Understandably, many good Catholics are now praying every day that the Lord may, in His Mercy, free us from Francis, the Scourge of Catholicism. They rightly reflect that due to the unique position of this man, as I write this on the morning of the 3 October 2013 it is fair to say no one else on the entire planet is making – unwittingly, I hope – the work of the Devil as effectively and as destructively as this man.
Still, it must be very clear to us that what we – as Catholics and Christians – are collectively living is nothing more than what we have collectively deserved, and the Lord's Justice has now descended upon us in a way that is impossible for us to ignore any longer.
It is as if the Lord would – in a way, of course – say to us: “So you love ecumenism, don't you? Care a lot for “religious freedom”, right? Live happily with abortion, am I wrong? Are so full of understanding for sins that call to heaven for vengeance, aren't you? Well, boys 'n girls: let's see how you like this…“.
After which, he allows the Cardinals to commit the Stupid Act Of The Century and appoint an ignorant, hypocritical, morally very questionable, fake humble, unaware of Catholicism, clearly heathenish, popularity-worshipping, camera-loving, logorrhoea-plagued, beauty-hating, provincial Argentine Peronist as Pope.
Punctually, the man begins to give them – and all of us – overdoses of what they – and all of us – have been tolerating for decades. Better still, the man brings the many budding heresies of the V II to ripeness, like a peach in August. With him the Neo-Modernist heresies, up to now mixed with Catholic Truths, become of age, and want if not the sole attention, certainly the main place at the Catholic table.
You loved ecumenism. Enjoy Francis being consequent and saying that, then, there is no need to convert anyone. No! No! No! Hey, God isn't Catholic, says he! (a Sign of the Cross is here certainly in order).
You loved religious freedom. How about a Pope fighting for the right of Muslim to eat halal meat? Or paying attention that his sodomy-loving Jewish buddy eats kosher? Do you really like to be forced to have the couple of faggots “sleep” in your bed and breakfast, in front of your family? Is having to pay for other people's abortion and contraception tolerant enough for you? How do you like the obvious faggot soldier on the shower near you, talking of his impending “marriage” with his “love” whilst he looks at your buttocks?
You were happy to look the other way about abortion, and always said you were “personally opposed”; but you clearly wanted to be nice at all times and not impinge in the “right” of others to kill their baby in the womb. How about a Pope who says a yearly multiple Holocaust on a planetary scare is something we should not obsess about, and the biggest problems in the world are… youth unemployment and old people's loneliness?
You were happy to be so silent about sodomy. How about many countries exposing your children to sodomy as a human right even at school, whilst the Pope does not say one single word against sodomy, doubling it with “who am I to judge” and the invitation not to be “obsessed”? I am sure I have left aside a lot, but you get the drift.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
Sow the Novus Ordo mass, reap the Pinocchio Mass.
Sow ecumenism, reap indifferentism or outright New Age rubbish.
Sow religion freedom, reap the persecution of Catholics.
Sow Vatican II, reap Francis.
We are being deservedly punished. We are being shown on our flesh the folly of our ways, because we were so blind and stupid we did not get that, to make one example for all, the Assisi gatherings – particularly the first – are blasphemy and abomination.
We collectively pay the price of our collective folly. We collectively deserve every mouthful of excrement this unspeakably unworthy Pope will thrust down our throats; feeling, no doubt, extremely humble as he does so, and reaping the lavish praise of all the wrong people, from perverted singers to abortionist organisations, and from liberal journalists to the holocaust-promoting President of the United States, who has just joined the long list of his fans.
The only way out now is to denounce the excrements for what they are, and hope the Divine Spoon will be taken away from us soon.
But truly, we have deserved every spoonful. God does not owe us an orthodox Pope. We may hope he takes Francis away from us; but if we are honest with ourselves, why should He?
Sow the error, reap the spoon.
A rather robust and on the whole not at all disappointing speech from Pope Francis yesterday in front of the diplomatic corps. The text is everywhere.
Whilst we Catholic bloggers are obviously not grading Popes’ speeches, this is the beginning of a Pontificate which might well become rather disquieting. It is, therefore, natural that his public utterances are now watched with particular – actually, anxious – attention.
My take on the speech follows. If you want to read it, fine. If you think Popes’ speeches must not be commented on, click away now. Your comment will be thrashed.
