Aggiornamento

I read an article days ago complaining that 50% of those baptised as Catholics stop attending as young adults. I am surprised it’s not more. Looking at my experience in the UK, I can give to my readers some clues as to why.

Firstly, it is a very childish experience. The lack of solemnity and the dumbing down of the liturgy has made of the Mass an exercise for children. When the children grow up, they don’t want to be identified with that stuff anymore.

Second, it is a very child-oriented experience. You see here the anxious desire to keep the children Catholic. But if being Catholic is tailored to please children, young adults will feel put off by it. It will be dismissed as not suited to one’s degree of knowledge and learning, like a nursery is for a third grader.

Thirdly, it never teaches Catholicism. The homilies are such watered down feel-good drivel, that the same homilies could have been – bar a couple of sentences, when you’re lucky – made in an Anglican church. But their Anglicans friends don’t attend, so why would they?

Fourthly, it promotes the Church of Nice. The applauses for the mothers, and for the children, and for everybody who breathes contribute to this idea that we are all so good, we wonder why we need going to church.

Fifthly, it is ecumenical. Other sects are spoken of in a climate of nice approbation, whilst the present nod in heartfelt assent of how good not only us, but everybody else is. If we are all good, one wonders, again, what use it is to go to church.

Sixthly, it is inter religious. Every Assisi rubbish meetings will be praised to the sky. People sit in the pew, and think to themselves the inconvenience is for nothing.

Seventh, a lot of those who attend are clearly not interested. They attend exclusively so that their children can attend the local Catholic school, but it is evident from their – and their Children’s – behaviour that they really don’t care. They are simply making an act of presence, because the school requires them to attend.

Eight, and probably worst of them all: they worship at the altar of the world. Niceness is equated with being a good man. The grown children realise that in order to attend at the church of nice they don’t need to go to church. Plus, they still get a (faint) whiff of Catholic principles and tenets which, to them, are not nice at all. Their worship of niceness is very established by now. The Church – and attendance in church – will be seen as a repressive organisation, according to the same rules of niceness they have heard in church for so many years. Having to choose between an uninspiring Church which does not even know what it wants, and some ideal that lets them feel superior and very good with themselves, many young people will choose the latter.

In short: the church of Vatican II is killing herself.

How do we remedy to this? Going back to tradition, in everything. Liturgy, doctrine, prayers, punishments. How do we make damage? Happy clapping, thinking we are so good we don’t need a Church, refusing to state what is specifically Catholic with non-Catholics.

There, I think I have given some useful hint as to why we haemorrhage faithful. They have their fault, for sure; but the young faithful smell the fraud much faster than their parents.

Old, Fat, Bitter, Godless, Wannabe Hippy Ass Complains About The Young

Old ass hee-haws a lot

“Indietrismo” is the new word some speech writer in the Vatican has coined to allow Francis to express his dislike for people who are, you know, Catholics.

It means “backward-ism”, and we understand that, in the eyes of Francis, is meant as an insult.

You see, not to put too fine a point on it, the old, lewd, fat, bitter guy is angry with the people who want to go back to Catholicism, back to proper liturgy, back to proper doctrine, back to precise and correct theology, back to actually practising the sacraments, back to proper prayer, back to doing penance, and back to all that other stuff that, actually – and to the chagrin of the old, lewd guy – makes a Catholic.

I find this backward-ism, in fact, really good. It seems I am not the only one, either. The SSPX has just consecrated a $42m church, which shows that the movement is in rude health.

It appears, in fact, that the people who want to go back to sanity are, in great part, young; whilst those who think that the Blessed Virgin might have felt betrayed at the foot of the cross are, in fact, old, fat, bitter, ignorant and very, very stupid like the Evil Clown itself. Hence, his complaining in the company of decrepit, dying Jesuits who think it’s 1969, and who have by now hopefully forgotten that they are atheists, heretics, homosexuals, or all of the above. No worries, though. They will be reminded soon enough.

Back is the new forward, whilst the decrepit heretics who think themselves progressives are those who want to bring us back to pre-Christian times, when people worshipped trees and totems and animals just as the Francistroops worship the climate, the forest, and retarded girls from Sweden.

The guy is losing, and he knows it. He is losing and it makes him angry. He has already understood that, when he is six feet under, he will be ridiculed just as much as he will be condemned. For a big, fat ego like the guy’s it’s a kick on the teeth even if he is an atheist. Hence, the bitterness.

We just had a coronation.

Let’s hope we’ll soon have a new one; and that, this time, the new king will be better than the old one.

True Leadership

If you had any doubt about who is the moral leader of the Church, this article should remove every doubt. The guiding light of the Church is the SSPX, guided by Father Pagliarani.

The linked article makes very clear what is the difference between particularism and love for the Church. I have no doubt whatsoever that the SSPX could, if they wanted, obtain from the Church a sort of “Indian reservation”. This would be very much in the interest of Francis, who could say that Tradition is not being persecuting whilst continuing to persecute it.

The SSPX priest are a very, very tiny percentage of the total of catholic priests. Therefore, allowing them to “do their thing” whilst shutting down everybody else would still allow Francis to reach a great part of his objectives.

Thankfully, Father Pagliarani does not think in this way. The Traditional Latin Mass is a patrimony of the Church and a right for every faithful and every priest. Father Pagliarani’s combative words are balm for the ears of every good-intentioned Catholic.

Also please note the absence of any vindictiveness in Father’s stance. He does not want any priest to be deprived of the possibility to celebrate the Traditional mass, not even those who consider the SSPX, for some mysterious reason, “in schism”. His fight is a fight for the Church as a whole, not his own “parish” or those who are on his side.

A true priest and a true leader.

Schismatics, my foot. We should thank God that we have the SSPX!

Obedience, properly intended.

So, so meek…

Predictably, the victory of the FSSP on Traditionis Custodes might lead some dovish individual to reflect that asking politely (FSSP) is better than disobeying (SSPX).

I wholeheartedly disagree, for many reasons I will explain here.

The manoeuvre of the FSSP likely worked because the SSPX exists in the first place. It is quite naive to think that, without the SSPX, there would be anything resembling Catholic liturgical tradition, anywhere. The FSSP’s “obedience” is merely surfing the wave of the SSPX’s “disobedience”. Quite ironic, for sure, that an order (the FSSP) would have to thank, for its survival, the order (SSPX) it was born to destroy.

We also don’t know what happened behind the scenes. It does not need a genius to realise that the FSSP was on its way to a lot of trouble: split in two at the very least, and perhaps siding with Christ altogether; again, because the very existence of the SSPX gave them a clout they would otherwise not have, and balls they would otherwise never grow. Francis wanted to make his capitulation appear like a concession, but there was no hint of concessions in the last months. I will be, therefore, forgiven to think that his hand was forced, not gently guided.

Whether this was from an unofficial promise of revolt inside the FSSP, or from somewhere else, we may never know; still, we know it happened, because Francis isn’t the kind of wolf who suddenly, one day, wakes up a lamb.

I love to think – and I have no evidence for this, but I love to think it anyway – that pressure from wealthy donors might also have played a role. When more and more Bishops start calling Rome and warning that the donors are promising to give their money to the SSPX (the SSPX, again! See where I am going here?) someone starts to listen. Why do I think this? Because I know for a fact that many Bishops care for money more than for Christ, and I believe in Providence. This one seems, to me, a fairly reasonable avenue for said Providence to get to work.

But more in general, I disagree with the rather childish idea that with good manners you can get anything you want. Tyrants, monsters, and evil people in general aren’t much impressed by it. Chamberlain wanted to be nice to Hitler – and be it only to hide his own cowardice and incompetence – and we all know how that went, and how nicely was Hitler, years later, gently moved to put a bullet in his brain; nor did anyone stop to ask Ceauceascu whether he would, kindly, consent to resign. A decade of “diplomacy” got absolutely nowhere with Saddam.

The most effective way to deal with a bully is, and always shall be, to crush him. When Justin Trudeau’s hour comes (hopefully in this life, certainly in the next), he might remember Ceausescu, and the one tyrant may keep company to the other in more ways than one.

The fact is, evil must be confronted to its face, and thinking that diplomacy will win the day denotes a profound ignorance of how the mind of evil people works. Francis, and his minions, are all evil. A sound kick in the balls is the only language they are guaranteed to understand. Plus, obedience is always to Christ first. If Francis stands in Christ’s way, let him feel the pain.

My conclusion from all this is evident: Francis got kicked in the balls, and changed his tack. Whether the kick came from the FSSP, or the bishops, or the donors, or somewhere else, we will never know. But it sure worked because, once again, an old lewd ass does not lose his spots, or something like that.

