In occasion of the now widely publicised conversions celebrated today in Westminster Cathedral, I allow myself to give my little piece of advice to those thinking of conversion.
This little advice is given in charity (the real one. Fake charity is for whinos, and Anglicans…). Charity requires that one tells the truth out of love. Calls of “who are you to judge” don’t have any effect with true Catholics. Catholics deal with Truth, not false compassion. Anglicans need to be told the Truth without any fear that they might be “hurt”. They’re heretics, of course they will! It’s not a walk in the park, it’s two systems of values clashing, and they can’t be both right.
Charity requires the Truth, and the Truth said whole. Those who aren’t ready to undergo a painful process to reach the Truth can avoid wasting time reading this. If only one reads and understands, the time will not have been spent in vain.
Please, have a chamomile tea first 😉
1) There is only One Church, and it is not the Anglican one.
2) Christians are divided into: a) Catholics; b) Schismatics; c) Heretics.
3) Anglicans of whatever orientations belong to c) above: Heretics. Every one of them, however they may call themselves.
4) Anglican so-called orders are invalid. Anglican clergy are, for Catholics, laymen. This is Catholic teaching. No amount of self-delusion will ever change an iota in this.
5) There is nothing like a “something-Catholic”. You can’t be Anglo-Catholic more than you can be Methodist-Catholic. You are Catholic, or Schismatic, or Heretic. Are you Anglican? You’re Heretic.
7) The decision to convert is the decision to leave the Lie and embrace the Truth. Ego investments, personal preferences, how nice the Vicar is & Co. have no role to play in this. This side, or that side.
8 ) Every “converted” former Anglican who still claims to believe Anglican heresy (from the validity of the ordination of Anglican clergy; to Anglo-Catholics being “Catholics”; to whatever else) is a fake convert, sacrilegious and heretical. Better to remain a heretic from outside until one is ready for a real conversion, than to try to be a heretic from within the Church. Heretics are, by definition, outside of the Church anyway. Cheating one’s way to a club card leads to nothing and, possibly, to perdition.
9) Truth cannot be embraced in half. You either embrace Truth, or you cling to the lie. Tertium non datur.
10) Anglican doublethink doesn’t work the other side of the Tiber. “Two and two is four, but also five and we respect those who think it is six and will dialogue in chariteeee with those who think it is seven and a half” works only before the (notoriously lethargic) Vatican steamroller starts to move, but it leads to tears and excommunications when it invariably does. Those who think that they can export their doublethink and “tolerance” past the Tiber are in for a very late, but very rude awakening.
11) Catholicism works differently. To say “I’m hurt” will not make you right. To say “you’re uncharitable” will not make you less wrong. To say “you must adjust your doctrine to accommodate my feelings” doesn’t exist at all. You’ll have to eat the same fare as Padre Pio and St. Philip Neri, St. Francis and St. Dominic. No Anglican preservatives, and no choice of toppings. What a blessing.
12) The decision to embrace the Truth is difficult. It requires the acknowledgment that one (and one’s old soi-disant “church”) was wrong all the time. That one’s ancestors were wrong all the time. That one’s former organisation had no Catholic being or legitimation whatsoever. Nothing less is required. If you can’t say this to yourself with a sense of elation and Truth finally found, you are still a Heretic.
13) Truth will make you free. The decision to discard the lie and embrace the Truth in its totality is the healthiest and most productive single decision in one’s man existence. So healthy and so beautiful, because so difficult. If it wasn’t difficult, there would be no beauty and no merit in it.
14) Truth is like a diamond: extremely beautiful, but extremely hard. Are you ready for the beauty (and the hardness) of the diamond? Or do you want to continue to believe that the synthetic version is a diamond too? Choose the true diamond. Accept no substitutes. You’ll discover that its beauty is beyond your hope.
15) True Catholics will stand in awe in front of real, serious converts. You are in our prayers and we know that many of you will become extremely orthodox, wonderful Catholics. But true Catholics will attack without mercy those who attempt to import the heresy within the Barque of Peter. This is an unprecedented experiment, but will not be a door open to “Catholicism a’ la carte”. Again: forget the old Anglican ways, this is not going to work that way.
16) Pray Blessed Cardinal Newman that he may guide you. He knows all your troubles, went through the same pains as yours, sees all the obstacles in front of you. It took him years of reflection and prayer before deciding himself to the step. But once he took it, what a wonderful march he started! So take your time and be assured of our prayers and of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, your Guardian Angel and the Blessed Virgin. Take your time and prepare yourself carefully for the impact and the beauty of the Truth. It is better to carefully invest some years of sound investment leading to a copious yield, than to waste everything in a fake conversion leading nearer to Hell.
17) Best wishes and good luck to you.
I have already explained in my post about the Catholic Onion that when the bishop acts correctly, his priests feel encouraged in going the right way even if this may result unpopular and conversely, if the Bishop doesn’t care for properly transmitted Catholic values this mentality will end up informing the behaviour of many of the priests in his diocese.
A beautiful example here, courtesy of Father Z.
You will remember Bishop Olmsted, the rather decisive bishop who recently excommunicated Sister Margaret McBride and deprived the Hospital of St. Joseph of the right to call itself “Catholic”.
It will now please you to read that when a good example is given from the top, it becomes both easier and more easily acceptable for the priests of the diocese to follow the lead and take the necessary steps towards the recovery of reverent liturgical customs. In Bishop Olmsted’s diocese itself, Fr John Lankeit is actively working towards a gradual elimination of communion in the hand.