So there we are.
1. No ad libitum additions. This being a speech in front of diplomatic corps, adding them might have been a bit too much spontaneity. Or it might be that the Pontiff prefers to reflect well in advance on all he wants to say. This is probably the wisest course of conduct, as spontaneous language may lack the clarity of a prepared speech.
2. No trace of Liberation Theology. The mention of poverty seems to me perfectly in line with Catholic teaching; the Pope also makes reference to spiritual poverty; he even brilliantly links it to the “tyranny of relativism”. A Pope is, as he is Pope, obviously concerned with poverty. In fact, I don’t think many Popes weren’t: Pope Leo X perhaps, and a handful of others like him. As long as this does not become a criticism of Capitalism qua capitalism, or a programmatic stance to remake the planet and human nature with it, I think every Catholic should be pleased; nay, relieved.
3. “There is no true peace without truth!” A beautiful, beautiful statement, and possibly the main message this speech wanted to send out. Everything is based on Truth, and whoever betrays the Truth in the assumed interest of peace is, in fact, betraying both and achieving none.
4. “Pontiff means bridge builder”. Well, yes and no. Pontiff comes from the Latin Pontifex, the highest religious office among the Romans. The spiritual origin of this word are lost in the night of time – like many Roman religious customs and names: the Romans clung to their religious traditions so stubbornly that names were kept even after their meaning was lost -. At University, we were taught whilst the exact origin of the name is unknown, the most likely explanation is that in the very beginning what we today called “technology”, or “technical knowledge”, had a sacred meaning, as in those societal structures they were linked with higher wisdom. Pons facere might therefore well have referred to the “technology of bridge building”, a wisdom considered sacred and therefore in the hand of the Roman clergy, with their head aptly called the “bridge builder”, the Pontifex. Whilst Pope Peter is obviously free to take this word as an inspiration of what he wants to do, it does not seem correct to say or imply past generations have seen the role of the Pontiff as the one of “bridge builder” in the sense of “facilitator of dialogue”, unless of course we talk here of pure evangelisation work. The “bridges” of past Popes were meant to transmit Truth from one shore to the other. Which leads us nicely to the next point,
5. “Dialogue”. It is not entirely clear to me how the bridge building and the dialogue can be squared with wanting to base everything on Truth. If everything is based on Truth, “dialogue” also is. But then it’s not “dialogue” in the V II sense anymore, but pure, unadulterated, unapologetic evangelisation work. Did the Pontiff mean “dialogue” in this sense? I hope so, and his former extolling that peace must be based on Truth seems to enforce the point. Can the “dialogue” be understood in the (spirit of) V II sense of “I am OK where I am, you are OK where you are”? Methinks, he who wants it will be able to read the reference in this way, too. Still, we must be clear before V II “dialogue” was basically seen as evangelisation work: you talk to everyone because everyone needs the Truth.
6. St. Francis. Last time I looked, St. Francis’ “dialogue” with Islam took the form of Crusade and call to conversion. That’s the thing with the Truth, you see.
7. “Dialogue with Islam”. Dialogue with the Islamic world, surely? That is, with Muslims? What I know of Islam excludes that there may ever be any form of “dialogue” with Islam as religion. Like Catholicism, Islam is based on a set of beliefs that does not admit any negotiation and is, therefore, not a possible subject of any “dialogue”. Richard Lionheart certainly “dialogued” with Saladin, but it was not a dialogue between Christianity and Islam, which is intrinsically impossible. Christianity wants the death of Islam, Islam wants the death of Christianity. It’s as simple as that. Christ didn’t say “I am the way, the Dialogue and the Life”. From the Truth of Christ it necessarily follows that Islam has, qua Islam, no right of existence.
Assuming it was here meant “dialogue with Muslims of good will”, and assuming it is the same dialogue Richard had with Saladin (a practical approach to practical problems, not a negotiation on Truth or an acceptance of Lie) I think the dialogue certainly has its own place. If I want to have a Cathedral built in Kuwait City, I will need to dialogue. If I want to explore Sunday festivities for Christians living in Muslim countries, I will have to dialogue. But again, this “dialogue” can only ever be in the service of evangelisation with peaceful means. Still, this was a speech in front of diplomats, so peace and dialogues were naturally to be stressed.