It is said that the old man might be gravely ill. It should not be said that I closed this blog post without wishing the man, in my charity and well-know Christian spirit, a sudden death today, and eternal salvation if God in His Goodness has mercy of the old, lewd scoundrel.

The Society Of Blessed Pius IX

It does not need a genius to understand that, following TC and the thuggish attitude of Francis and his Evil Minions (talking to you, Cardinal Roche) a number, perhaps dozen, perhaps hundreds of priests will ask the SSPX to be allowed in.

It is, of course, important that both the risk of infiltration and the risk of watering down are avoided. I remind you here that the FSSP was created exactly in order to suffocate the SSPX and make it die.

In my eyes, the solution to this is what I would call the Society Of Blessed Pius IX.

This Society should be 100% controlled by the SSPX, which would own all real estate, cash, investments, trademarks etc. and would have disciplinary power over the members of the SSPIX. This would take care of the issues above. Every sincere priest would find the change resembling paradise after dealing with his V II Bishop. imagine, homilies where you don’t have to carefully balance every word, and are allowed to say that people actually go to hell in huge numbers…

The SSPIX would start a big donations drive, which would, unavoidably, be wildly successful. This would lead to the establishment, in just a few years, of hundreds of new chapels to which the Vatican would have no TLM to oppose, because the old traditionalist orders have been castrated par ordre du mufti . These chapels would be a thorn in the side of the Francisthugs all over the West.

The priests of the SSPIX would be freed of all the rubbish they have to deal now. No parish committees and the likes. The priest celebrates mass, hears confession, administers the sacraments full time. Breviary scrupulously followed. Vespers and Co. The works.

The same chapels of the SSPX could be used whenever practical. Imagine many of these chapels offering 5,6,7 masses every Sunday, many with the confessional running, as in the good old times!

The Masses would be all full. People would come from far away. The news would spread like wildfire. Meanwhile, Father Oestrogen will mildly remind his 3, heavily tattooed sheep of how much better it is to smell like them, as their beloved Evil Clown says.

A separate structure would make it very easy to raise funds (because the assets are protected and the priests are already there), and to protect orthodoxy (because the membership in the SSPX is not diluted). It would allow a great increase, possibly a multiplication, of available TLMs in just a short time, and a vast increase in reach when the new structures are built. It would make it easier to slap (figuratively, of course; because we are so, so nice) Francis in the face every single day, as that unspeakable scoundrel so much deserves.

It seems a good idea to me.

I hope, and I think, that at some point something of the sort is going to happen; because when a SSPIX is established, I think they’ll have dozen of candidates in a matter of weeks, and several thousands in a decade or less.

A Letter To The Cardinal Vicar

The Vicariato di Roma has just announced that, during the 2022 Triduum, there will be no TL masses. Interestingly, this includes the Fraternity of Saint Peter, which goes to show what happens when you want to eat your cake and have it.

Why the Triduum? My take is that an awful lot of people go to Mass at Easter and Christmas that otherwise don’t, though at Christmas this year many once a year churchgoers will likely decide to pass. Come Easter, many of those once a year people might have decided to actually do the Latin thing. The result? Absolutely packed TL churches, whilst Father Sissy in the nearby NO Church preaches about inclusiveness and the greatness of Francis Of The Wheelchair. But perhaps I am wrong and there are other reasons.

Of course, of course this is only the start. The Triduum will come and go, and then more restrictions will be imposed, at least as long as Francis is breathing.

The question poses itself how to react to this. Frankly, if I lived in Rome my patience would be very hard at the breaking point here. I would be severely tempted to write to the Vicar and tell him that I will not attend a NO Mass, not ever, until the war against the TLM ends.

“Dear Evil Bishop, Your DisGrace, whatever,

Your edict moved me to approach, for the first time, an SSPX chapel. The very friendly, Catholic priest over there told me that the NO – which I had been attending up to then – is actually bad, and he suggested I only attend a Traditional Mass. I found his arguments for the TLM compelling and from now on will attend at an SSPX chapel or, as I live pretty far from their chapels, carry out the spiritual activities Father has recommended.

Your NO Mass, I will not touch anymore.

In fact, dear whatever, I am almost grateful for what you have done; because without it, I would never have discovered the beauty of the Catholic Tradition and the great zeal of the Society. I will pray for you, but let me tell you that your situation is pretty darn serious.

Best regards etc”

I am not sure this is the best course to follow (the attendance I mean, not the letter), but I sure wish His Whatever would receive many letters like this one from people who have actually decided that this is, in fact, the best course to follow.

One thing I know: after TC the rules of the game have changed, and we are called to protect the Mass of the Ages in ways not practiced before, because the attack of the Church on her own Mass is lacking precedents in exactly the same way.

Before ditching the TLM, we will ditch Cardinal Roche and the Vicar in the Tiber.

We won’t do either of course, but you get my drift.

Salami Tactics, Or: Killing Tradition One Slice At A Time.

Ecclesia Dei Orders on a plate

The Germans call it Salami Tactics. This is the idea that, if you want to reach a certain objective but are afraid of a strong backlash, you should go about it one little slice at a time. No single act will be, in itself, such that it unchains the big confrontation. But in the end, you will have sliced the entire salami anyway.

Famously, a guy who knew a thing or three about tyranny advocated exactly the same tactics – though he did not call it that way – in order to deprive people of that inconvenient thing, freedom. His name was Adolf Hitler.

The very same tactic is being used now to get rid of the Traditional Latin Mass.

The strong initial reaction to TC put us in a position of advantage. Still, only two months later, the first slices of salami are being cut. Look only at Paris and you will see exactly what I am talking about.

Will this tactic work? As always, it will if the other side allows it.

Make no mistake: polite disagreement will lead you exactly nowhere. Waiting for better times will only create worse times. Diplomacy does not work with people like Francis. If Francis dies without great opposition to TC, a Francis II will be far more probable than a Pius XIII or a Benedict XVII.

We need to understand that if we want to stop the nefarious effects of TC we need to go nuclear on every Bishop who moves to damage the TLM.

Please don’t give me the “if we do that we will give Francis the excuse to do even worse” routine. If you have not understood that Francis already wants to do worse I am very sorry to break it out to you, but I think that you are just plain dumb.

The salami of the TLM is being cut as we speak, one slice at a time. The strong, determined reactions seen in July are just not there anymore. We will, no doubt, read a lot of recommendations to “prudence”, we will hear that “this is not the right time”, that we need to keep a “cool head”.

Poppycock.

Those who tell you so are, wittingly or not, being the useful idiots of Francis and his rotten band of salami slicers. Francis does not need prudence, he needs to be booed in the street. His Bishops don’t need prudence, they need insults thrown at them.

How to react?

This is very simple, if you ask me.

Forget diplomacy. Diplomacy never works with bullies. Confrontation always does.

Write to your Bishop and tell him very frankly that abolition of even one mass in his diocese means you will see in him an enemy of Christ. No donations, no money left in your will, not one penny in the donation box, you will let the diocese rot until the diocese becomes Catholic again. And don’t be afraid of telling such a Bishop that he makes the work of Satan, too. He likely does not believe in God anyway, but it can’t do any damage. From now on, all money and all supports goes to the SSPX, so that Francis can have all the damn division he wants pushed down his demonic throat, and welcome.

Keep being “prudent” instead, and watch as your masses are being closed one at a time, without even a serious conflict, at the most with a whimper, or the concession of some more time.

Next in line, of course, are the former Ecclesia Dei orders. They will be sliced at Francis’ pleasure because, having been born with the original sin of being alive not because the TLM has to be, but because they were graciously allowed to celebrate it, they have the caving in, the humiliation, the defeat and, if it be Francis’ pleasure, their destruction written in their very DNA; and if you thought that any of these orders have balls even remotely comparable to the SSPX, you will soon discover how sorely mistaken you are.

It is not realistic to hope that, once tested, the Ecclesia Dei orders will pass the test. They exist exactly because they never did. Their pathetic whimpering and disgusting repeated quotation of V II documents in their appeal to the French Bishops to, pretty please, tolerate them a little longer is just a request to be cut away one slice at a time as they await the miracle of Pius XIII; a miracle, mark my words, that they have not deserved, as they exist exactly in order to weaken the true Catholics, those who understood that JP II salami knife was hard at work and acted accordingly.

Naturally, there is a microscopically small possibility that all this pathetic, effeminate V II quoting (even of Amoris Laetitia, which is truly the height of boot licking) is only part of a clever plan meant to make Francis look bad, and these orders will rebel once they are ordered to close their seminaries or the like. I, for myself, consider this no more than wishful thinking and, in fact, an exercise in self-delusion until I am (please, God!) proven wrong.

