The Wizard, The Wand, And The Clown

If I had one of these, I know whom I would make disappear...

The recent statements of TMAHICH concerning the Theory of Evolution have caused a lot of discussions.

I have already posted some words about the Theory of Evolution. Now I would like to spend some words about what the Unholy Father said about this. I would focus on three aspects: the mind frame, the actual words, and the obvious theological implications.

1. The Pope who thinks that perhaps the Blessed Virgin thought “Lies! I have been deceived!”, or the like, at the foot of the cross seems not to have any doubt about the Theory of Evolution, at all. Where he should have certainties, he has doubts. Where he should have (serious) doubts, he has certainties. Francis is, through and through, a secular mind.

2. The words are, as so often by him, said in Francispeak. His words can mean both the God is not a wizard with a magic wand, and that God is inherently unable to create a world from nothing, and men from nothing, without “helping Himself” with an evolutionary mechanism. The first meaning is nothing more that the usual banal drivel we hear from this man when he is not being heretical. The second is extremely serious. This seems to me a kow-towing to the secular mentality, besides being obviously blasphemous. It is as if Francis would say to the world: “whilst I must tell you that I believe in God because I am the Pope, I will show you I am on your side by making Him as little as I can”.

Ambiguity, confusion, possible blasphemy. This must be Francis speaking, then.

3. The most important aspect is one that, surprisingly, seem to have been rather neglected in the commentaries. I do not believe for a moment that Francis is particularly interested in pushing any kind of evolutionary theory in biological matters. This is not what he is working at. What TMAHICH wants to achieve is to push the idea of an evolutionary theology. Evolutionary not in the sense of growing as, say, an oak evolves, but in the sense of transforming in something completely different from what was before; something very pleasing to Monsignor Ricca, Elton John, Rabbi Skorka, adulterers, concubines, and in short, the world.

The talk of “god of surprises” (lack of capitalisation intentional) and all the drivel about the Holy Ghost leading us to ever new truths is exactly in the same vein.

Francis does not even want to be an heresiarch. He wants to be your new god. What he says, is your new religion. Your religious convictions must change according to where he says the spirit leads him. One would be tempted to say that he has appointed himself the fourth person of the… Holy Tetrarchy, if there were not sufficient doubts already that he believes in both the Second and the Third Person, as proved by his saying that Jews and Muslims believe in the same God as the Christians. But then again this is the same person who states “there is no God! Do not be afraid!” and then proceeds to explain to us there are only… the three Persons, basically being heretical again in that casual, am-I-not-super-cool, half-drunk way of his.

This Is what I found, the other day, most disquieting in Francis' words: his continuous push on this concept of “evolution” into something that is not evolution at all but radical change, contradiction, negation. The speech in question was, if you ask, just another way of preparing the 2015 Synod.

Do not worry too much about the wizard.

Worry about the clown instead.

M

 

The Layer Church

The latest initiative taken by Francis for Lent is certainly laudable. In Rome and elsewhere, a special effort will be made, keeping some churches open in the evening and providing for confession opportunities at that late hour. A beautiful way to remind the faithful of the Sacrament of Confession, and to encourage them to avail themselves of it in this Lenten time.

Unfortunately, this being Francis-The-Bishop-of-Rome the initiative is diluted by the usual, exaggerated expectation for mercy. Therefore, with one corner of his mouth Francis tells you that it is good to go to Confession, whilst with the other he implies that God's inexhaustible mercy doesn't make it necessary; because hey, if you have good will and follow your conscience you will be just fine.

In this, I notice once again the “layer Church” so evident in this year of Pontificate: one layer is the traditional Catholic teaching to which Francis must, being the Pope, pay some sort of lip service. The other layer is the new homemade religion Francis concocted for himself instead of providing himself with a solid Catholic education; this is the religion in which faith is not necessary for salvation because conscience saves, sodomite priests are not to be judged, God slaps one in the wrist at most, being a good Catholic who follows the rules makes one suspicious, and counting your rosaries makes one positively ridiculous, Neo-Pelagian and a lot of other things, none of them positive.