I am, as already stated, relieved. But I also am a mistrustful guy, and the last fifty years have taught me to mistrust V II Popes, none of whom can be defined as “orthodox” by any pre-V II, that is, correct, standard of the word. Therefore, I will wait to see how seriously this Pope takes the concept of Truth, and how much in his mind “dialogue” is, as it necessarily must be, the servant of Truth.
The touchstone of this will be in the new Pope’s approach to “ecumenism”. If his ecumenism will be of the “Assisi meeting” style, we will know Truth is sacrificed to “dialogue”. If he, on the other hand, will always be attentive to stress that everything, even the modern religion of “peace”, must be based on Truth, then I’d say this Pontificate might well surprise us.
It is important that we keep Francis in our prayers.
If you want to have incontrovertible evidence that post V II “ecumenism” is nothing else than a betrayal of Catholicism, look no further than at the reactions of German Lutherans to the rumours of an “ordinariate” for local, and hopefully converted Lutherans desirous to swim the Tiber.
The reaction of some of them was, as widely reported, of an initiative in contrast with the “ecumenical” work made by the Church in the past. They are, of course, perfectly right.
The initiative of actively caring for those Lutherans (hopefully) desirous to side with Truth is in absolute contrast with the mentality, widely spread in Germany, that we must look at Lutherans not as people believing in error and endangering their soul, but of people simply choosing an alternative path to Salvation and therefore to be left in peace; and truly, in a country where a Catholic Cardinal calls Luther “the common doctor” (this would be Lehmann, if memory serves) there is not much else to expect.
The decision to provide for German Ordinariates is, in fact, the opposite of Ecumenism as widely understood by the German Catholic clergy: no surprise our brothers and sisters in state of heresy begin to notice.
If the Ordinariates were to go on, though, one would have some serious worry about what kind of “Catholicism” the poor converts would be subjected to, as the priests able to really think and believe like Catholics seem to be in the minority. The task could be left to the well-equipped and perfectly trained Panzerdivisionen of the SSPX, of course, but my impression is Archbishop Mueller doesn’t like the way they have let him look like an amateur theologian with a penchant for heresy – a stingy remark, because deserved – and therefore no request for help is, I am very much afraid, going to reach Father Schmidberger.
This being Germany, one must consider the ever-present issue of the Kirchensteuer: it may well be that the Church in Germany, faced with the losses caused by the Kirchenaustritte, the exits from the Kirchensteuer-system, has decided that it is time to graze in foreign pastures a bit more assertively. But it really doesn’t make much sense, because if Salvation is in the cards anyway and everyone has his heart in the right place, it should be rather the same what one does, oder?
I am curious to see what the new converts will be taught about extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They might discover some of their new teachers are just as Protestant as they do not want to be anymore.
The 500th anniversary of the date conventionally considered the start of the Heresy of Luther (1517) is fast approaching, and the V II – ecumenical hearts are all a-flutter already.
Cardinal Koch, the man at the Vatican in charge of telling it as it is without ever telling it as it is, has started the hostilities by declaring that the Church does not participate in celebrations of sins. He would, instead, favour a kind of strange “commemoration” during which a “two-sided admission of guilt” would take place. How very John Paul II.
The Cardinal is now running the risk of being accused of not being ecumenical enough; than if you are truly “ecumenical” you are supposed to “charitably” overlook little details like Truth and Heresy, and to take part in the Great Mahatma Gandhesque Ecumenical Love-In, in which everyone loves everybody, God forgives everyone everything, and it should be good that we remind ourselves that we are, at times, all a bit naughty in one way or another.
I do hope the Cardinal does get accused. Firstly, this would have the beneficial effect of unmasking those within the Church who are openly sympathising with heresies; secondly, it might have the effect of forcing the Cardinal to tell a couple of things straight rather than always, always taking the whip out of the drawer and starting the usual public self-flagellation. This is a new fashion introduced by Blessed John Paul II, the brilliant Pope who went around implicitly criticising the Crusades (and perfectly happy to have the media understand the message in that way) whilst he protected all sort of sodomites, fornicators, thieves, and protectors of paedophiles.