Please reflect on this: in all probability, the Ecclesia Dei orders will not be closed down straight. They will simply be killed one slice at a time, with the consternation but oh so pious approval of the apostles of the Obedience Against Christ that makes these institutional Catholics feel so prudent and fuzzy inside.

And just in case you still haven’t understood it: I did not listen to all 59 minutes of the famous Taylor Marshall video that is causing so much discussion. Still, I have dedicated to it enough time to get away the message that he thinks the document is, even if limited to France, representative of an attitude, that is: the reaction of wet kitten hoping to be smashed against the Modernist Tree a bit later than next month. I have read the letter and, if this is his thinking, I think he is exactly right.

My prediction is that their wish will be granted: they will be smashed against the Modernist Tree fairly slowly, one kitten at a time, without fanfare, and with some good cat food occasionally thrown to them before the execution, because Francis loves the oppressed.

Please, God, make me be so wrong on this as I have never been in my life. But whatever happens, please never let me become one of those who disobey to You as they boast of their obedience to an evil man like Francis.

Nasty Pope of Horrors

“Feed me!!”

The SSPX took its stance about Traditionis Carnifices and it is, as expected, a devastating blow to the Church of Francis. I suggest that you read the letter in its entirety, because it is very instructive and Pagliarani does have a very entertaining writing style.

One aspect I would like to stress in a particular way, is that Pagliarani states that we are now done with the “Hermeneutic of Continuity”. Well, only six days ago I have written exactly the same, so it’s not that I wasn’t pleased.

The “Hermeneutic of Continuity” is the attempt to present you a cake made with cream gone off as something that you should learn to appreciate in a very selective way; either because it is said that the baker was actually good and the cream was, originally, not gone off, or because the cream was always bad, but there was also a lot of marzipan, and nuts, and strawberries that were actually good.

The reasoning, as I have said many times, does not work. It is, in fact, a way to perpetuate the problem instead of working towards its solution.

First of all: the cream was already going off at the time the documents were written. As Archbishop Lefebvre and others pointed out, the vague formulations of several of the Conciliar documents were such that they allowed heterodox interpretations of Catholics truths concerning several aspects of Church life and Church doctrine (you can find a detailed explanation everywhere, so let us cut it short here). It is good to notice, here, that the good Archbishop wasn’t even a hardliner. In fact, he signed all the documents, whilst a number of bishops actually refused to do so.

Secondly, and most importantly, once it has become clear that the documents of the V II have been abused to try to fundamentally change the way the Church thinks and operate, it is clear that the cake must be thrown away in its entirety. To put in a different way, this cake now stinks so much that it is criminally stupid to try to save any part of it.

Nor does this mean that we, who take this position, do not recognise the validity of the Second Vatican Council. Of course we recognise it, we aren’t Sedevacantists! We don’t go around believing that some magic potion hypnotised the Conciliar (Step) Fathers to do something that they did not want to do. We do not say that the Council was illegal, or invalid. We say that it was bad, and spread the seeds of heresy, and these heresies have now grown to become a horrible, poisonous Argentinian plant.

You can make another comparison with the “little shop of horrors”. At the time of the council, the plant was still very little; Archbishop Lefebvre and others did not trust it, but it could still have grown to become a normal plant. Fast forward six decades, and the plant has become a monstrous organism, asking to be fed blood in every possible way, with Catholic life eroded in every aspect and even with schism now officially underway in Germany.

This plant must be killed and incinerated. There is no way we can now try to keep “what is good in it”. There is nothing good in it. It has to go.

Of course, the many parts of Catholic doctrine that the documents reiterate will stay. The fact is, they were already there. There is no need for the documents of a purely pastoral council to repeat them. Therefore, the documents of the Second Vatican Council and the entire, damned aggiornamento experiment can be thrown away without any damage for anyone.

Vatican II has grown to become an evil plant. It really has to go. All of it.

To Hell With The Hermeneutic Of Continuity!

One positive result of the evil clown’s brazen attack to the Mass of the Ages might be this one: that more and more people will now understand that the problem is, in the end, Vatican II itself.

John or Paul, John Paul or Benedict, in the end you end up with Francis. There is simply no way one can enter the slippery slope of Modernism and not end up with an atrociously deformed Church.

An awful lot of halfway attentive faithful will, after the motu proprio, finally realise that there is no scope whatsoever in trying to reconcile Modernism and Catholicism. Vatican II is the carrier of the extremely dangerous, mortal virus of heresy, and it must be completely expunged from the body of the Church if She is to become healthy again.

Francis has not come out, all of a sudden, from under a cabbage. He is the inescapable product of the heretical mentality that came before him and carried him to prelacy and papacy. This mentality, once it has started, will not stop until it is completely destroyed.

Vatican II must be eradicated in toto, and those who decry the motu proprio must finally understand that every pope, from 1958 on, was part of the problem. Yes, even their beloved Benedict, the man who was so good at pretending he cared.

The Hermeneutic of Continuity is now officially dead. Francis has amply demonstrated that there is no continuity between devil and holy water. When this mess has come to an end (very likely, not in our lifetime), the faithful who will support the restoration of the beauty and the dignity of the Church will understand that the cancer must be removed in its entirety.

From every evil, God makes a good.

Pray, and trust in God’s Providence.

Traditionis Carnifices: Don’t Become A Protestant

He just released a motu proprio

In days like this one, even I can understand (emotionally, I mean) the reaction of the people stating that, at this level of evil, this guy cannot be pope.

However, this is exactly that: an emotional reaction. It is like a boy of 6 saying to his father “you are not my father” after the latter deprived him of the bicycle pending better school notes. The fact is: the guy is the father, and Francis is the pope.

Why is the guy the father? Because the law says he is.

Why is Francis pope? Because the entire planet says he is, and there is not even one cardinal, and not even the guy who supposedly should be the real pope, who says that Francis is not pope.

This is the reality under the sun. It sucks. It sucks in what can now be safely described an unprecedented way. But it is what it is. We can’t deny reality because we don’t like it, like boys of six deprived of the bicycle.

Besides, I don’t see much consolation even in the abstruse theory that Francis would not be the pope, but the pope would be a very old guy who approves of everything Francis does.

In difficult times it is, I think, important to keep our feet planted on the ground. Better still, it is important to stay planted in reality, but take refuge in Christ in the middle of the storm.

I am not one of those (mostly converts) strange Catholics who make all Catholicism hinge on the character of a Pope, with the consequence that a bad pope cannot be such, or they would stop believing in the Church. I grew up in Italy, where the fact that there have been very evil popes is known to every well-educated person. That this one here is more evil is a difference in the degree, not in the substance, of the fact.

If you look at the papacy in the decades before and after the Synodus Horrenda, what you see is chaos and corruption. There must have been an awful lot going on. Even if the records are scarce, it appears that the Popes were, largely, the instruments or even the leaders of warring bands and family clans that were little better than criminal organisations. This went on, in various degrees, for centuries. We as Church Militant have been in the manure before; this time it merely stinks more.

So, is Francis evil? The answer to this is, I think, obvious to every properly informed Catholic who wants to look at reality for what it is. Yes, the guy is extremely evil. He is, clearly, a tool of Satan.

But… does this evil… unpope him? No, it doesn’t. Francis may, with his actions, certainly make himself worthy of being deposed. You can question the ways of his election until the cows come home. But it is not you or I who decide whether he is, because of this, pope or not.

Let us go back to Pope Formosus. Formosus has been, after decades of controversies, definitely been condemned by Sergius III, who issued the definitive condemnation of Formosus and the definitive rehabilitation of Stephanus VI, the pope who carried out the synod. Therefore, we have the official stance of the Church: Stephanus VI good, Formosus bad.

Formosus papacy was, by Stephanus, retroactively declared null. Why was this? Because we are not a protestant sect and, until a synod or other official organ declares the pontificate null, the pontificate remains valid.

It’s not for you and me to decide that this horrible man is not pope anymore. What we can hope and pray for, is that such a decision is made by those who have to power to make such a decision. I for myself would welcome a trial of Francis’ after his death. As far as I am concerned, feel free to exhume his corpse and put in on a wheelchair, and I would not mind a bit how gory the details become (In fact, I always thought that Stephanus was what we today call a master communicator; so much so, that his synod survive in the memory today, after so much of that age is covered in darkness. Before newspaper and radio, tv and internet, twitter and facebook, Stephanus knew how to make news travel fast, and hit hard. Quite remarkable, that people don’t get the brilliancy of his policy, and focus merely on the macabre details).

