The text below is part of a comment I have received, from the faithful reader Akita:
What of all the children who would suffer because the Church, who should be their protectress, enables divorce and remarrying, saying their remarried parent is A-Okay–nothing to see here folks! All the poor, faithful abandoned spouses! It’s utter insanity and chaos looming.
If all the above comes to pass, (and I’m not kidding myself that homosexuals in drag and the divorced and remarried have not already received Holy Communion by renegade priests) and doctrine does change, because praxis changes, how is the deposit of faith maintained?
Okay, it has not happened yet, and I am praying mightily against modernism, but it’s as if all of Catholicism is holding their breath, waiting for the results of the next Synod.
I found this very interesting, and would like to make an observation or two as to how we should react in the unfortunate, but not inconceivable case that the SHTF.
A) The Church cannot say that it is fine to divorce and remarry. Individual priests, bishops and even Popes may say that, but they would be heretical and sacrilegious. If many of them say so, many of them are heretical and sacrilegious.
Mind: no matter how many priests, bishops or Popes are heretical and sacrilegious, the Church teaching does not change. The teaching of the Church cannot change more than 2+2 can make 5. Bad teachers do not get to rewrite the rules and facts of their subject matter,
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18)
Amen quippe dico vobis, donec transeat cælum et terra, iota unum, aut unus apex non præteribit a lege, donec omnia fiant.
The iota (i) was the smallest letter in Greek and Hebrew. “Not one iota” means “not the smallest thing”.
This, my friends, we must keep in mind every day and every moment. Not.One.Iota.
B) I am under no illusion in many countries (Germany, says) sacrilege happens every Sunday, en masse. Does this change anything in the Eucharist? No. Not one iota. Will God punish the priest and (un)faithful insulting Him in this way? Bar repentance, most certainly. Has the doctrine changed? No. Not one iota. Has the doctrine changed if thousands of priests do the same? No. Not one iota. Has the doctrine changed if, every Sunday, every single faggot and dyke breathing in Germany stands in line to “receive” Communion? No. Not one iota. Will the faggots and dykes, and the priests abetting them, and all those accessory to their sins with their own “inclusiveness” be punished for that according to God’s justice? Bar repentance, most certainly.
C) The concept of “doctrinal change” is non-existent. It is an oxymoron. When orthodox priests and cardinals say to the press that to change the discipline means to change the doctrine means simply this: that you cannot claim that you are following the doctrine if your praxis gives the lie to your claim. The rules of mathematics cannot change. Neither can Church doctrine.
D) The Deposit of Faith is maintained as it was always maintained: by transmitting to those who will come after us the truths we ourselves have received from those who came before us. Tradidi quod et accepi, “I have transmitted what I (myself) have received”.
In concrete, the one or other will notice that his priest is not interested in avoiding sacrilege as much as he reasonably can, and subscribes to the “radical Neo=Paganism” (bishop Athanasius Schneider) of the new Religion of Mercy. Means allowing, time for another parish, I would say. If you are 104 years old, have stopped driving during the Reagan administration and have no means to drive or be driven to a sound parish, offer it up to the Lord but do not stop attending Mass if you reasonable think the consecration is valid.
Many others will notice that their priest remains steadfast. The beauty of the Deposit of Faith is this, that it can’t be tampered with. You can’t twist it to let it say what you want it to say, like political slogans and tenets. No one who is vigilant can ever be deceived; actually, only those can be deceived who want to.
The doctrine can never be changed. There can never be an issue of “the Church has changed her doctrine”; this talking is BBC hogwash. What can happen, is that even inside the Church heresy and desecration are ripe, and clergy abandon Doctrine to follow heresy.
Let those who feel inclined to do so reap what they sowed. But we, dear readers, we will transmit what we ourselves have received.
It may be our lot to die in the middle of a paganised world, and with the daily sight of a raped Bride in front of us. If this is so, then let us die in the faith of the Lord, and in the sure knowledge that the rape will not remain unpunished.