His words are sincere and alarming: “What I witness troubles me. And I’m not alone” writes Fr Lankeit. You immediately understand that here is one not likely to throw M&Ms at the faithful during Mass.
Fr Lankeit puts the extent of the problem in clear terms:
While my main objective in encouraging reception on the tongue is to deepen appreciation for the Eucharist, I also have a pastoral responsibility to eliminate abuses common to receiving in the hand.
Notice here the double whammy: a) reception on the tongue is the best way in itself; b) reception in the hand causes abuses.
It follows a list of examples, seen “all too frequently”, which I hope will not disturb your sleep:
• Blessing oneself with the host before consuming it. (The act of blessing with the Eucharist is called “Benediction” and is reserved to clergy).
• Receiving the host in the palm of the hand, contorting that same hand until the host is controlled by the fingers, then consuming it (resembling a one-handed “watch-the-coin-disappear” magic trick)
• Popping the host into the mouth like a piece of popcorn.
• Attempting to receive with only one hand.
• Attempting to receive with other items in the hands, like a dirty Kleenex or a Rosary.
• Receiving the host with dirty hands.
• Receiving the host, closing the hand around it, then letting the hand fall to the side (as if carrying a suitcase) while walking away and/or blessing oneself with the other hand.
• Walking away without consuming the host.
• Giving the host to someone else after receiving…yes, it happens!
Some of these I had already imagined; others go beyond my ability to figure out how they happen (the “magic trick”, say); other still can only be defined as astonishing (the dirty hands, the rosary, the kleenex, the “blessing oneself” (??) and the walking away with the host as if it were a piece of luggage).
I am certainly wrong here, but I can’t avoid always seeing in the receiving on the hand an element of “I am the priest of myself” that, at some level, must be buried within the consciousness of the communicant. I just can’t avoid seeing the placing of the communion wafer on the tongue as a priestly function and besides, how one can come to the idea of receiving God the same way as he eats bread and salami is just beyond my understanding.
Father Lankeit doesn’t express himself in such terms of course, but one can clearly see the liturgical zeal and sincere desire to lead his parishioners to better understand the importance of Communion and of acting accordingly. He writes about this four weeks in a row. This is another who, like his Bishop, will be heard. More like him and his Bishop and the beauty and reverence of the Mass will be speedily restored everywhere.
Tomorrow 22nd February is the feast of the Chair of St. Peter. Whilst St. Peter’s feast day is the 29th June, the feast of the 22nd February is more directly aimed at celebrating the Petrine Office. This feast is, therefore, as Catholic as they come.
This feast day might be an occasion to explain to some non-Catholic in your circle of acquaintances why you are Catholic. When requested, I proceed more or less in this way:
1) And I say to thee: that Thou are Peter…. Jesus doesn’t say to Simon that he is a nice chap; or that he is very perceptive; or that he himself is surprised that among the apostles Simon was the only one to give the right answer to his question “Who do people say that I am?”. No, he changes his name and calls him a rock.
2) and upon this rock I will build my Church…. Jesus doesn’t say “I will build my first church”, nor does he say “I will build my provisional church”. Jesus picks a rock, and builds upon him One (1, Una, Eine, Une) Church.
3) and the gates of Hell shall not previal against it….. It, that is: the very same Church built on Peter, the “rock”. That one, and no other. Jesus doesn’t say “the Gates of hell shall, in around fifteen centuries, prevail against the Church I built on you”, nor does he say “the Gates of Hell shall prevail against the Church built on you but hey, let us be happy with a generic term of “church” so it can work even when yours goes astray”. He is very specific: he builds one Church upon one man and gives his promise of indefectibility to this – and no other – organisation.
4) And I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven….. This is also dumb-proof: keys are a very obvious symbol of power and authority and it is clear here that Jesus is speaking with extreme solemnity. He doesn’t say to Peter: “Peter, you keep the key for the moment” or “look mate, gotta go; keep the keys until I find you or yours unworthy, will ya?”. No, this is a solemn promise evidently made for all times, as his just pronounced promise about indefectibility must make clear to the dumbest intellect.
5) ….and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. For those who should at this point still not have gotten what is going on, Jesus becomes even more explicit: Peter has the keys, and the keys mean authority upon the faithful now and forever; an authority given in the most emphatic terms possible.
The meaning of these phrases; the clear solemnity Jesus gives to his words; the crescendo of emphatic declarations of such a broad and clear scope do not leave room for any possible doubt and as a result, Protestants have nowhere to hide. Whoever reads Jesus’ words with a minimum of intellectual honesty cannot avoid to recognise that the Only Church of Peter’s time (and of the following fifteen centuries) is the Only Church of today and that as a result whatever grievance against the men who run the Church does not change a iota concerning the position of authority of the Church. As to the complaint that some Popes were oh-so-bad (not much worse than many a tv-preacher I’d say, but laissons tomber….), Peter wasn’t immaculate either, but his shortcomings didn’t prevent Jesus from promoting him to rock of His Church.
To believe anything different from the fact that the Only Church founded by Jesus is.. the Only Church means to believe one or more of the following:
1) that Jesus made a mistake in founding His Church on Peter;
2) that Jesus was mistakenly persuaded that Peter’s successors would be good chaps, but had his toy ruined by the baddies who succeeded Peter;
3) that Jesus couldn’t count;
4) that Jesus’ words had a sell-by date, or
5) that Jesus made his promise of indefectibility without taking it seriously.