Still, as I write this, the situation is the following one: the evil clown is pope and the church sees him as such. Until that changes, this is the pope we get, exactly as the contemporaries of Formosus got him as pope between 891 and 896, withotu even dreaming of saying: “No” I, the village baker, officially declare that Formosus is not the pope”. I actually think that, no matter how bad the situation is, it is the height of arrogance, and it endangers one’s salvation, to make of oneself a micro pope-maker and decide who is, and is not, the pope.

I would be overjoyed to see Francis toppled in life, for example via an extraordinary council, or excommunicated and declared a heretic after his death.

I would certainly be satisfied with a sensible, but representative minority of Cardinals declaring him a heretic, deposed, and in schism.

I would even, in my obedience to proper Catholic doctrine, believe Francis not the pope if the organisation I trust most in matter of theological decision, the Society of Saint Pius X, were to issue such a formal declaration.

But neither I, nor you, nor bloggers, nor journalists can decide who is, and is not, pope.

Traditionis Carnifices: The Lowdown on A Low-Down Motu Proprio

This one here against Francis. Who will win, you think?

I am trying to gauge the consequences for the people having access to the TLM after the evil clown’s latest motu proprio.

I very much fear that the TLM that do not have a serious competition in (somewhat) nearby SSPX chapels will be closed down. Why? Because most bishops will simply not resist the pressure, will cave i to the Vatican and will close them down, quoting the need to be obedient to the evil pope.

How many are those? I don’t know. I have never seen a map with a comparison of locations of SSPX chapels and other TLM churches. It’s difficult to say how many faithful are left without a SSPX chapel at reasonable distance if (actually, when) those are closed.

However, I think this: that it is not naive at all to suppose that an awful lot of locations for traditionalist orders, (the likes of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter or other vetus ordo, but V II organisations) have been chosen exactly with regard to existing locations of SSPX chapels. Honestly, I doubt that much will happen with regard to these locations, even if these organisations aren’t anymore under Ecclesia Dei and can be targeted easily in future. It would be simply suicidal to shut them down and deliver the vast majority of their faithful to the SSPX.

The biggest issue, at least for now, appears the future (actually, the lack of future) of the diocesan TLMs. How many of those there are? I have no idea. Seen that they have been ostracised from the start, and that they seem to be very rare in my neck of the woods, I do not think that there are very many. However, it can be that in certain Countries there are more than in others, and certainly there will be losses in that respect.

The most interesting development until Francis dies (which I hope happens today, but I am not holding my breath) is, in my eyes, the future of the V II Traditionalist orders now orphans of Ecclesia Dei; particularly so, as Francis seems not to have any idea why they should exist in the first place or any justification for their existence. But again, these organisations exist to, more or less, ostracise the SSPX. If they die, the SSPX will thrive even more. If they live, not much will change for them. If I remember correctly, some traditionalist orders already celebrate both masses anyway, at least in some locations. I might be wrong, though.

Be angry at the evil clown, but in good cheer overall. In Italy we say that “the devil makes the pots, but not the lids”. This is a huge pot; but, like all pots that Francis makes, it has no lid.

In god’s appointed time, things will be adjusted.

Traditionis Carnifices

The motu proprio is out and, to add insult to injury, it’s called Traditionis Custodes. Make no mistakes, this is another way how Francis is mocking you. The title, however, means “Butchers of Tradition”, and I find it far more appropriate.

The attack on the TLM is massive.

No new masses to be added. No new personal parishes.

All existing masses to be re-examined, means most discontinued.

The Novus Ordo as the unique form of the Liturgy. This openly contradicts Benedict XVI’s obvious statement concerning the Mass. and, also obviously, the original statement of St Pius V. It is, if you ask me, the most diabolical part of the document.

One priest, versed in Latin, in every Diocese where the Latin Mass is celebrated. He will have as task to tell the faithful who insist in attending how bad they are, and how much they displease Francis, the Butcher of Tradition.

This is seriously, seriously evil.

If you were one of those who have still insisted in not seeing the evil of this man, and this does not open your big, blue eyes, I am frankly worried for you.

Obedience: Fr Altman and Padre Pio compared.

I read around that Padre Pio was an example of obedience when he was suspended from saying Mass in public. This would be, I am told, in sharp contrast with the behaviour of Fr Altman; who would be, in this perspective, just another man conquered by pride.

I think a couple of words are in order.

Padre Pio was not forbidden from celebrating mass in public because he was suspected of being Catholic. He was, at various time, suspected of being a charlatan and suspected of having molested a woman. His acceptance of the measures taken against him was the perfect reaction of the Saint in the making. In time, truth came to light and everything was fine.

However, we also know that Padre Pio also threatened to refuse to celebrate the New Mass, no matter the consequences. We will never know whether he would really have done it, of course, because he was – like thousands of old priests who shared Padre Pio’s feelings – exempted from celebrating the New Mass with the usual excuse that he would be too old a dog to learn Protestant tricks.

Still, you can see where I am going with this: Padre Pio was a lamb when what was insulted or slandered was him personally, as a friar and priest, but had a quite different attitude when the offended part was Christ. The easy critics of Father Altman should keep this firmly in mind.

Besides, the argument is self-defeating. Most serious Catholics know the episodes of disobedience of, say, Saint Athanasius, Saint Eusebius and Cardinal Lefebvre. Athanasius was, in fact, excommunicated for refusing to obey an order deeply offensive of Christ. I would, therefore, very much know what the apostles of blind obedience think of the sainted people above.

They will not score many points with those who take Catholicism seriously. Blind obedience whilst forgetting Christ generates monsters like Nazism.

Better not, I say.

Summorum Pontificum: Stupid Is Who Francis Does

It is Tuesday today and it looks like the biggest gift to the SSPX in decades is coming on Friday, with restrictions to – the already restricted – Summorum Pontificum meant to keep those pesky Catholics away from the proper Mass.

It is difficult to understand why the Evil Clown would do this now, in the ninth year of his disgraceful Pontificate. One hypothesis is that he is simply stupid and, with the addition of age to it, can be more easily manipulated to do the bidding of his homosexual sponsors. The other hypothesis is that Francis was patiently awaiting for Benedict to die; but as Benedict seems not intentioned to do him the favour anytime soon, Francis wants to act now , lest the old man buries him, too.

In both cases, it would be another step towards the self-dismantling of the Vatican II Church, now on Her way to become even more disfigured than she already was.

I have not had access to a Tridentine Mass for many years now; but if I had had access to a Summorum Pontificum Mass and I had been deprived of one now, I would start paying a lot of attention to what the SSPX says about the spiritual dangers of attending the New Mass.

If, then, I decided to attend the New Mass after I have been deprived of the Tridentine one, I would pay attention that my V II Diocese does not get one penny, not one, from me anymore, whilst continuing to use the V II Church for my sacramental life. The money I would, then, have given to the V II Diocese, I would donate entirely to the SSPX, and more than that.

If, then, anybody would question me about why I attend at church without contributing to it, I would answer that it is because I have been deprived of the Tridentine Mass. Asked, furthermore, whether I do not think that I have an obligation to contribute to the upkeep of the Church, I would answer that I do, and I actually do, merely choosing a truly Catholic institution for the task. Actually, I would be tempted to become the one to whom the basket, out of experience, is not even handed to, in the hope that someone, at some point, actually asks.

Everything that happens, everything, is providentially ordained to, in the end, increase God’s glory. Everything, even the little, petty vengeful acts of the Evil Clown we must currently endure as Pope. Every little or big evil acts turns against those who perpetrated the evil, like a Divine Boomerang ready to land of Francis’ sanctimonious, lewd old head.

A man, this one, who consorts with, and openly supports, clearly homosexual priests promoting their perverted agenda, but insists in not kneeling in front of the Blessed Sacrament; and a man who, being clearly on the side of the Devil, loathes the Tridentine Mass.

He does not know it but, whatever he does, he will end up unwittingly working for the glory of that God, and of that Church, he so much hates.

Pray that the evil may not happen; but pray, before all, that God’s will be done.

We have already won.

Good, Angry Hearts

It is difficult enough to see that a person with a clearly evil intent, and possibly a homosexual, is trying to damage the Church in all he can.

It is even worse to see a person who should be on our side, and – without the “possibly” – a former homosexual, attack the best that Catholicism has to offer in this fairly depressing climate, for reasons that are not easy to discern, but must have more than something to do with personal gripes, or old wounds.

Look, we all carry our wounds and we all can have, at times, personal difficulties with this or that person, with this or that organisation, that cloud our ability to interact with them in the proper way or appreciate to the full what they are doing for Catholicism.

However, I think that it is really the pits when personal insults exchanged on Twitter (a place I suggest to all my readers to avoid unless, perhaps, to follow news from organisations and people they like) are abused to colour the entire organisation with the smear of the loss of patience of one of his members.