The Baldrick Reblog
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
I have already written that, if you browse around, Pollyanna has become rather silent. The number of those now wondering at the cruelty of the wolves, keeping the Most Holy Father away from the Internet, has decreased sharply.
Still, there are some hard-liners who do not really want to get it. As we say in Italy, the mother of the idiot is always pregnant. This here is, though, extreme Pollyann-ing, because almost twenty months of papal Subversion make the job harder and harder. To still believe in the “good Holy Father who has a cunning plan” you need, actually, Baldrick levels of stupidity.
The two most Baldrick-like readings of the events are the following:
1. The Pope has put the wrong people in charge of the Synod; he has allowed them to run everything; he has allowed them to publish a document without…
View original 351 more words
The Smelly Reblog
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
Pope Francis had, with usual hypocrisy (I do not call him The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History, or TMAHICH, for nothing) pretended he was on the sidelines during the synod, allowing the “debate” (including perversion, and sacrilegious undermining of Sacraments) and then intervening at the end like the good uncle who cares for orthodoxy.
Well, that was another blatant lie, as we all knew but is now officially official.
You must notice a couple of revealing elements here. Emphases mine:
1) Cardinal Baldisseri’s bomb: “The documents were all seen and approved by the Pope, with the approval of his presence,” “Even the documents during the [Extraordinary] Synod, such as the Relatio ante disceptatationem [the preliminary report], the Relatio post disceptationem [interim report], and the Relatio synodi [final report] were seen by him before they were published.”
2) The reason Cardinal Baldisseri gives…
View original 287 more words
A deeply troubling questions, and some deeply troubling answers, transpire from a blog post written by Father Blake.
Father Blake quotes the message of an anonymous priest who is on record with the following statement. Emphasis in the original text.
One of my priest friends asked me during a conversation what I would do if the Church does formally approve what it previously formally condemned. I had to confess in all honesty that I’d probably have to leave priestly ministry. He admitted that he’d probably have no choice but to do the same.
I am deeply, deeply troubled by such statements.
Firstly, they sound to me as smart as to say that one would throw away his passport if his country were to engage in a war he does not approve. “I don’t like this, so I am out”. Erm, no. It is your Country, so you stay in. You have Holy Orders, so you stay in, too.
Secondly, it can only show a lack of faith in the Church that Christ found on Peter. To say “I will leave my priestly ministry if this or that happens” is tantamount as to say “if this and that happens the Church is, and always has been, a fraud; and I refuse to be one of the professional fraudsters”.
Now, the Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic or it isn’t. We know it is, because it is dogma. Therefore, we can never ever act as if the Church were an organisation like any other. Not can we consider the Sacraments as if they were in any way, shape or form disposable.
Heretical Popes have been inflicted on us already, but I have never heard that St Athanasius left the priesthood when the Pope forbade the recitation of the Creed at Mass. I am absolutely sure the thought never entered his mind. The Church is the Church, a Catholic can’t get out of it more than he could jump away from his own shadow. A priest is a priest, a Catholic can’t “de-priest” himself because he doesn’t like the work of the Pope. Is the Pope heretic? Say so, then!
Athanasius did not leave the priesthood. He fought against the enemies of the Church, but remained in it at all times. He disobeyed to the Pope to the point of appointing his own bishops, but this he did because the Pope was not to be obeyed, and that was that. He did not make of himself an alternative Pope, or found an alternative Church, or said he wasn’t a bishop, or was a different type of bishop.
The Church is the Church. We stay in the Temple. If the Pope is the enemy, so be it. If the Bishops and Cardinals are the enemies, so be it. There will be plenty of Athanasiuses, and plenty of priests and faithful proudly demanding that the merchants be chased away from the Temple, rather than leaving the Temple because there are merchants in it.
But it would be very grave, extremely grave if a priest were to declare the Church a fraud; because in doing so, he would declare Christ a fraud; and may God save his soul afterwards, but I honestly do not think He will.
The Church is the Church is the Church. A priest is a priest is a priest. Whatever dirt the Lord allows to accumulate inside the Church, as lay faithful and priests we stay in and fight to our last breath to clean it up, but we do not even think of leaving the Church; because if we leave the Church, or as priests leave the priesthood, we declare Christ Himself a fraud.