Or perhaps one could decide to read and understand the only possible meaning of such emphatically worded statements, as Jesus repeatedly made.
There is only One Church, folks. It’s the only one founded by Jesus. Simple, really.
In the last days, objections have been made to the fact that many of those who write about Catholic matters do so anonymously. As always, there is no scarcity of people who indulge in easy accusations of what they don’t like, and can’t control. Let us examine what this is all about and the many valid reasons for anonymity on the internet.
1) Anonymity is freedom. Unless one lives on Planet Pollyanna, there is no denying (not even by its detractors) that the protection afforded by anonymity allows information to be exchanged and discussed that otherwise would have never reached a wider public. This makes our societies (and more specifically the religious discussion) more free. This is important, as freedom of expression is an extremely important pillar of every democratic society.
2) Anonymity encourages criticisms of what doesn’t work within the Church. As Catholics, we have the duty to react to scandals and abuses we see around us, but we don’t have the duty to seek martyrdom (I mean here in a broader sense, as persecution or discrimination because of our convictions) if we don’t have to. Anonymity on the internet makes therefore not only democratic societies more free, but provides a better system of control for the abuses within the Church. If a Bishop tells you that he feels scrutinised by the anonymous internet bloggers, it’s because he is. This is good for Catholicism, and potentially vital for the salvation of the relevant Bishop’s soul.
3) The accusations of it being “coward” to hide behind anonymity are the most cowardly acts themselves. Repressive political systems are those who try to repress anonymity the hardest. The people asking bloggers to reveal their identity are not much different than, say, Saddam Hussein calling his opponents cowards because they stay hidden. There’s a reason why people hide behind anonymity and only stupid people, or people in utter bad faith, pretend not to understand them.
4) If you look attentively, you noticed that anonymity is one of the most powerful engines of progress. Whistleblowing sites could never exist without the protection afforded by anonymity, and they are a most powerful engine of correct behaviour and have now possibly become the most implacable weapon against criminal behaviour within corporations and public bodies. Why anonymity would be acceptable for them but unacceptable for misbehaviour within the Church (which, notabene, can include child abuse and the like) is beyond me.
5) The accusation of it being very easy to slander people from behind anonymity does not really stand scrutiny. It being very easy to slander from behind a wall of anonymity, the relevant information is heavily discounted. People have always written anonymously on walls, but this has never made what they wrote believed just because it was written. On the contrary, an accusation made from an anonymous person will need to be substantiated to even begin to carry any real credibility. This is exactly what happens on the Internet. Criticism of clergy is accompanied with facts and evidence, or it is easily discarded. This is another of the beauties of the Internet. If, say, a Bishop gives scandal by participating to the “ordination” of a “bishopess” or some Protestant ecclesial community, the information will be there with the facts: day, people present, photos, videos, the whole enchilada. It is obvious to the meanest intelligence what counts here is the fact, the provenance being fully irrelevant in the economy of the scandal.
6) It is undeniable, though, that insisted, repeated slander may – even if unsubstantiated – have some effect in the long-term on the person affected. Voltaire used to say something on the lines of “keep on slandering: something will stick”. There you are, you will say, but the best protection against such slander is, once again, anonymity! Every non addetto ai lavori (as journalist, or priest) who willingly renounces to his own anonymity when he writes on the internet is allowing his ego to play him the most dangerous of tricks. Be assured that there will be a price to pay, as recently seen in the case of a “commenterer” known to many of us.
7) It has always been known to people with some salt in their brains – a minority, I sometimes think – that a wise man picks up his own fights. It is utterly illogical (nay: it is outright stupid) to think that what we write will not have an impact on our future – allowing for countless forms of covert discrimination, never to be proved and impossible to trace or fight against – for decades to come. It is the very freedom of our societies which makes this unavoidable.
This may not be a problem for a journalist (who makes of it his profession, and for whom his own name is a brand and professional tool), but can be a huge problem for everyone else. A wise man will prudently decide himself if and when and under which conditions to face a conflict because of his religious convictions, but a moron will gladly expose himself to every kind of retaliation of which he might even never become aware (lost work opportunities, or business opportunities, or both).
8 ) Even anti-discrimination legislation wisely chooses the same way as Internet bloggers. Information about health, age, religion cannot be asked by a potential employer. There is a reason why, and it is that such information opens huge doors to discrimination. How stupid would it be to legislate against such form of discrimination, whilst demanding that bloggers voluntarily expose themselves to it, irrevocably, for all time to come. Make no mistake, religion is – and always will be – the biggest cause of hatred and conflict. It’s just the way it is and he who doesn’t see it is in serious need of waking up.
9) Stupid commenters were never considered less stupid because they are not anonymous. Intelligent commenters were never considered less intelligent because they are. I – and everyone else – will pick my sites and blogs according to the validity of their content, not according to the degree of anonymity of their writers. Just to make an example, “Splintered Sunrise” is an excellent blog. Is anyone concerned that it is anonymous? Not I.
10) We have recently had another example of how beautiful anonymity is. I do not know whether priests are allowed to blog anonymously (albeit, by definition if they really wanted they’d be able to do it anyway), but had Fr. Mildew written an anonymous blog, he’d have been much more relaxed against the bullying of Mgr. Basil Loftus. His blog is now closed. QED.