For the record: I do tend not to insult people in a very harsh way (though, when it is deserved, I do not pull punches, either; if, say, a woman deserves to be called a very harsh expletive, we can disagree about the choice of words, but we will agree on the general message), but if Christine Niles is insulted by people who are really fed up with her and her sanctimonious wannabe crusade against the SSPX I for myself tend to side with the insulting party, not the insulted one; because for me, being the one who insulted first does not make the guy on the right side of the discussion wrong, but merely intemperate.

In the end, whoever engages in Twitter exchanges has to know that these exchanges can become extremely heated extremely fast, and they do not, as a whole, represent a person’s character as known to his friends, relatives and acquaintances. Really, Twitter gets out the worst of everybody at lightning speed.

How can it be that Niles and Voris don’t know this? How can it be that they don’t know that such exchanges – the medium being what it is and the discussion being what they are – will perforce happen?

Mind, the two of them are journalists, that is: professionals of communication. The (in most cases, I am sure) devout Catholics who engage with them generally aren’t. I understand the occasional slip from a non-professional more than the deliberated exploitation of it from the professional.

Therefore, to take some “SSPX loyalist” who loses his patience and is likely having a bad day and take it is an example of the SSPX values and aims is profoundly disingenuous and, in fact, dishonest. It is bad enough from the side of Niles, it is even worse from the side of Voris, who then uses a single episode to tarnish all the followers and supporters of the SSPX as “cult members” .

Utterly and completely unprofessional; and yes, Twitter will get the worst out of those two, too; but they are professionals, and should know better. Plus, Voris should really examine his past, and what baggage he may well still be carrying from it, before he crucifies other people’s much, much smaller, present faults.

It’s a mystery to me how Voris can think that writing that the “cult” is “a reason for Francis to blow up their idol of the Latin Mass” can win him serious Catholic souls as allies. I used to like the guy, but I now see in him a man who, probably for personal wounds of his own, has lost the plot and can’t see the forest out of the trees; the trees being, here, the SSPX supporters – even the angry or the emotional ones.

It is very easy to get emotional when people attack what you love – but the SSPX supporters still are, as every sensible person should be able to see, good people who love Christ and His Church.

——

Finally, a consideration about “racism”. I have been called racist names in my life. I can say, hands on heart, that whenever I knew that the offender did not intend to express any belief in my supposed racial inferiority, but was simply angry at me for his own (wrong) reasons, I never held the accusation of racism against him. I am, in fact – and by the grace of God – utterly unable to play the race card and use it against my opponent, whenever I know that the problem is simply not race.

I don’t think this is difficult to understand. But I think it requires some intellectual honesty, and the willingness to renounce to a weapon used all too often today.

Long live the SSPX, and his emotional supporters. Even their excesses and angry moments show me that they may be wrong in the moment, but are right in their hearts.

Good hearts get angry at times. May the Lord overlook their communication mistakes and reward their faithful zeal.

Meet The Newest Security Concern, The Cassock

I would not believe this if the source weren’t very authoritative: a Priest of the SSPX was refused entry to a French jail to visit one inmate.

One can only imagine the security guards there at the entrance, saying: “What is this? Could this man dressed in this strange garb trying to introduce knifes, rifles, perhaps even small nuclear bombs below it? Can we run such a security risk? Mais non!”

You will think that no-one is as stupid as that. Well, there’s always one, isn’t it?

Unless…

Unless…

Unless the refusal to the priest to allow him to enter the jail was motivated by hatred for the Catholic religion; which, I am pretty sure, makes for discrimination on the base of religion and, possibly, a hate crime.

The jail authorities have apologised, after a mature reflection of, apparently, five days. Someone must, during those 120 hours, have remembered those strange men in black, many years ago, when priests were still straight, wearing that thing that was.. yes, a cassock! Alternatively, some superior of the couple of cheese-eating, small-time Social Justice Warriors (there were two involved), must have realised that this was about to become quite a merde situation, and decided to defuse it at once.

This time, everything went, er, “well”; but this tells us both how ignorant of the religion the French might have become (Let us be frank here: if the junior jailer was, say, a fairly recent immigrant from Maghreb he might, well, just not have known what to think of the strange guy) and/or how deep anti-Christian resentment runs in the Country (one would think that at least one of the two guys would have known that, in fact, there are, somewhere, priests in cassocks).

This used to be a Catholic Country. It has now become the poster boy for failed integration and the troubles of multiculturalism, and is not unlikely to become the battle ground (in abstract, or in concrete) of the culture wars that await us.

For the moment, though, it looks like the cassock isn’t a security concern.

Phew!!

Live Masses on Streaming, Cowardly Bishops, And Platinum Wigs…

The Pittsburgh Diocese is going from 152 parishes to 106 in one go. It’s the usual story of slow death and decrepitude. No link, because evil publication.

My first reflection: what about starting to consolidate Dioceses instead? With all that they cost in personnel, PR, press office, and assorted people running around their corridors, perhaps this could be a good example?

Say: every Diocese which has lost 25% of the parishes it had 20 years ago will be merged with another one. The bishops in surplus will go back to being useful (one wonders if they ever were) and work as parish priests (one wonders if they ever did). If this plan were to be implemented, it’s not unlikely that the number of dioceses in the US would be cut in half, with great savings that could then be used for things like, say, restoring churches to their pre-VII splendor, start celebrating Tridentine Masses in them, and see how that goes.

The second reflection is that the Virus will, obviously, accelerate the trend of the live Mass on streaming. After the US Bishops have told their faithful that Mass is something they go to only if absolutely 100% safe, you can be assured that the slightest hint of the beginning of a cold will be used to decide that one does not have to attend; this, whilst the televised/streamed Tridentine masses of the Traditionalist orders keep increasing the number of viewers. No, the live streaming does not satisfy the Sunday Mass obligation. But hey, if I might have a cold? How can I condemn the 96 year old I am sure I will have sitting near me to an “early” grave? Has the Bishop not told us all that safety comes first?

Just sayin…’

The US Bishops, and not only them, have hoisted a petard under their own cathedra. They have told us that Mass is basically superfluous. If even the Mass is superfluous, how useless are they? And if the idea starts to spread that a very bad Mass does not have to be attended, how will the Bishops prevent the rapid increase of Tridentine Mass attendance via streaming? That is like the Internet: universally present, easily accessible, and basically unstoppable.

Prohibit your own Traditional Orders from streaming their Mass, and the SSPX will get this cake all for themselves! Voris will be so savage, he will eat his new platinum wig!!

We might be about to live interesting years…

 

Of Useless Shepherds And Their Flocks

Corona Clown in action

 

I do not want to link to the hideous website, but it appears the Evil Clown has, semel in anno, said something quite right: a good shepherd is distinguished by his flock.

Quite so, Father Castro, quite so!

This is why the shepherds of the V II nuChurch have been steadily losing ground in all Western Countries, whilst the small but dedicated orders of Traditionalists (all of them, but particularly the heroic troops of the SSPX) keep thriving.

It is part and parcel of human nature to, in time, detect the phonies. It was, therefore, unavoidable – if very sad – that millions of people realised that the priest talking to them in a slightly too high-pitched on the Sunday was not a man of God, and could not give them the nourishment they wanted. The amount of people who have – sadly – abandoned the Catholic Church, or at least Catholic liturgy, by keeping a solid, if vitiated, faith – think of Sarah Palin, or Mike Pence – is a testimony to that.

In fact, I wonder how many of these people have abandoned their attendance to Catholic Mass simply in order to keep a faith they were afraid of losing; something, mind my words, very wrong from a theological standpoint, but very real from the vantage point of a poorly catechised Catholic.

Pope Francis can’t even get the people to see him as a tourist attraction in St Peter. He has failed even as a curiosity object and popular “moving landmark”. That he dares to make such comparison shows that he likely does not even read beforehand the homilies others write for him, or he would have asked that the subject be changed. Unless he is really so dumb that he does not understand what an indictment of his work his very words are.

In the meantime, the SSPX keeps thriving (sorry, Mr Voris: you lose), Francis keeps blabbering, and the faithful keep suffering. But the truth of the matter is this: that the bad shepherd will only be allowed to scatter their sheep as long as the Lord allow them to. in the end, not one sheep will be lost that is supposed to go back to the fold.

Francis’ diabolical hate for the Church is infinitely sad, but ultimately useless.

 

SSPX Statement On The Campaign Against Them

I normally don’t like to intervene in inter-Catholic squabbling. My reflection on this is that the anticlerical element will use everything it can to smear Catholicism as a whole, claiming that we are a bunch of sectarian fanatics.

In the case of the (new) attack of Church Slandering against the SSPX, I have not intervened for the additional reason that doing so would make it look like the accusations of Church Slandering have some merit and deserve to be discussed; which they haven’t, and don’t.