In fact, one can reasonably say Cardinal Koch made the first step, but stopped with the second foot in mid-air. His warning that Luther committed “a sin” remains a very vague and very weak statement, if the Cardinal doesn’t openly tell why. Explicit, unmistakeable and insisted condemnation of heresy should be the very first duty of each and every Prince of the Church. Instead, we are served a feeble voice in favour of Truth, without a clear statement as to what this Truth is based upon. The Cardinal should have used this occasion for an open condemnation of heresy and an open call to conversion, without any consideration for the popularity of such statement. This would have been at the same time authentically charitable and authentically ecumenical, then he who does not strongly upholds the faith does not promote Christian unity, but Christian division. The watering-down of Truth through the umpteenth admission of past guilt is not really enticing for confused Christians. On the contrary, the Cardinal’s statement will reinforce in them the feeling that everyone is wrong one way or the other; and if this is so, why shouldn’t they continue to consider the Church wrong in theological matters?
We live in such disgraceful times that even these feeble accusations expose a Cardinal to criticism – a state of thing actively promoted by the Vatican itself in these last 50 years -and we must therefore be grateful for every half word of support for truth.
But make no mistake, every mention of the Heresy of Luther which does not clearly and openly attack heresy falls short of the mark.
Personally, I am not enthusiastic about what I have been reading concerning Pope Benedict’s travel to Germany.
There is in this visit, it seems to me, too much accent on wrong ecumenism, and too little on right Catholicism.
Was it necessary to visit a former monastery now dedicated to a heretic, I wonder. And if it is really necessary to visit such a monastery, should not be the duty of a Catholic – even more so, of a Pope – to make clear to every non-Catholic that there is no salvation outside of the Church, and to explain to them that whilst one can be brought inside the Church in ways we cannot entirely fathom – how many have been saved by last-minute conversion, or perfect contrition before death, we will never know – the willed separation from the Only Church can easily lead to damnation? Isn’t the fight against error something that should be, in the mind of every sincere Christian – even more so, of a Pope – the paramount consideration, and come before every talk of “ecumenical dialogue”, every diplomatic consideration, every show of desire for a “unity” talked about as if it was a value in itself?
And what is the sense – I mean, the religious one; I fully understand the political motive – of traveling to a Protestant site and telling a congregation of assorted Lutherans that we should focus on what unites us? Has heresy been reduced to an aside, something you look at as if it were only a nasty stain on a beautiful painting, an annoying detail, something that should not be allowed to distract you from the main image? Isn’t it, in fact, exactly the contrary: that it is the very fact that we are all Christians that makes heresy so painful and such a wound in the body of Christianity, nay, in the body of Christ?
Isn’t it so, that the photos that will now be transmitted around the world – the Pope on the observer’s right; the head of the German heretics on the left; no obvious distinction in rank or dignity – create a powerful visual image of Catholicism and Heresy being two variants of the same Faith, with equal legitimacy? Isn’t it so, that the massive talk of ecumenical dialogue of the last days generates the impression that the “talks” between Catholics and Protestants be akin to the talks between, say, Israelis and Palestinians, that is: talks were two merely human political positions are opposed, instead of Divine Truth being opposed to Lie? Where does this lie comes from: from the father of lies, or from good-willed men of God happening to have a slight disagreement with Christ’s Church? Can you create a heretical movement and call yourself – or be treated by Catholics as if you were – a man of God? Luther made the work of the devil, full stop.
The photo you see above appeared in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, with the caption: “The Pope takes place on the right, Nikolaus Schneider on the left”. The implied message is, dear reader, exactly the one you are thinking about.
With the usual acumen, Pope Benedict found the way of telling it rather straight about the matter of ecumenism and the wrong hopes it can engender. He is quoted by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as saying:
“Ein selbstgemachter Glaube ist wertlos. Der Glaube ist nicht etwas, was wir ausdenken und aushandeln.“
I would translate as follows:
” A self-made Faith is valueless. Faith isn’t something that we make up and negotiate”
Beautiful, strong words, nicht wahr? What a pity, that he himself should weaken the very concept he has so beautifully expressed by traveling to Erfurt and giving millions of Germans the impression that Luther’s heresy has a dignity or legitimation in itself in the eyes of Catholicism. What a pity, that what can’t be negotiated in Catholicism be swept under the carpet, when the Pope himself says that Catholics and Lutherans should focus on the “great things they have in common”.