Pigs have entered the temple, and are routing around at ease. The Temple is on its way to looking like a regular pigstall. Our duty is to fight for the Temple and to get it to be clean again, not to leave it to the pigs. If we leave it to the pigs we are saying that it was never a temple. If it is the Temple we will forever fight to have it clean, and free from pigs.
Concretely: if the Church issue a wannabe formal statement in which what was formally condemned is now formally approved, this statement is heretical and is to be rejected by every Catholic, and that’s that. But how do we know, then, which one is the right statement? The right statement is the one that is in line with the Depositum Fidei. The wrong statement is the one that isn’t. It’s not complicated.
There is no need to leave the priesthood for that. It is, in fact, merely a case of “the pigs are routing in the Temple. Let’s get them out”.
Let me tell you once again: it is a dogmatic statement that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic or Apostolic. No priest, no theologian (there is a troubling statement of Ronald Knox in the comments, hopefully taken out of context and making clear it is not possible to leave the Church, but still flirting with such an absurd idea) is ever authorised to leave it, not in hypothesis and not in practice, not as a joke and not as a fact. In fact, to me the very mention of “leaving” indicates the residues of a Protestant mind form.
I was born a Catholic in a (then) deeply Catholic country. To those Catholics, “leaving the Church” because this Church is not… the Church anymore sounded as absurd as “selling one’s own skin on ebay”, “getting a third arm” or “becoming a citizen of Mars”.
Never, not for one second, do we doubt the Church as Institution. Whatever the amount of dirt, we love the Church more than our life, and fight to our last breath to have it cleaned up. Not for one moment we think of ever disassociating ourselves from Her in any way, shape or form. Take a deep breath and shout it with me out loud:
Credo la Chiesa una, santa, cattolica e apostolica.
There you have it. Dutifully shouted. Straight from the Creed, a dogmatic statement. Straight as an arrow. In beautifully sounding Italian. What do you want more…? Now, can anyone explain to me how a priest could ever say “I believe in the Church, but I just did not think that I could continue my priestly ministry in it”?
You never ever doubt a dogmatic statement. To do so is grave matter, and to deliberately do so knowing that this is a dogmatic statement is to commit a mortal sin.
The anonymous priest quoted in Father Blake’s blog post may have good intentions, but I smell the devil in his words. It can only be diabolical deception that persuades a priest to state that he would be contemplating leaving his ministry, ipso facto indicting the Church. If the likes of Athanasius had thought in this way, we would be sacrificing goats to the Green Elephant In The Sky by now.
Do not be deceived. Pigs rout and shit around for a while. At some point they die. The Temple stays.
Whatever happens, we will stay in the church Christ founded. Stench and all.
We were never promised a pig-free Temple.
Harvesting The Fruit has an excellent post about the heretical thinking that must underlie the post V II opposition to Capital Punishment, which the people call Death Penalty. As we live in pernicious times of creeping heresy in pretty much every aspect of Catholic thinking, the appeal to correct, traditional understanding can never be too insistent.
I would like to add to the considerations linked to some words of mine about what is the most important argument in favour of the Capital Punishment you should make at your next Thanksgiving Lunch, and what reflections you might add to it. In order to make the argument, we must start from the error, that is: from the Catechism of JP II. Paragraph 2267 recites thus:
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
You see here a typical example of V II creeping heresy: the teaching of the church is reaffirmed in principle, but immediately afterwards it is pickaxed in practice. We aren’t against, you see. But todaay, aahhh, todaaay it’s different…
No, it’s not different at all.
Firstly, paragraph 2267 refuses to address the matter of deterrence. The instinct to live being very strong, it follows that the threat of removing the good of life must, reasonably, have an effect on a number of potential situations which would, otherwise, possibly lead to a murder. To ignore the simple reality of deterrence is to ignore reality, nor can the usual excuse of “he who wants to kill kills anyway” work; because the last argument is exactly a strong argument for the justice of depriving him of his own life, once not even the threat of taking his life was inducement to not take the life of another.