However, once the SSPX issues a statement on the issue, I think it proper to call your attention on it. The statement can be found here. There is nothing to add.

As a last observation, I would like to inform my esteemed readers of a policy I have: whenever one slanders the Society, he is banned either immediately, or after a warning shot. For the future, I think I will dispense with the warning shot.

The use of the word “schism” in connection with the SSPX will also likely get one banned, then life is too short for people with little understanding and a big mouth.

 

SSPX Reacts To Pope Pachamama

The Society of St Pius X has issued a statement about the Synod on the Amazon. 

It is, no doubt, the strongest statement ever come from the SSPX concerning the troubled times we are living. They also state:

On Sunday, November 10th, 2019, each priest of the Society will celebrate a Mass of reparation, and in each chapel, the Litanies of the Saints, taken from the liturgy of the Rogations, will be sung or recited to ask God to protect His Church and to spare it from the punishments that such acts cannot fail to draw down upon it. We urge all priest friends, as well as all Catholics who love the Church, to do the same.

I invite all the faithful to participate to this initiative.

The statement of the SSPX is very apposite. Still, I allow myself to explain here what else I would have wanted from this statement, and what I hope future statements will contain.

1. An open accusation of Francis as an apostate or, at least, a heretic, and
2. The call for an imperfect Council declaring that he has deposed himself.

I do not think for a moment that behind the choice of not doing this may be the fear of losing whatever “privileges” Francis has accorded to them. No follower of the SSPX could ever care a dried fig whether Francis recognises the Sacraments imparted by the SSPX or not. In my eyes, the SSPX is fearful that, if they start with this Crusade, they will stump it, as every Bishop and Cardinal who dares to say half a word against Francis will be accused of being a “schismatic” like those pesky Traditionalist people. In short, it might colour the entire movement with the kind of tinge that the mainstream avoids.

Still, it seems to me that extreme times call for extreme measures. If no other Bishops and Cardinals call for the events mentioned above (Bishop Gracida, in a way, does; but he has fixated himself on the Conclave. This is a dead end of dubious chances, and impossible to push through without the real argument, which is Francis’ heresies and, at this point, open apostasy), then I think that it is for the SSPX to do it and put themselves, as people used to say, “at the head of the movement”.

I understand that this would not be something going on from inside the Hierarchy (whilst the SSPX has valid orders, they certainly are not a part of the Church command structure). Still, at this point I would prefer a call for an imperfect Council from the SSPX, even if not followed or attacked and discredited for the very reason that it comes from them, to no call at all. And if you think that Cardinal Burke and Brandmueller could wake up from their King Theoden-esque slumber – and actually do something more than some encouraging talk and some praise for people with far more courage than them – I have a bridge on sale that I would like to offer to you first, but you have to act fast.

We live in disgraceful times. In front of such an apocalyptic pope, I think that the following generations of Catholics, and the Saints and Angels above, will be pleased with every call to depose this satanical guy, no matter how little the chances of success.

It would be very sad if history would record this pontificate in the same way as the one of Honorius: open heresy, and no action.

In case of Honorius, the action came after his death. In case of Francis, I doubt even that. One reason more to shoot with every available weapon at this Pontificate, and the SSPX would certainly be a massive tank in itself.

 

  

 

 

 

Light In The Midst Of Darkness

This article on Rorate Caeli  tells a tale of redemption, if only of inanimate things. A church previously used for profane purposes (and, possibly, Protestant at some point) is now being restored to her natural purpose. 

As the picture above shows, the church looks stunning. So ornate, in fact, that it is difficult to believe it was, in the past, used by Protestants (note here that the altar and the pews might be entirely new, but the pulpit and the wall decorations are unlikely to be. I wonder if Calvinists or other Protestants had such practices. This might, in fact, have been a Catholic church at least at some point).   

What is the message of all this? 

In the midst of one of the most disgracefully godless, perverted Countries on earth, soundly Catholic communities not only survive but, literally, thrive. It truly seems an image of the Church as it might well become, at least i Europe, in the next decades: a desolation of dying Vatican II Francischurches, full of tattooed lay”persons” reading the Old Testament with the smuggest voice you can imagine, with here and there the sparse beacon of beautifully ornate churches where sound Catholic priests tend their flock.

We live in pretty dark times, but we will always be able to get consolation and solace from the examples of Catholic survival in the midst of the worst atheist desolation, even if we ourselves are not blessed with the proximity of one of these churches. 

Thank God for the Society of Saint Pius X. They are the true epicenter of sound Catholicism as the Vatican descends into an abyss of socialist drivel and utter stupidity. 

M

 

 

 

Shame On You, Cardinal Burke!

 

The, despite the various arguments surrounding the question, the fact of the matter is that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X is in schism since the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff.

If these are the friends of the Church, I almost prefer the enemies.

I had written just this morning about Cardinal Burke’s kitten-itis. It now seems that the V II-itis of the man is far more serious than expected.

Words like the ones mentioned above could be (not logically, but as a matter of fact) understood if coming from the likes of Father Jeanine Martin, Society of Fags. But coming from a man who should really know better, like the Cardinal, they are a real shame.

Truth can never be in schism. If Pope Francis were to attempt to proclaim a false dogma and a part of the clergy were to appoint his own (orthodox) bishops, would Cardinal Burke have the guts to say to them that they are in schism? Actually, I now think he would!

What a sad trajectory for a man that only two years ago was seen as a hope of future restoration of sanity. This guy is V II through and through, and he seems to get worse with the time.

Sad.

M

 

 

 

Filial Correction: SSPX On The Front Line

I have often considered Bishop Fellay more than a tad too diplomatic for my taste. There were some statements, before the (once again) expected reconciliation, that sounded frankly alarming. I have written about this with the usual openness. I have also written, on one occasion, that after the end (once again) of the talks it might have been worthwhile for the SSPX to think about a different future guide, one less prone to cause fears in the many SSPX supporters that a sellout in instalments might be taking place.

I am, therefore, very pleased to report Bishop Fellay's very undiplomatic initiative: the request to sign the Filial Correction upon knowing of its existence (that is: after the document had been delivered to Casa Sanctae Marthae).

We all know that the SSPX had already cast what is still the harshest rebuke of Pope Francis from a high-ranking prelate: “Modernist through and through”. However, this was years ago and before the at times eyebrow-raising interviews from Bishop Fellay. It is, therefore, beautiful to see the Bishop return to form and add his support to this great, historic document.

This might be the end of the beginning. This might be the beginning of the real beginning. What this most certainly is is a reaction that will live in the centuries and be a witness to future generations that whilst the almost entire clergy was silent or scared or meowing, the best of the laity and some courageous priests and bishops were men enough to call a heresy a heresy.

It's good to have the SSPX in the front line.

Those who don't like them would not have fought any battle anyway.

M

 

**The Correction Is Out** (No Thanks To Your Cardinals!)

 

Yet they say, The LORD shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it.

Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise?

He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?

He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?

Psalm 94: 7-10. 

 

Today is a good day. Nay, it is a historic one. 

A filial correction on the account of the propagation of heresies, dated 16th July, was (and I quote) “delivered to the Roman Pontiff Pope Francis at his Residence in Domus Sanctae Marthae, at the Vatican, on August 11th, 2017″. 

This is an important step in the recovery of sanity, as – after a scandalous silence, interspersed by some faint meowing, all this time – a number of reputed lay scholars, theologians and clergymen have formally accused the Pope of propagating heresy.  

Yes, you read well: Francis has just joined John XXII in the very exclusive club of Popes accused of spreading heresy by Catholic theologians.

First admission in almost 700 years. Congratulations, Your Unholiness.  

Bishop Fellay has signed. Bishop Gracida, the emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas has signed, too.  New signatures are being added. 

Reading the document, it is obvious that the signatories do not think they will manage to have Francis retract or be deposed (though you never know where things can get when people start to say what everyone thinks and sanity demands).

What they are clearly doing is what yours truly has been advocating from this space since the start of this mess: destroy the credibility of this papacy for both the current and the future generations and expose the Pope for what he is: a man willingly spreading heresy. 

The document accuses Francis of heresy in seven points. Not – important – because there are only seven heretical statements or issues in Fornicationis Laetitia; but because, concerning those seven points, Francis has demonstrably publicly spoken in a way that clearly supports the heretical reading of the document. 

This document is very important, because it is a first since 1333.   Incidentally, it will cure the one or other from their at this point utterly inexcusable notions about Papolatry. 

Where are the Cardinals? What will cardinal Burke do? Will he tell us that we are naughty for doubting the intentions of the Pope? Will he tell us and the other faithful Catholics that we are “dividing the Church”? 