This is of course not meant to be a justification of my being strictly anonymous, for which there is no need. Rather a caveat to all those who still haven’t understood the potentially devastating influence of a sustained, prolonged Internet presence with their own names, particularly when the subject matter is not neutral (like photography, dogs, or gardening) but serious, highly emotional issues like politics and, most importantly, religion.
Wake up to the reality of the Internet. The immense freedom it harbours also hides dangers for your own professional future; dangers the more devastating because subtle and able to damage you whilst keeping you fully unaware of what is happening. And if you think that this problem only concerns people with extreme views or roaming the internet with illegal purposes ask everyone who works for reference checking firms, and think again.
( You’ll have to copy and paste this, I am afraid. And believe me, you want to switch the audio off….).
From Gloria.tv, a video of the body of Padre Pio after its controversial exhumation in 2008. As you can see from the video, the body is in an impressive state of conservation. As far as I know, there are no ways known to man to preserve a corpse in such a way, for such a long time and a simple look at the video will persuade you that no embalming – not attempted, as well-known from the filmed inhumation and, also filmed, sealing of the tomb – could ever reach such results.
As the seals have been opened in front of the cameras, and th estate of the tomb perfectly corresponded to the state of the tomb filmed by the original inhumation, there can be no doubt that the largely incorrupt body shown in 2008 is the original, with no tricks attempted by anyone.
I am obviously far from saying that this alone is proof of the existence of God – which can be reached in a purely intellectual way without any need for Padre Pio’s body anyway -. Still, if I were an atheist these images would give me much to think about.
This morning at Mass the celebrant briefly preceded the homily with a short description of what is happening with the introduction of the new translation. As we were by the strange Mass that the Oratorians call “Sung Latin, Ordinary Form” – and which is, in fact, its first version, very similar to a Tridentine Mass, with only a few modifications for example with the introduction of the bidding prayers – it was duly pointed out that in this mass there would be only one modification: at the beginning of the bidding prayers, the answer to “The Lord be with you” would be “and with your spirit” rather than “and also with you”.
After which, Father Harrison simply invited to make a dry run, and after he said “the Lord be with you” all the congregation answered “and with your spirit”, in an atmosphere of tangible merriment.
You see? It wasn’t difficult. Some words are substituted with others. People are told which words are substituted for which. They say the new words. That’s that.
I so wish all those liberal whinos treating us all like lobotomised morons to have been present in order to witness this miraculous feat of instant learning. You will be pleased to know that, to my knowledge, no old pew sitter suffered any noticeable distress at hearing the words, and I even dare to predict that all of them will cope all right and survive the shock.
Furthermore, I also venture to suggest that most of those liberal thickos who have difficulties in learning new words are, at least, able to read. Well, this should go a long way towards solving the problem, as the simple reading of the text and the saying of what one finds written week after week should, in time, allow even the most intellectually challenged Birkenstock-wearing liberal moron to cope with the new words.
There were old words. Now there will be new ones. In a couple of months people will struggle to remember what the old expressions were. It’s really as banal as that. Please stop harassing us with the myth of the old man unable to learn a couple of words, or traumatised at having to say “and with your spirit”.
Please find here the text of the Vatican’s answer to the Irish Government’s populist and rather stupid aggression following the publication of the Cloyne Report.
Rather late now and I only browsed the text a bit before going to bed. It seems to me that this is unusually strong tobacco for any diplomacy, let alone the Vatican one. I might be wrong, and I need to re-read the thing with more leisure and more time.
Glad to see they still have some teeth left, though. At least the diplomatic ones.
The “call to disobedience” of the Austrian heretics seems to slowly infect their cousins in Germany.
Here it is none other than the head of the German Bishop’s Conference, archbishop Zoellitsch, to lead the charge of those not only willing, but proud to assume a position of open conflict with the Church and to tell us how good they are in the process.
Make no mistake, Archbishop Zoellitsch is merely trying to curry favour with the tepidly Catholic Germans who still pay the Kirchensteuer. These Germans, having been never properly instructed and having been afflicted by one of the most cowardly clergy of the planet, seriously believe that they have the right to question Catholic truth. No surprise, when even their shepherds do the same….
Said shepherds have no inclination – and no economic interest – in trying to properly instruct their sheep, fearing that, if they so do, the sheep will stop paying the “church tax”, or Kirchensteuer ; which is, in fact, no tax at all, but a voluntary contribution that can be stopped at any time, though with a certain amount of red tape involved.
I will examine below what the Archbishop is capable to say in order to secure his pieces of silver. But first I would like to point out that there can be no doubt whatsoever that Archbishop Zoellitsch’s intervention is motivated by the desire to appear in tune with the secularised “Church Tax” payer by putting himself in clear conflict with Rome. His scandalous words can only be seen in connection with the grave crisis of the “Kirchensteuer” system, now raging also in Germany.
In Italy, we call a person who gives away his values for economic interests (by extension, even if he is a man) with the resounding, emotionally charged and, well, not entirely polite name of puttana. Whilst one hesitates to call a bishop “puttana”, there can be no doubt that sheer prostitution is what is happening here. Bishop Zoellitsch doesn’t have any scruple in giving away his supposedly Catholic credentials – those values he has the duty to protect – in order to please those who pay for the expenses of one of the richest (and possibly: the richest) churches of the Catholic universe. And he is so fine with that, and has the economic motives of his spenders so much in his mind, and feels so secure that the wealth of the German Church gives him a say, that he doesn’t fail to let Rome know that Germany is a big contributor to the Roman coffers. In other words, the killjoys in Rome are requested to shut up and to let him satisfy the desires of the paying public.