My suspicion is that the former layer comes mainly from his advisors, who suggest to him that he does something Catholic for a change; whilst the latter is obviously the fruit of Francis' decade-long neglect for basic Catholicism and its substitution for a vaguely resentful, and more than vaguely dirty, social gospel.

Francis wasn't born a genius, but like every Modernist he understands if he wants to spread his own gospel – the gospel that makes him so popular among people without the least intention of converting to Catholic values – he must also play the Catholic pope every now and then, and affirm today what he has happily denied yesterday. This latest Confession initiative is just the most recent example: conscience saves, but please go to confession, it's good for the blood pressure.

The antidote for Francis' poison is very simple: we must make an extra effort of learning of sound Catholic teaching; so that every time Francis speaks we may easily recognise what is legitimate Catholicism and what is homemade “Che” religion. It is not really difficult, because Francis' love for headlines and novelty will allow a properly instructed Catholic to almost instantly recognise those concept sounding “off”.

I can at least see no other way we can react to this than by making Francis' antics work for us – in that we use them to root ourselves deeper in the Truth – rather than against us.

Many others will be confused by Francis' Layer Church. But you, dear reader, who are more Catholic than that, will see the danger and instruct others in the proper way to eat it; discarding the mix of sugar and poison Francis has put on top of it; but for heaven's sake, without throwing away the entire cake.

Mundabor

 

Francis: Contradiction, Not Correction

‘umble.

I read from Sandro Magister that Pope Francis is now in the process of “correcting” some of his mistakes. 

No, he isn’t.

A correction is “something that is substituted or proposed for what is wrong or inaccurate”. Basically, it entails saying “that was wrong, and this is right”. 

Francis doesn’t correct himself, and therefore doesn’t “critique” himself in the least. What he does is doing a bit of hunting with the hounds after he has done his media-effective running with the hare.

At the same time, he allows his spokesman to let it be known that whatever he says should not be taken too seriously by Catholics – because it’s just an off-the-cuff comment, you see – well knowing that every time he brings water to the mill of the liberals they will take it extremely seriously, use it for all it’s worth, and continue the narrative of the liberal Pope doing his best to free the church from bla, bla and bla.

Not ‘umble.

Do not be fooled. It may be that Francis strikes a gentler note in the future after his Che Guevara phase. But if this were to happen, it would be because he has seen how much this damages himself , flooding the huge construction site of his own monument.

You recognise an orthodox Pope from the simple fact that he is:

1) consistently orthodox, and therefore

2) hated by the world.

Francis is neither. On the contrary, he is consistently Modernist, mixing orthodox and heretical statements. He is not correcting himself. Not in the least. He is contradicting himself, in order to better confuse you.  

Let us read once again what Pius VI wrote in auctorem fidei: (emphases mine).

They [ our most holy predecessors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner.

[…] if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error.

Rejoice at the pope that was lost and now is found, if you so wish. I am deeply mistrustful of a Pope that is clearly lost, fills the planet with “shocking affirmations”, and reacts to the criticism in that he “develops along orthodox lines”, and one day might “even corrects in yet other places”  (though he has not done so yet) whilst still remaining the buddy pope of perverts, rabbis, atheists and assorted liberals.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of orthodoxy is in the… hating.

If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Francis is of the world, big time.

The world loves him accordingly.

Beware of the wolves in Ford cars.    

Mundabor 

Francis, The Kindergarten Modernist

With every passing month, Francis' little and big sermons reach new heights of stupidity. This time, we have reached full Kindergarten level, and one wonders how it can get any worse than this.

Follow here how Francis reduces Christianity to a mere dispensing machine of blessings in life, and beatitude after life, without any warning to his listeners that things can go in the other direction, too. In Francis' world, heaven clearly is the universal destination. If the worst is scolding, hell is clearly not an option.

Before I go in detail please consider this: it is integral part of Francispeak to never say it to 100%, provided the message he wants to send goes out. This is done to appease the Pollyannas. An old modernist trick.