This declaration will separate the wheat from the chaff. I am not saying that it can be demanded that every good priest signs it, but every bishop who does not sign it has lost every credibility in my eyes, starting from Bishop Schneider whose signature is now justifiably expected. 

The prominent Signatories are being collected here.  

Several of them are simple priests, now facing probable persecution. My admiration and prayers go to Father Hunwicke and the other courageous priests who have signed. Pray for them, that the Lord may give them strength and resolve when the reprisal comes.  

As to the Cardinals, the Correction exposes them once again as a bunch of cowardly kitten, starting from the oh so courageously meowing Burke and Brandmueller. 

On the day where a historical step was announced, not undertaken since 1333, the Dubia Cardinals who are still alive were exactly where they have been since April of last year: nowhere.

There will be a lot to write about this in the following day. It truly, truly made my day and I hope it will make yours, too. 

Please do not embarrass yourself asking “what the use of this will be” or any such nonsense. Catholicism, fear of the Lord, sanity and respect for Catholics of all generations past, present and future demand that a heretical Pope be exposed as such. This is the beginning and the end of it. Let God, not you, decide the practical results. We care for truth first, practical results second. 

Also, kindly do not test my already short patience fearing a “schism”. If for you the spread of heresy heresy is preferable to calling out a heretic you are part of a schism already; but a much more dangerous than the old ones because moving from inside the Church. 

I go to sleep now. I will not be able to deal extensively with this for a day or so. There will be further posts on the matter. What a day. 

This is the day the Lord has made;
We will rejoice and be glad in it.

Let us make sure Francis does not forget this day, too.

M 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

SSPX: Back To Normal (Hopefully) And Two Words About The Future

It's time...

As it is now known, the CDF has recently (that is: when still badly led by Cardinal Müller) sent a letter to the SSPX in which the Vatican states exactly the same conditions for the reconciliation with the SSPX that caused the last attempt to fail. Besides secundary matters, the crux of the question was the acceptance of V II from the part of the SSPX, an acceptance on which the Vatican now officially still insists.

Predictably, the SSPX has refused, and this is the end of that.

One would be tempted to think that the Vatican had no intention to allow an unconditioned reconciliation with the SSPX in the first place, and Francis may well have had this intention from day one. However, it would be naive to think that the SSPX embarked in the new negotiations without a reasonable hope of success.

What I think gas happened is that a not irrelevant franction of Vatican functionaries and dignitaries has been pushing for an unconditioned reconciliation with the SSPX, prospecting to the Unholy Father its advantages in terms of “diversity acceptance” and with the possible further benefit of the now “reconciled” SSPX avoiding calling Francis “Modernist through and through”. Francis has either weighted his options during this time or, more probably, told his people that he was doing so in order to enjoy a more prudent SSPX for as long as practicable. This is a Jesuit, which in modern parlance is synonymous with “atheist, possibly homosexual, church-hating devious liar”. It is, therefore, more reasonable to assume that Francis was lying all the time rather than to charitably imagine that he really gave the thought of unconditioned reconciliation a honest chance and the benefit of a long reflection.

So: what changes now? I don't know because I don't know to what extent the upper caeli said of the SSPX believe – at this point naively, if you ask me – that some small door could still be open.

In my eyes, however, something very important should change.

1) The SSPX should stop focusing on a reconciliation that will clearly not happen during this pontificate at the very least, and start firing from all cannons at the heretical work of subversion we are witnessing every day.

2) In a less immediate perspective, the SSPX should wonder whether the times do not call for a more aggressive leadership than the one of Bishop Fellay. I am not doubting the personal integrity of the Bishop, but one who states that a reconciled SSPX would avoid criticising too loud or too harshly (I have written about it) is just too much on the soft side, and in my eyes not good enough for the present time.

There is a time for peace and a time for war. This is a time for war.

I am not sure Bishop Fellay is the best man to lead it.

 

SSPX: What Is Going Horribly Wrong

Please follow this link and, among the documents therein contained, isolate and read (at least) these:

1. The one dated 7 April 2012 (Three Bishops to General Council).

2. The one dated 14 April 2012( General Council to Three Bishops) .

I have – not for the first time – read both documents and found myself – not for the first time – in full agreement with Fellay & Co.

However, I point out to the following. I will present this as a series of short points in an effort to make my thought linear and easy to digest in short pills. What I lose in prose I hope to gain in clarity and brevity.

1. You could have said that Ratzinger was sincerely interested in healing the riff with the SSPX. You cannot say that Bergoglio is sincerely interested in anything Catholic, at all.

2. This being the situation, mistrust toward any ouverture from the Vatican is more justified, and must be taken more seriously, than this was the case in 2012.

3. There can be no doubt that every agreement, every agreement at all which leads to a big fracture within the SSPX is not worth pursuing, as it is far more important that the SSPX remains a visible instrument of help to faithful Catholics in a time of crisis; a crisis which we see becoming deeper and deeper.

4. From what I can see up to now, the Vatican has laid no obvious traps. The independence of the Order is not threatened. The Order will maintain its own autonomy. The agreement seems to be no – legal – Trojan Horse.

5. However, Bishop Fellay's interview (about which I have written yesterday) indicates that a different price is being requested: the softening of tones against the Conciliar Church. This is extremely grave in light of the fact that this is most certainly not the time to soften any tone.

6. In turn, this softer attitude – now officially proclaimed by Bishop Fellay – reinforces the suspicion, certainly present inside the Society, that this embrace will prove deadly, albeit in several instalments. The recent removal of the eight French SSPX priests, though obviously connected to other controversies, does nothing to assuage the fear that some bullying not from Francis, but from the inside of the Society, in order to make it more agreeable to Francis and thus “deserving” of reconciliation, is in fact happening.

7. This is a destructive way to go at things. Archbishop Fellay should never put the reconciliation with the Vatican in front of the danger of a division within the SSPX. If he did so he would allow the enemies of Tradition to celebrate the tearing in two of the Society. Any reconciliation that causes such a bad outcome can most certainly wait for better times, when more orthodox Popes will allow a rapprochement in a different spirit and with far less divisions. No serious Catholic considers the SSPX one iota less Catholic without reconciliation. The reconciliation in itself is a lesser good than the continuation of the work of the SSPX in favour of tradition, her prestige and powerful voice speaking for orthodox Catholic in a time of heretical Popes.

8. Alternatively – and as others and myself have suggested in the past – a much better way is open to Bishop Fellay: a brutal defence of Catholic Truth, against the Pope and his minions, day in and day out. This would assuage fears that the SSPX is “going native”, which is the most important result. From this position of strength, every proposal of reconciliation – without any do ut des – could be discussed within the Society in a completely different atmosphere. And if, in consequence of this vigorous defence of Truth, no offer of reconciliation comes, so be it. This would be the obvious evidence that the reconciliation had only one aim: emasculate the SSPX and make of it a shark without teeth.

——-

Bishop Fellay undermines the very mission of the SSPX when he states that, in consideration of the process of reconciliation, the SSPX will get softer. He is doing the work of Francis. This attitude can only have as a result a self-imposed obligation to be either silent or very hushed in the denunciation of the thousand evils of the Church. Even if the authority and autonomy of the SSPX should remain complete and unchallenged, this attitude would still be tantamount to a half self-castration for the sake of… what exactly? The approval of the biggest rascal ever elected Pope?

Fellay 2017 seems much different to me from Fellay 2012. I do not trust the motives of anyone who, in the face of unprecedented attack on Christ, invites to be less incisive in its condemnation. The SSPX must go to war full scale against Francis and his heresies, and leave Francis with the choices of whether to play the “inclusive card” for his own motives (which he has, as he could claim a non-judgmental attitude towards both extremes of the spectrum) or go wherever he pleases, sharpish.

What is happening is, if you ask me, very wrong. I hope that this line does not prevail. It would cause immense damage to the cause of Traditionalism exactly in a time of emergency. I would prefer for Bishop Fellay to be made to go first.

M

 

What Is Wrong With Bishop Fellay?

Astonishing words from an unrecognisable Bishop Fellay reported by Gloria TV.

“We may be a little less controversial in attacking the persons”, the man said. He also added, in purest V II style, that “sometimes” ones get more with “a simple argument” than “by barking”.

When Bishop Fellay's “simple argument” leads to the Vatican reneging on Amoris Laetitia and substituting it with a document Archbishop Lefebvre would have approved in toto I will agree with him.

As it is, I cannot but be very alarmed at reading that the head of the only major ecclesiastical bastion against heresy starts talking like a damn V II sellout.

I cannot avoid wondering whether the danger for the SSPX does not come from the heretics outside, but from the careerists inside.