Archbishop Zoellitsch’s main aim is to relieve the suffering of rosewater Catholics who have left – or have been left by – their partners and now live in concubinage with another partner (hopefully of the other sex, though I wonder what Zoellitsch would think if this wasn’t the case). The Archbishop’s argument is – wait for this – that it is a matter of “mercy” that these people should be allowed to receive communion, and at this point one truly wonder whether the speaker is a shepherd, or a madam.
Last time I looked, a concubine couldn’t receive communion because he or she is a concubine. What’s difficult in that? The concept of concubine is not difficult to grasp, provided one understands the concept of marriage in the first place. Marriage is a bond that cannot be broken as long as both spouses live. Therefore, if one lives with a person that is not his spouse he is living with a concubine, and to his fornication he adds the scandal of openly rebelling to the Church’s rules. Again: what’s difficult in that? What is beyond the power of understanding of an eight years old child, let alone a bishop?
Now, no one can say that Catholic societies have not been blessed with a human understanding for human frailties far away from the rigidity of Protestantism. But even in those societies, no one has ever dreamed to say that such frailties are justified, or that giving scandal be something deserving of mercy, or that human mercy may wash away mortal sin. Put in a simple way, a man who left his wife and family was always, always considered an idiot, a family wrecker, and a self-centered child and a woman who left her husband to live with another man was always considered the above-mentioned puttana. Similarly, it has always been considered a given that scandal be avoided at all costs, so that one’s weaknesses be not source of sin or confusion for others. It makes sense, and it works rather well.
This should now change, says Archbishop Zoellitsch. Public sin and scandal should have no sacramental consequence, because we are so merciful.
I truly wonder what the Archbishop is thinking, because what he says just isn’t Catholic: is he saying that one who leaves his spouse and takes a concubine doesn’t live in mortal sin? Really? Really? An Archbishop? The head of the German Bishop’s Conference? If he thinks that open scandal and public concubinage isn’t a mortal sin, how can he call himself I don’t say a Catholic, but a Christian? Heavens, even Casanova could give this man lessons in morals! If he thinks that concubinage is a mortal sin, how can he think that a person in mortal sin can validly receive Holy Communion? What does he think Holy Communion is, a piece of bread given to those the community wants to feel included?
The simple, painful truth is that the Archbishop very well knows what a mortal sin is; he is fully aware of the sacramental nature of the Holy Communion; he knows perfectly well that it is a sheer impossibility that a sacrament may be validly received by a person in mortal sin. He knows all that, but he has chosen to prostitute himself and the German church for the sake of the “Church Tax” payments.
If you have any doubt, you can read the rest of the interview (if you can read German). He takes the German president, Mr Christian Wulff, as example of the “good” Catholic who is left out of communion by those baddies in Rome because….. he has left his wife and is now the concubine of another woman. He says that he is “impatient” with the rhythm of “change”, thus implying both that he is better than the men in Rome and that there can be any “change” in doctrinal matters in the first place. He even comes to the point of praising the Green Party and here the whoredom truly reaches the summit. If he saw some money coming, Archbishop Zoellitsch would, no doubt, praise the North-Korean government as a shining example of “merciful” behaviour.
We don’t want to use the word that is appropriate to describe the Archbishop’s moral stature. We must be at all times aware of the fact that, by grossly insulting a shepherd of the Church, we insult the Church he represents. But make no mistake, Archbishop Zoellitsch is making of the German Church the brothel of German secularism, in the hope it continues to pay.
Personally I see only one way out of this situation:
a. Exemplary punishment of the Archbishop. Punish one, so that one hundred may learn.
b. The end of the Kirchensteuer and the dismantling of this rich, lazy, stupid, corrupt, and utterly heretical ministerial apparatus
c. The complete re-organisation of the Catholic Church in Germany with the principles of far less money for the priests – among the best paid on the planet -, far more attention to orthodoxy and far less attention to pleasing the public.
d. a massive and sustained work of re-education (better: of education) of the German Catholics.
This is not easy and not to achieve rapidly, but it can be achieved if in Rome it is finally acknowledged that the German Church is ill to the point of descending to utter prostitution in order to save her wealth and comfort.
I have taken the “Heresy in Austria” post away from the “sticky” position.
I wanted to leave it only a couple of days, but every time I read it I got so angry at clicking on the link and seeing that the “call to disobedience” was still there that I decided to leave it again and again.
With the time, though, the thing has started to nerve me rather mightily and whilst this will happen to me more often than to you, I start to think that many readers weren’t so astonishingly pleased, either.
I will re-post the post as “sticky” every now and then in order to give the situation regular visibility without unnerving the readers. On all other days, the two references to the heresy in Austria prepared from the start (the “stop” sign on the right hand side and the extra post on the upper bar, put in the second best position and only after the Rosary) will allow everyone to click and check if at least the link has been removed (it reads in German “Aufruf zum Ungehorsam”: as long as it’s there, nothing has happened).