This paragraph (but see below) also does not address the matter of justice, instead analysing the institute of the death penalty from the point of view of its usefulness. What is just and what is useful are not necessarily correlated. If you have any sense of justice at all, you must recognise that practical considerations may have a place, but they must most certainly not be what shapes whether justice is administered. The Church has always said that the capital punishment satisfied a need for human justice, not merely for practicality. The implied argument that the Church accepts the death penalty inasmuch as the execution of an offender is an absolute necessity is pure hogwash. It is a deification of life to think that just punishment should not extend to taking one’s life. It is also a thinking that has always been foreign to the generations before V II.
As so often, V II gives you the truth before taking the pickaxe. Look at the preceding paragraph, 2266. Emphases mine.
The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.
See? It’s all there! 1) “Punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense”. 2) Punishment as re-establishment of justice, not practical remedy. 3) Punishment as a help to the criminal to change his ways. It’s so simple, really.
Thirdly, and most importantly today, those creepy, utterly disquieting creatures of V II, the “new man” and the “new world”, rear their ugly heads.
Jails have always been very safe. Chain a murderer to the wall and you will see he will find his ability to murder again somewhat limited. Leave him in a dark cell and with a priest at hand and you will see there isn’t much more that can be done to move him to repentance. Let him see his own scaffold and you will, in fact, help him to final repentance like he never was in his life. What a blessing, such a scaffold, compared to the destiny of countless atheists of today’s stupid world, surprised by death without a second thought about their own immortal soul!
All this is happily ignored in JP II’s catechism. The argument is defended for the sake of orthodoxy, but it is immediately thereafter undermined with the usual excuse: “today it is different”. This argument can be used to go against capital punishment, ban on communion for adulterers, opposition to sodomy, literally everything.
If today is different, Jesus is obsolete. If the motives and passions, the impulses and the desires, the entire sphere of human emotions is different today than it was yesterday there is no saying to what extent Jesus’ teaching still applies, and at that point you will soon find yourself blabbering nonsense about the “god of surprises” (small “g”. The God of the Christians has, obviously, no surprises).
There is no new man. There is no new reality. Redemption is open to every criminal now as it always was, as it will always be. Sinfulness and concupiscence lead men to horrible deeds now as they always did in the past and always will in the future. Faced with the reality of sin, man must recognise that he is as naked as Adam was, just as sinful, and thinking in exactly the same way. Nothing has changed in the dynamic of sin and offence, and as a result nothing must change in the dynamic of the reaction to them.
It is madness, and an arrogant madness at that, to think that any presumed “advancement” in, say, social worker’s rehabilitation techniques may add a iota to what the Church has always prescribed: prayer and repentance, fast and penance, contrition and expiation. On the contrary, it is typical of the madness of our times to think that the social worker, not the priest, may be the spark that ignites in the criminal the desire for a better life (if not condemned to death) or the desire to die at peace with God and his fellow men (if condemned to death). In both cases, the underlying thinking is either that a man today is different than the man of yesterday, or that we have… improved on Jesus in the way of dealing with his “wrong choices”.
This is the thinking of a Communist, or of a Communard. It is not the thinking of a Christian. A Christian knows that there is no new man, and as a result there can be no new recipes.
Why, then, all this modern excitement about the oh so inhuman “cruelty” of the death penalty, so cruelly endorsed by the Church these past sixty generations?
Because of fear of death, and lack of faith.
To those who do not believe in a life after death, life must truly be the most precious thing of all. Many of them would, for sure, gladly live in slavery than die free, because if they die free they have lost everything anyway. If, therefore, life is the highest good, there can be no crime that justifies the taking of it (unless it is the one of the aborted child, of course; but that doesn’t count for the atheist, because it’s convenient not to count it; and the poor baby has not even committed a crime…).
