have time or desire to click the link.
- Smell even extremely vaguely of Sedevacantism.
- Are written by people who have disparaged me on other blogs and have the almighty gall to come here to see their comment published.
It’s past midnight now, and I have the impression some people post just in order to see their moniker in print. Some of you are wasting my time, and this blog isn’t written for time wasters.
Please make your comments short, concerning the topic at hand (left and right, and up and down, will be culled), and if you really have to post a link tell me why you do it, what is it all about, and vouch for its catholic orthodoxy with your continued presence on this blog.
Crap Magazine (no link!) has a Q & A “corner”, where the level of dirt reaches standards of dirtiness worrying even for them.
A reader “fights being judgmental”, but actually can't resist showing her supposed liberal superiority to the man who insists on receiving from the priest. She (or him, or it) asks what to do. She had not seen an abomination like this is 30 years (imagine the parish… or the liar…). She doesn't know what to do! To want to receive from the priest! Well, I never…
The answer, coming from a “Reverend”, is a mixture of contempt and patronising. The Rev symphatises with the reader, and assures him or her or it that his experience is more recent than thirty years. He tries to be a good Catholic, though, and shows tolerance to these poor deluded people, without trying to correct him. But then he observes how vaguely dangerous this people are, there was one who even knelt, and there's the risk of all the others tumbling over him!
These devout Catholics are a latent health hazard! But let's suffer them for the sake of inclusiveness. How good, how good we are!
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.