In the meantime there has been nothing more than a moderate non-development with some more meowing from the Archbishop, meowing not only largely expected but indispensable to avoid the boot. Nothing more as far as I know. If there is anything new and relevant (excluding meowing) perhaps the one or other will let me know.
Thank you for your patience, which must have been tested in some case. I know mine was.
The Mexican Presbyterians have decided, after 139 years, to file for divorce from the PCUSA, the Presbyterian [so-called] Church of the USA.
It would appear that whilst the Holy Ghost spoke to the ones suggesting to them that homosexual priests – I mean here outright sodomites – are just the ticket, the same Holy Ghost spoke to the others – in good Spanish, I presume – telling them that this is a no-no.
As a consequence of this translation/communication/phone signal problems, the two organisations have resulted in an event that can be rightly defined one of the defining features of Protestantism, and a significant Protestant gift to the modern world: divorce.
I do not know whether or how the two organisations will discuss their differences, and whenever I am in front of these situations I can’t avoid being embarrassed for the boys, girls and third sex members (plus all the other abbreviated indications denoting sexual deviancy) of the Episcopalians.
In fact, if the Holy Ghost is speaking to both, then something must be wrong with the Holy Ghost and even they can safely exclude that. If nothing is wrong with the Holy Ghost, though, one can only conclude either that the entire idea was wrong these last 139 years, or that the Holy Ghost has gone away from/is kept out from the sister/spouse congregation, in which case the matter is more than creepy and the question why one should follow one congregation that can go completely to the dogs in a matter of decades rather than the one who has gone on strong for 2000 years and was founded by our Saviour instead a rather valid one.
Can’t wait for the moment when the Presbyterians will give communion to dogs.
Oh no, wait! It has happened already!
The photo you see above depicts Renato Bertelli’s Profilo Continuo, a then extremely celebrated and, still today, rather admired work of modern art.
The work represents, as the name suggests, the profile of the Duce over a 360 degree rotation.
Whilst the profile of the Duce is very marked and, so to speak, fitting for the role, what counts here is the impression of strenght, daring innovation, and even speed suggested by the work.
Bertelli’s inspiration didn’t go unnoticed. Mussolini was so pleased with it that he allowed its use as official portrait, and the work gave birth to reproduction that lovers of art (and, presumably, of Fascism) could install in their own reception rooms.
You see here, if I may say so, modern art at its best. You see what the work is aimed at, you visually and instinctively “get” the message of the work: the representation of Mussolini’s traits as the embodiment of a new era, a brave and daring, but breathtakingly modern one. Whilst very modern and with the Duce almost not recognisable, it still defines him in a brilliant way.
Fast forward to 2011. A new statue is revealed in Piazza dei Cinquecento, in Rome. The statue represents the late Pope, John Paul II.
It is, undoubtedly, a piece of modern art. There is a huge cavity, strongly resembling a device for the relief of gentlemen’s bladder urges and therefore fittingly called, by the vox populi, orinale. Apparently, said urinal-shaped cavity represents the desire of the late Pope to be inclusive, and accept everyone. It still looks like a urinal, though.
Over this strange device, a head is placed. A heavy, square, hard one. A head which, coincidentally, looks pretty much like the Duce’s head – it is astonishing how certain things remain in the collective imagination of a country – but is supposed to be the head of the late Pope instead. One looks at the “work” and thinks that whatever the artist has been smoking, it should be taken away from him at once.
Note that Bertelli didn’t need any modification to his work; and that his work actually wouldn’t have tolerated any, so beautiful it is in its purity of lines and clarity of purpose. This doesn’t seem to be the case of the artist of (degenerate) art who created the urinal, because said (degenerate) artist has now promised to modify the work so that people, at least, stop thinking that it is a monument to Mussolini with the wrong name.
One wonders what will happen, then, to this “masterwork with second thoughts”. Will the head be so modified as to make it more similar to the one of the late Pope? Will we get a profilo continuo of the said pope above the orinale? Will the Pope miraculously get things like… arms? Will the urinal be actually replaced with something at least vaguely resembling a body?
In the same weeks of the inauguration of the orinale, a statue to Ronald Reagan was unveiled in front of the American Embassy in London. It looks like – you wouldn’t believe it – Ronald Reagan. One wonders how the Americans could be so unbearably unimaginative as to commission something resembling the person it is meant to remember!
I do not know you, but I am fed up with idiots squandering public money and wanting to be cretinous at all costs, purely out of fear of not being considered intellectual and unconventional enough. Cretins is what they’ll be considered, both those who made the “work” and those who commissioned and approved it.
I am waiting to see what “modifications” are going to be unveiled. I’m afraid we haven’t stopped laughing yet.
One of the most tragic effects of the modern culture of death is being revealed in the last years: the selective abortion of girls.
As you can read here, this murderous practice has taken hold not only in China, but also in other Asian countries characterised by a strong preference for boys (curiously, then, some liberals will tell you that Catholicism is male-centered).
When in a country like China 120 boys are born for 100 girls, you know something really bad is in the making.
On the one hand, this clearly impacts public order. Males are sexually aggressive and a generalised scarcity of women is, on a collective scale, bound to cause problems of various kind. I can’t imagine that countries with a primitive legal system but vastly corrupted local structures, like China, will not have mafia organisations selling the “right to marry” in the territory they control, and killing those who marry without paying; or young women being sold to the one making the best offer; or an increase in the killing of men caused by the desire to have their wife “available” again.