Something not very dissimilar goes on, I am sure, in the mind of the very many “I hope there is a God” rosewater faithful, whose faith is very “joyful” in words but very shaky in practice. They will say to you that they believe in eternal life, but their speaking of this earthly existence as something so incomparable and priceless will belie their very assertion. You see that mainly in their argument: “oh yes, in principle I am in favour; but what if there is a mistake?“. Again, you see here V II at work, with the pickaxe never far away.
What is truly unique and infinitely worthy in man is not his life, but his soul. God disposes of the life as he wishes, and everyone of us can be dispatched away from this vale of tears in no time when He has decreed that the time has come; but our soul, our soul will never die. It is, therefore, ultimately, nothing earth-shattering if yours truly were to be, one day, executed because of a judicial mistake. He gladly accepts the risk as the most irrelevant of the life risks. Just tell me where to sign.
The probability of yours truly to die because of a judicial mistake is so unbelievably tiny that it never ceases to amaze me that those who want to abolish the death penalty never ask for the abolition of trains, aeroplanes, cars and, most importantly, domestic stairs; all of them infinitely more dangerous than even an inefficient justice system. It just does not make sense. The figures are just not there. But no, let us obsess about the judicial mistake. It lets us feel good, and it assuages our lingering fear of death.
It’s the fear of your own death that makes you so attached to life. It is no other. In times of stronger faith this attachment was non existent. In times of little faith, life is promoted to Most Sacred Thing On Earth.
Think of your soul instead; and if you really want to focus on life, reflect that you could die the next time you go downstairs.
It puts things in perspective. Far more useful than obsessing about the tiny probability of a judicial mistake.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
We must live in very strange times indeed if every hour can bring further, disquieting news from the very top of the Church.
At Rorate Caeli there is a blog post and video (which is copyrighted, so I will not re-post it here) shedding further light on what has happened yesterday besides what I have already reported about.
Please note the following:
1. the official announcement of the fact that the Pontiff washed the feet of people of
different nationalities and faiths, including at least two Muslims and two women,
I have never read in the Gospel Jesus washed the feet of heathens, but again Jesus would obviously not be taken as an example of “inclusiveness” and “dialogue” by Pope Francis (Jesus came bringing a sword, Pope Francis came bringing peace) so He doesn’t count. Perhaps Pope Francis has a different Bible than I, though. I am told in Argentina…
View original 129 more words
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
And so the Pope did it and, as he regularly did during his time as an Archbishop (he seems obsessed with continuing to do everything as he did before becoming Pope; another sign of humility, or pride as the case may be) has washed the feet of at least one woman during his Maundy Thursday Mass.
Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but last time I looked the rules mandated (not suggested) the use of chosen men, viri selecti.
When I was (blessedly) scourged with Latin, there was no way Vir could be translated as “human”, and if I had done it the dreaded blue pencil of my severe teacher would not have been far away. But it was a very long time ago, or we must have been both wrong; or perhaps, who knows, Latin…
View original 483 more words
Follow the link to the blog “Call Me Jorge” and read an interesting page from an interesting book about the Middle Ages. if you click the page the click will lead you to the internet version of the book.
Then try to explain the differences between the approach of a King of the past, and the approach of a Pope of the present. A Pope who would not only invite the Jew to his discussion, but would insist that he eats kosher as he assures him that the Old Covenant still applies to him and wonders why men must bicker because of matters that only interest theologians.
Finally, you may want to wonder what the Saint of the past would have thought of a Pope like the present one, and how would he have gauged the latter’s chances of salvation unless repentance intervenes before death.
Whenever I read these stories from the past I feel a sense of vertigo at the thought of how the most elementary sense of Christianity has deteriorated in our time. At the same time, it is consoling to know that even in places like Cluny mistakes of the sort were made; not that the Cluny monks would have been in the least interested in “dialogue” as it is understood today (the “I am OK, you are OK” sort; they certainly had the conversion of the infidels in mind at all times), but that they too were able to lack in prudence at times.
Every Jew (or Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever else) is evangelisation material. Every Jew (or Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever else) is in danger of damnation if he dies in the denial of Christ. This being the case, one can only imagine what will might happen to a Pope that encourages infidels in their own error, and scolds the Catholics who want to convert them.