Last time I looked, having great things in common with Catholics wasn’t enough to avoid hell. Every pedophile has great things in common with normal people: would you tell him that he should not lose sight of all the great things he has in common with normal people, or would you rather suggest him that he, for the good of his soul, focuses on – cough – the big problem he has?
The comparison of a Protestant with a pedophile may seem strong, but if we look at the matter lucidly we must acknowledge that unless Truth has changed whilst we were in the bathroom, heresy is as big a threat to salvation now as it has always been. How many Protestant sanctuaries this or that Pope decides to visit will, I am afraid, not change an iota in the seriousness of the danger, but it will certainly play a role in how many people are exposed to that danger.
It seems to me that this visit has been – at least up to now – worse than a lost opportunity, rather a positive damage to Catholicism. I have lived in Germany many years and am painfully aware of the confusion reigning among common Catholics as to what is right, and of the unexpressed but palpable desire of wanting to consider Protestantism just another ice cream flavour, or the preference for a different shade of blue.
If you ask me, if this visit will have one effect it will be to reinforce this confusion.
I hope the acoustics was good in the Italian Monastery of… Bose, Italy. If the acoustics wasn’t, accommodation and catering must certainly have been at rather high level, as the place has been chosen (as already anticipated by me when talking about Little Britain) for the latest episode of that expensive exercise in useless waffling, busy-bodying and bad theology, but at the same time in jolly good company and first-class entertainment, called Anglican – Roman Catholic International Commission, in short: ARCIC.
On this particular occasion, the talks went on for ten days, concluding in time for the return of the happy troop before the Champions League final. One can only admire such logistical skills.
There is, of course, no way any “ecumenical dialogue” made in the wrong way may ever lead to anything approaching acceptable results. The inherent ridicule of the situation by which Catholics and Protestants try to find a way by which they might be reconciled without the Protestants becoming Catholics (a very tiring exercise, I suppose; no doubt helped by ten days of healthy doses of good food and fortifying wine) was on this occasion made even clearer by the fact that a lady took part as Anglican “bishopess”, and another lady from I-don’t-care-where as “canoness”. It is clear that female presence was considered indispensable for a more pleasant conversation at table, it being unthinkable that a “bishopess” and/or “canoness” may ever, ever be of any use in any talk based on real ecumenism.
Real ecumenism can never be an exercise by which Catholics and Protestant try to talk their differences away. Nor can it be limited to inconsequential waffle about the desire to get along together, as the Truth should, in a sane world, not have any desire to get along with the lie beside the one to – as long as possible – avoid armed confrontation. Least of all can ecumenism become an effort to let it appear that it be not so important – in everyday life and in the economy of salvation – to be a Catholic or a Proddie. This last error only confuses the Catholics, helps the Protestants to remain in the dark, and is of any use only to the merry ARCIC troop, and to the catering firm.
Real ecumenism is you-come-to-me -ism; it is the talk with the clear intention to help the prodigal son to go back to the father’s house, and no other; it is the unashamed statement that one side is right, the other wrong and one tries to find ways to help those on the wrong side to get to the right one. If this kind of ecumenism is not liked from the other side, though.
The newly established Ordinariates for converted Anglicans are a clear example of ecumenism, because they build bridges for those on the wrong side whilst always making clear where the Truth lies, and where the bridge leads.
My impression is that these merry gatherings have become one of those expensive, but not entirely unpleasant occasions to which the participant do not want to put an end, even when the absurdity of such meetings has been made once and for all obvious by the presence of the “bishopess” and/or “canoness”. I can’t wait for the first transsexual Anglican bishopette. the Anglicans might not be there yet, but given time I’m sure they’ll manage to “catch up with society” as they have done so often (erm: always, really) in the past. I can’t imagine that this would be seen as an obstacle to any future ARCIC: if you can swallow a bishopette, there’ s truly no boundary to what else you could live with.
No. As long as food and wine are going to be good enough, breaking up will be so very hard to do.
It is very interesting to know that in 1976, Michael Voris was altar boy at the Mass celebrated by Archbishop Fulton Sheen to commemorate Independence.
More interesting still is the vivid portrait Voris makes of the man, both in his human quality and fervent patriotism and in his, well, utterly “un-chareeetable” approach to “ecumenical dialogue”.
If you look at the video (for which you might have to register, which is fast and free) you’ll see how saintly men deal with those who want to “improve” Catholicism.