On the other hand, this shows us how feminism starts to kill its daughters, with women’s “liberation” becoming the liberty to be killed in the womb because a woman. If you are looking for a form of discrimination against women, you can’t find one more cruel and cynical than this. But hey, don’t tell the feminazis, they would give the blame of all this on… men, and prefer not to see what monsters abortion has given birth to.
Besides, every Chinese/Asian man (and, make no mistake, woman: the discrimination against women has deep roots over there, and you can’t blame men for what is common mentality and custom) would be able to tell the feminazis that “reproductive health” applies to them too, and that Asian women should have no less rights than their Western counterparts.
Abortion: the gift that keeps on giving.
Firstly, some background information for the readers. When you have your own blog you have the possibility of seeing, from a “background page” not available to the public, which other internet pages have linked to you causing readers to land on your internet site from the site who carried the link. Every now and then, one clicks to see what is going on and is then carried directly to the internet site that has posted a link to one’s own site.
It was thus that I landed, some days ago, on this site. As you can see, this is not a very liberal site and is actually far more on the conservative site than yours truly; it appears to be either very near, or a mouthpiece of the SSPX (or FSSPX, if you prefer the abbreviation of its Latin name) itself. In particular, on this same thread another post was placed, equating the possible “peace proposals” of the Vatican to the Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes (“I fear the Greeks, even when they are bearing gifts”) many of us will remember from our schooldays.
I found the comparison indelicate, as whilst I do not think that along the corridors of the Vatican everything is made in a spirit of disinterested saintliness I do believe that the attempt to reach a reconciliation with the FSPPX is a sincere one, and a great concern of the Holy Father. If memory serves, I saw this “Greeks fearing” comment (possibly also posted elsewhere) mentioned in Rorate Caeli, with reactions generally not far away from mine.
It turns out now from Messa in Latino that:
a) the Timeo Danaos comment is lifted from here and therefore clearly from Williamson himself.
b) that, coming from Williamson, this would be a clear indication that, however concrete or advanced, some form of proposal is really in preparation.
What Messa in Latino is thinking is that possibly on the 14 september we will not have the official announcement of an agreement with the FSSPX, but the presentation of a proposal, that would be examined by the SSPX in all tranquility, particularly in view of the unfortunate Assisi-III gathering still scheduled for October.
Messa in Latino finds the events momentous enough to justify the title “Rome-FSSPX: decisive moments ahead”. I am obviously pleased, but cannot avoid noticing that if no agreement is being finalised, the (mere) proposal of a structure similar to an Ordinariate for the SSPX and other traditionalists would not be anywhere near the historical moment perhaps hoped by many within the SSPX (and dreaded by the liberal troops), but rather the beginning of a painful – if hopefully salutary – phase of conflict within the SSPX itself, with the likes of Williamson refusing a priori every kind of contamination with Rome’s “Greeks” whatever the gifts, and the coming Assisi “event” not contributing at all to the serenity of the discussion.
Please also note that, in an unprecedented move, a religious sister from New Zealand has been authorised to be transferred to a convent dependent from the FSSPX. I can’t imagine such a decision unless if dictated from the persuasion that a reconciliation is not so very far away. The news relating to the sister has been published and then taken offline, but it is still available in cached version, with the link on the Messa in Latino site. Whilst I understand Messa in Latino’s reasons to publish it I prefer not to do it for obvious reasons, but take it from me.. ;).
From the outside, we can’t do anything else than pray of course. Still, one can’t avoid thinking that if such a proposal is on the table, it would have been perhaps wiser to wait until after the Assisi-III gathering – provided that such an event must really take place – and start the discussion, say, before Christmas or around Easter, in a different and less controversial environment.
I find some positions within the SSPX frankly difficult to digest, and the entire Danaos-attitude not helpful. But from what I have read around – on the internet, and from the leaflets-booklets I have picked from them on several occasions – the desire for reconciliation is very vivid among the majority of the members and supporters of the organisation, and the idea that Rome should be “converted to Catholicism” (rather than, say, persuaded to rephrase and reformulate questionable statements and attitudes of the past) rather in the minority.
Let us hope and pray for the best. Even if on the 14 September nothing should happen, this might be a good sign as it might – just might – indicate that a proposal for reconciliation is ready, but its official presentation wisely postponed to a less controversial time.
Three cheers for Fr John Lankeit, the rector of the Cathedral of Ss. Simon and Jude, Phoenix, and also echoed by Father Z.
Father Lankeit had the lucidity and courage to say out loud that what is wrong can’t be right; not even then, when this wrong is very dear to secular minds. I wish the Conciliar fathers had had the same courage when subversive tendencies appeared in their respective diocese; but this obviously didn’t happen, seen that the subversive tendencies had been encouraged and abetted by those same bishops who should have suffocated them.
Fr Lankeit decided, then, to say what rather everyone well underway on his process of sobering – or who never got drunk in the first place – knows: there can be no place in the Church for so-called “altar girls”. He doesn’t say it with these words of course, but the message is clear enough. It was more than a mistake, it was a liturgical abuse to which Rome caved in out of sheer cowardice; a cowardice that has made incalculable damage, the rubble only in the last years being seriously, if slowly, removed. What is wrong doesn’t become right merely because it’s been approved.