Francis must be an atheist. There is no other way how he could, otherwise, be able to sleep at night.
There is an article on Catholic.org that well exemplifies both the confusion reigning in the head of many, and the fact that sanity is slowly becoming mainstream.
The author of this article calls himself a conservative, but he ignores what conservatism is all about: Conservation. Permanence. Tradition. Doing things now as they were made before; because permanence is good, and goodness must be conserved.
The attempt to minimise the Unholy Father’s continued scandal becomes the condemnation of those who condemn the scandal. The desperate attempt to ask a Christian to please bend over backward and give Francis’ words an orthodox meaning simply ignores that vast part of the planet – as Francis all too well knows – will simply use his words for what they mean. The assumption that Francis takes Catholic faith and morals for granted but almost never defends them with a word is witness of a state of pure denial. The condemnation of the scandal of a Pope saying “who am I to judge” completely ignores the enormous subversive impact of such a statement, and becomes an excuse to even accuse of hypocrisy those who are so scandalised; which, unavoidably, extends to sixty generations of Christians.
This man is simply refusing to look at a reality staring him in the face, and twists himself in the most intricate ways in order to avoid to see the brutal truth in front of him.
Not so his wife. Her argument is brutally simple. Look around you, man.
The Unholy Father has now thrown such a vast quantity of rubbish on sound Catholicism, that even the wives of the Pollyannas (this one isn’t an extreme Pollyanna, but he is one all right) do not need to give them any more than the simplest of answers:
“How long are you going to keep your head in the sand?”
This one is a smart woman and, I am sure, a very good wife; the good tree, and all that.
We need more people like her.
Particularly if they write on Catholic outlets.
During the recent and now officially more or less closed “Rosicagate” scandal, three posters unknown to me wrote comments full of slanderous accusations against Mr Domet, aka Vox Cantoris.
I did not publish any of them.
It seems to me that all too often the concept of “openness” degenerates into plain stupidity, as if freedom of speech meant that everyone has the right to write anything about anyone Else anywhere, with an expectation of his writing being published.
This is not so. Common sense must apply at all times, and common sense dictates that public personages can meet with not only criticism, but – if sufficiently founded and in the proper context – allegations that do not deserve any public hearing in other cases.
I do not allow anyone – and particularly one who never wrote on this blog; but anyone anyway – to come here and write rubbish expecting publication because hey, “it's a free country”. This is not only common sense, but actually a legal fact.
Mr Domet now rightly complains about a big outlet who thought it not below them to publish unverified rubbish about himself and his family, and I truly wonder what friends Rosica has inside that particular organisation.
I thought it right to give Mr Domet's righteous indignation an outlet; but the more general point is that I think that too many bloggers indulge in a kind of “freedom snobism“, which leads them to publish comments that should never be read by decent people as a burnt offering to the gods of freedom of speech.
There should be no need to say this. But I assure I see a lot of this around, and think it should change.
Freedom must always be seen in context. Every right impinges on other rights. We must apply prudence and common sense instead of indulging in a misguided sense of “openness”.
This space will remain heavily moderated. I wish many others were.
The Unholy Father has not lost an occasion to make another snide remark at orthodox Catholic.
Commemorating the anniversary of the first Novus Ordo Mass in Italy, TMAHICH abandoned himself to the usual sugary rhetoric, saying that “[he] who goes back is wrong”.
What a stupid, stupid thing to say.
If he who goes back is wrong no error is ever corrected, and no wrong is ever put right. This is another example of kindergarten rhetoric for the little children, the Pollyannas, the retarded and the enemies of Christ.
Fifty years later, how little people know of Catholicism is outright frightening. They understand the language of a Mass… they do not want to attend. They are the first generation (and a half) of Catholics who think the Church “wrong” when they do not agree with Her. They are being poisoned by the first generation (and a half) of priests telling them their input is very valuable.