In this moment of extreme gravity in the history of the Church we must all bark more, not less; and we must bark like very angry mastiffs.

I never thought I'd see the day when I read Fellay spout such nonsense. This is very, very alarming and it behooves every good Catholic to denounce appeasement wherever it comes from.

Good Lord, if even the SSPX is devoured from the cancer of promises of appointments (a red hat for Fellay perhaps?) the only one remained will be honest laymen and isolated priests in micro-SSPX organisations. A real blow.

What is wrong with this man? Does he not realise that if he says “there is no trap” and in the same interview says “but we will go soft on the enemies of Truth”, then most certainly he is the trap?

M

 

SSPX’s Roads Leading To Rome

 

Read on the Eponymous Flower about the new real estate purchases of the SSPX in the Esquilino hill (this is one of the seven hills, a very central and prestigious location, though yours truly prefers the Aventino by far). As always, I read these news for signs of “ceased alarm” (it’s not that I am really worried; it’s that we live in times when even organisation endowed with Sovereignty poop their pants at the first sign of FrancisAnger). The translated article has two messages for me, one good and one bad. 

The good one is that the SSPX is buying the real estate. This is clear sign of, cough, independence from a rich and self-assured order. Instead of asking the Vatican “could you allow me to rent, for a very low price, some nice structure?” the approach seem to be “hhmmm, the agreement is approaching. We’ll need a pad in Rome with all the accoutrements. Let’s go shopping!”

The less good one is that Matzuzzi seems to consider it a given that there will be a cost in the form of “painful losses” among his “faithful and priests”, and I wonder what this means. 

Firstly, is this a generic expression of things that might happen, or direct knowledge of things that will happen? Of course some isolated Williamson-style hardliner will walk, but does this qualify as “painful”? 

Secondly, last time I looked the situation was that any agreement would have to be approved by the General Chapter of the SSPX. Not only this is an extremely strong guarantee that the order will not be sold, as you can’t this is also a strong indication that the agreement will be approved by a vast majority of the priests, it being inconceivable that a cabal of, say, 21 or 22 people decides to split the SSPX into two on this. Rather, the 40 voters will only support the agreement if they are aware of vast support among the ranks and files. I even seem to remember Bishop Fellay promised a direct vote on this, but I might be wrong.

A last point that I think should mention: whether the SSPX is incardinated in the Vatican hierarchy as a Personal Prelature or Apostolic Administration is not as important as the actual legal situation the SSPX will find itself in. It would appear a Personal Prelature would give the SSPX complete freedom from the authority of the bishops, but this is a moot point as every Personal Prelature could be shaped as the Vatican sees fit.

The important thing is to keep the control of a) the hierarchy and b) the assets. This way, in case of bullying the SSPX could walk away from the paws of the Pope en bloc, intact, and with the coffers full.

M   

 

 

 

 

 

[REBLOG] SSPX: Reconciliation Is Nothing Without Control.

The news that a Personal Prelature in Opus Dei style would have been offered, and the Vatican’s demand that the V II documents be considered intrinsically “dogmatic”, or in any way binding, to all Catholics in all their aspects now set aside, clearly show that the controversy – at least the official one – is not about doctrine anymore.

Here is a big Vatican spider, inviting the fly to take place in the inclusive, very merciful net prepared for it, and perhaps expecting the fly to make itself at home in the net in the name of, I don’t know, “unity” or “reconciliation”, or however you want to call the fly’s assured destruction.

Not going to happen, says the SSPX. We are going to talk to the spider, and all; we are going to even hover near the spider if the spider has this desire. But we are not going to fly in any net, thank you very much.

This is, put in rather blunt terms, the reason why the SSPX is now apparently working on the “clarification” of some points. Points which – you can bet your last shirt on it – pivot around who controls the order and its assets, and in which way.

As they (almost) say, reconciliation is nothing without control. No amount of pretended “autonomy” is worth anything, if this autonomy can be taken away at a moment’s notice. No “guarantees” are worth anything, if the Pope retains the factual ability to renege on them. No terms of reconciliation can be accepted, which leave the SSPX in any way, shape or form unable to protect itself from, well, the spider.

The SSPX must keep control of its own hierarchy and of its own assets. It must keep self-regulation independently from a Pope’s ukase. Most importantly, it must keep control of its assets in a way unassailable by the Vatican hierarchy.

If these conditions are met, of course the SSPX will obey the Pope. They already do, actually. They are already subject to the Pope in everything that does not undermine Catholicism or their own proper function. Therefore, if the SSPX would become “institutionally” subject to the Pope without losing control of their assets and chain of command, it would be impossible for Francis or any of his successors to subvert the organisation by, say, deposing their leaders, changing their statutes, and taking control of their assets.

Most people forget that the SSPX was, in fact, recognised and in perfect standing for several years, and became “rebellious” only when they were ordered to close their (at that time, only) seminary and – having control of their assets – plainly refused. This episode is far more enlightening than the more famous episode of “disobedience” with the appointment of the bishops, because it shows that if you have control over your chain of command and assets you have nothing to fear from the spider: you can walk away, intact, anytime.

This has happened once, and can happen again. Let the SSPX be formally subject to the Pope, and let them have the factual and legal ability to disobey if the Pope gives wrong orders; for example rescinding their organisational autonomy, ordering them to hand assets to the Vatican, deposing their leaders and so on.

Vatican saves face. SSPX saves autonomy and safety from the spider’s net. Everyone is happy.

Or at least, they should be.

M

 

Barking Up The Wrong Tree: The SSPX And The Anonymous Critics of Pope Francis

After the unfortunate (or rather disgraceful) piece published by the SSPX with the public condemnation of the anonymous critics of the Pope, yours truly has published some old but, I think, valid considerations about the reasons for anonymity. It seems to me that whoever does not get the very simple concepts I have therein explained is being very naive in the best of cases, and very bad in the worst.

Also, please mind that my blog post was not meant as a defense of this little effort. I doubt the SSPX is even aware of my existence. However, the SSPX is certainly aware of the epic, but absolutely justified anti-Francis pranks in the last weeks (the posters and the fake Osservatore page), as well as of the well informed, anonymous, very critical posts published on Rorate Caeli in the past and signed by Don Pio Pace (an example is here. Every respectable search engine will give you others). In the last days we also had more explosive commentary from the excellent, anonymous Fra’ Cristoforo (this, dear readers, is Manzoni again!), who blogs in Italian in the aptly named site Anonimi della Croce.  (“Anonymous Ones of the Cross”). All of them have intervened to target one man: the Evil Clown.

It is utterly amazing that after the Holy Ghost allowed Trump’s great victory in part through anonymous revelations to Assange’s WikiLeaks and even more anonymous hacking of John Podesta’s emails, there should be people who still prefer – when this is at no cost and no risk to them – to accuse of “cowardice” people who are giving an extremely precious service to Christianity. Would the anonymous author of the SSPX article have preferred that the “cowardly”, anonymous WikiLeaks hacker had never penetrated John Podesta’s emails? Words fail me.

Even more persuading is the argument appeared on Non Veni Pacem. : the organisation that justifies her own disobedience to the Pope in the name of the state of necessity is unable to understand, condone, or even not insult the in comparison extremely harmless disobedience of critics of probably the most Satan-friendly Pope in history? Really? Is the anonymous writer of the SSPX article unable to understand that we are living every day in a state of necessity the like of which Archbishop Lefebvre could only imagine in a very hypothetical way? 

But there is more. The SSPX is, many say, about to be “reconciled” with the Vatican. Am I the only one who thinks that such initiatives should be avoided now more carefully than ever, in order to avoid even the suspicion that the SSPX may be trying to ingratiate themselves to Francis?

Not saying that this is the case, of course. But I do think that the SSPX should be above suspicion. I am sorry to say this, but right now they aren’t; at least some corners within them. 

It would be smart to let that disgraceful article disappear. It would be even smarter to let it follow with the most brutal indictment of Amoris Laetitia, in a condemnation even worse than the comparison to the boat with a hole in its bottom. It would be smartest to accuse Francis of being a heretic again, renewing the accusation that he is a genuine Modernist , just in case anyone might be forgetting. Think of the words Bishop Fellay used on that occasion: 

“Any obedience to be true must be related to God. When I say I obey to a person” he should be a “a mirror of God.” But “when mirror tells me contrary of God, it is no longer a mirror, then I don’t follow him.”

Pretty clear, uh? This is the attitude we want to see from the SSPX, not the third-rate politicking at the expense of perfectly decent Catholics. We don’t need this kind of attitude from the SSPX. If they don’t like the anonymity of the pranks and the accusations, they should be decent enough to shut up about it.

Particularly now. 

M