Allow me to let Fr Lankeit speak:
“If you look around the Church — and I’m talking about the overall Church — if you look at dioceses, if you look at religious orders and you look at parishes where they have the clear honoring of the distinction and the complementarity of men and women, you see both vocations flourish,” Fr. Lankeit said. “And when I say both vocations, I mean to the priesthood as well as vocations to the consecrated religious life.”
Look – the man is saying – when you do things the proper way, you have more vocations among people of both sexes!
“Vocation crisis” is just another word for “liberal madness”: when you had the former you unavoidable got the latter; as the latter goes away the former will unavoidably disappear.
Fr Lankeit has others, long-forgotten or long-ignored truths to say. Try this:
“Prior to my ordination, as a single, Catholic man, I had no right whatsoever to the priesthood. And so when I went into the seminary, I was determining whether or not Jesus Christ was calling me to be a priest, but the Church was likewise discerning me and the ultimate decision was the Church’s,” Fr. Lankeit said. “Even if I felt very, very strongly at the bottom of my heart that I was called to be a priest and the Church didn’t recognize that, I had to accept that.”
I wonder how you can explain this to the modern feminazis: that there is no right to priesthood, no matter how strong you “feeeel”. No, it’s not about your feelings and no, you are not God and are not authorised to change His rules, though you may “feel” you are. I am afraid that allowing girls to become “altar boys” hasn’t helped to get this simple facts straight.
“The Church was likewise discerning me”. Thank God for Fr Lankeit, and please let your Hail Mary for him be a beautiful one.
Or try this one:
Q: Do young girls who serve at the altar become nuns?
A: “I haven’t seen that evidence”
You weren’t being inattentive, Father. The only vocation of “altar girls” which seems to work very well is the one to sanctimonious, secretly mocked, bossy old ugly feminist. No vocation crisis there I am afraid. Well, not yet; but given time and undertakers, tutto si aggiusta….
Out of tune, I must say, is the close of the article, with the mother of two siblings (one a boy, already an altar server; the other a girl, apparently aspiring to become one) who thinks that she must “understand where it’s coming from” and says “I would want to know more about the reasons for the change before having an opinion about it.” I hope that after the knowing will come the understanding, but the rather unpleasant impression remains that what counts in the journalist’s mind is what the mother thinks, rather than what the Church has done these two thousand years. I wasn’t entirely surprised in discovering that I was very interested to know what Fr Lankeit’s motives are, but really couldn’t care less of what opinion the lady will have.
Insensitive, isn’t it?
I don’t know anything about Justin Bieber. I mean, I really couldn’t care a straw. I barely know he exists, and I assure you the last circumstance is merely due to the fact, alas, not being really avoidable.
It’s astonishing to me that people still fighting against their acne might be considered the carrier of any form of message (let alone wisdom) whatsoever. It tells something about the state of our society. Add to this that the young man looks like a …. oh well, let’s not say that, poor chap.
It would appear that whatever this chap says, makes waves. Crucially, he appears to be, in a way, “pro life”. At least as much as one can be whose clarity of thought doesn’t go beyond saying “whatever they have in North Korea, that’s bad”. Whatever? If you don’t even know what it is they have, how can you….. ? But I’m getting excited, and in the day of Gaddafi’s fall I do not want to get nervous.
It would also appear that the young chap has made a video looked at 600 million times, which poses the question whether all this popularity couldn’t be put to a good use, for example trying to condemn genocide. Adolf Hussein Obama wouldn’t be pleased for sure; at least for the duration of a golf game.
It seems easy, but it isn’t. In my eyes, the problems are as follows:
1. This is a teenager. Teenagers do change their mind. If you start supporting him now that he says what you like, you run the risk of a huge problem the day he will start saying things you don’t. The probability is not small.
2. This is a teenager who can only influence teenagers. People who – looking at reality for what it is for once instead of drinking the kool-aid of youth rhetoric – don’t vote and, basically, don’t count. People who will grow out of their infatuation with a pop idol and will soon start thinking with their own head, provided they have one. It is a delusion to think that a pop idol can influence a generation, much less a generation of teenagers into their adult years. Teenagers change rather rapidly and many will be ashamed in five years’ time – nay, make it two – of having ever told themselves fans of their idol of yesteryear.
3. Beware of those who are popular. Truth is not spread through those who are popular. On the contrary, popularity (as in pop-ularity) doesn’t really make great inroads. If the religious opinions of famous people had a real relevance, Scientology would make no prisoners. The reality is that people – even when stupid, and even when teenagers; which all too often is the same thing – can well separate their musical preferences from their values. My impression is that people “follow” their idols when the latter do what they want to do in the first place; their idol is one who took drugs because they want to take drugs, etc. Pop idols don’t change people, for sure, much less change adolescents into different adults. Thank God for that, by the way.
4. If we want to really fight against abortion, we need something with a bit more weight than a walking Clearasil ad. We need brave priests and bishops saying it as it is. Serious advancement for Truth is effected by serious people being taken seriously by serious people, not by teenagers expressing some broken idea in broken English to other barely literate teenagers.
Bieber can do whatever he pleases. It doesn’t really count. What counts is, primarily, priests and bishops, and they are the ones who must begin to seriously wake up.
It’s not that people become conservative because, say, they like Beyonce’s voice (a lot else to like, anyway….). They become conservative because they develop that conviction.
Like millions of others, I spent countless hours listening to Simon & Garfunkel. Never could give a straw what their political opinions are.