The Novus Ordo must die. It has made enough damage already. Yes, it is valid. Yes, it can be celebrated reverently. Yes, you still have the duty to attend to it. But there is no denying that in the great scheme of things the deterioration of the liturgy has accompanied, and contributed to cause, the deterioration of Catholicism.
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi.
Novus Ordo, Moral Relativism, Abortion.
The Novus Ordo must die. He who wants to go on on this path of destruction makes the work of the devil.
There is on the NCR a disquieting interview to the disquieting Austin Ivereigh.
In it, Mr Ivereigh tries to absolve Francis from the accusation of actively promoting the Kasperian heresy, but in doing so depicts a papacy that is every bit as heretical and subversive as he denies it is.
Take this phrase:
What do you think is the Pope’s general view of the synod?
It’s a misreading to see Pope Francis as seeking to impose a concrete solution to anything. He sees himself as initiating and overseeing a process, which is basically of the Holy Spirit. His own criteria for discernment are: If you get people together who are faithful to the magisterium, who speak boldly from their own experience and listen humbly to each other, and you give the process sufficient time for a proper discernment, then, if there is a convergence at the end of it, you can be confident that is of the Holy Spirit.
If this is what the Pope thinks, I ask for the privilege of being the one who sets fire to the stake. This would be a Pope who thinks: “let us call together who are orthodox today and, if they wake up heretics tomorrow hey, it's the Holy Spirit”.
In the same vein, the entire interview is made as if discussions about fundamentals of the Faith were something permissible, or even good. Read the rest on the interview there and you will see what the drift is.
If Francis is as bad as that, whether he is in favour of this or that particular heresy or sacrilege or abomination is merely an incidental problem, the byproduct of a general issue. If Francis is as bad as that, we simply have a Pope who considers Truth disposable, provided it is disposed of by people whom he considers “sound” before agreeing on some new heresy.
This is insane.
But mind, this is what a journalist says who is defending him from the accusation of promoting a heretical agenda!
Seriously, what has become of us? Is anyone still sober around Catholic magazines?
The Catholic discourse has decayed so much, it has fallen to such an abject level of ignorance that one cannot even recognise any element of Catholicism in it. This is like reading the magazine of the Chinese Communist Party, articles written by people who pretend to be communist for the benefit of people who pretend to read them.
There can be no debate about heresy, desecration, abuse of Sacraments, whatever goes clearly against the Depositum Fidei. There can be no good in a Pope thinking, even for a second, of proposing such a debate. There can be no way or mechanism or triple salto by which Truth can be changed. There can be no way a Pope thinks a madness like that and is not the enemy number one of the Church, and Satan's most helpful chess piece on the chessboard.
What has become of us.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
It’s for your own good, my dear…
ThePresidentof a feminist/abortionistorganisation has given us another example of the utterly evil, hallucinated “logic” of XXI Century Nazis.
Abortion has, as she puts it, two positive effects:
1) It avoids the pain for the death of a child, and
2) It prevents mothers from dying of childbirth.
One truly wonders at what must go on in the brains of these people. At the same time, one becomes chillingly aware of how all the atrocities of the Nazi regime could happen. Dr Mengele could have said the same things, and in reading his words people would have been chilled at the cold-blooded murderous intent. But put on Nazism a thin varnish of feminism, and everything will be fine.
I will only touch in passing the huge elephant in the room: the obvious observation that for most of Christianity the difference between dying baptised or…
View original 198 more words
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
Yesterday was the day of the Palio di Siena again. There are two of them every year (2 July and 16 August), though the 2 July one is the most ancient. There is at least another such event, though by far less famous, in Ferrara.There might be, I suspect, several other ones on a local scale.
In the last years, the controversies about the horses have become more and more vocal. If I remember correctly, the EU has now ordered the horses cannot be drugged anymore (a pity, say I; it’ a no-holds-barred race, not a girls’ cake competition; the jockeys can whip each other, but the horses can’t be drugged? Really?), but the “animal rights” activists also criticise the terrain, because a horse has a human right to only race on a perfect surface lest he should harm itself; and…
View original 295 more words