We are, therefore, informed God may be able to scold us, but not to “slap” or anyway “hurt” us. What about being thrown in the flames of hell, there to be consumed by everlasting fire for all eternity? Does this in any way “hurt” us, I wonder? And when people get sexually transmitted diseases, or sodomites AIDS, or gluttons diabete: what is this, a gentle scolding? Obviously, not everyone who gets a disease or some other big reverse is being punished. In fact, it is often difficult to say whether, when life kicks us in the balls, it is meant to be a punishment, or a blessing, or both. Still, no Christian could ever deny God can punish people horribly already in this life, and punish them in in infinitely more terrible way in the next.

This man has, literally, no fear of the Lord. Not concerning this life, not concerning the next one. This just isn't Christianity, this is feel-good waffle for children in the kindergarten; albeit I can clearly recollect when I was in kindergarten we were told all about heaven and hell, and did not have any problem in grasping the truth and elementary logic of it. Evidently, Francis' adults are more childish than kindergarten children of only some decades ago.

The rest of the linked article goes in the same vein: the only thing God does is heal, console, caress. Nowhere is the other way mentioned. This is an imaginary, heathen god consisting entirely of mercy, and with no trace of justice; a heathen god, therefore, deprived of goodness, because without justice there can be no goodness.

Besides, the concept that putting oneself in God's hand be the harbinger of “maximum security” sounds, in this Kindergarten context, very Protestant. The reader cannot escape a very strong impression every sodomite is saved by simply putting himself, without repenting a bit, in the hands of this unconditionally caressing, never-slapping god. I trust in you, therefore you save me. Those living in public adultery will, at this point, be logically unable to understand why they should be denied communion: hey, they go to Mass every Sunday and are oh so trustful in God and in their good conscience: why should God not “caress” them by coming to them in the Holy Communion?

The article linked to is not a literal reporting of the entire sermon. Yesterday I have read another article based on this, and it pretty much sings the same song. Let me make it clear that I have no doubt that somewhere, hidden in Francis' world, there is some obscure hint that God also metes Justice. But this is not the point. The point is that this heatenish, kindergarten god of Francis is the one relentlessly advertised, and it is simply inconceivable – both because of the choice of words and of the frequency of the message – that this is not exactly what Francis wants.

We notice here once again a method widely employed also in politics: a sermon is made, but in this sermon there is a particularly tasteful “mouthful”, which is there with the express task to make the headlines. In this case, the one with the God “unable to slap us” – so striking because so evidently flying in the face of two thousand years of Christianity – is the desired mouthful.

Let us also not say that Francis is fine because countless saints of the past have stressed God's mercy. Of course they did. But you will never find a saint of the past leading you to believe God is not both mercy and justice. In addition, those past saints lived and operated in a world in which every child of seven had a very clear concept of what hell is, and was very conscious he might end up there one day. This is not the case today, thanks to the army of Bergoglini who have been sabotaging the very concept of hell for the past 50 years.

This works of sabotage continues now from the very top, with the Pope himself making every effort to eradicate every fear of the Lord, every concept of justice, and every possibility of hell: a hell that has already been declared as excluding atheists in ” good conscience”, and could therefore never include those who do nothing more than believe God will take them out of trouble because hey, that's what he always wanted, eh, no?

This isn't Christianity at all. Rather a “recreational drug” for the stupid and the easily self-deluded, making the way to hell so much broader for them as it leads them to believe all roads lead in the end to heaven provided one does such easy things as following his conscience (possibly the easiest thing on the planet if one can shape his conscience according to wish) or, for “maximum security”, “trusting in God”.

Beware of Bergoglism.

Mundabor

 

The SSPX, Francis, And The Forest.

I cannot say it often enough: the SSPX is a beacon of sound Catholic thinking in the darkness of the “new humbleness”. Clearly, if you want to know what proper Catholicism is you must stay away from Francis' ramblings, as they will inoculate you with the virus of Modernism and shift you from the solid ground of Catholic reasoning to the deadly quicksands of fluffy, emotional, senseless, and in the end heretical thinking.

I suggest that you take the time – not so much of it after all – to read and interiorise this beautiful reflection on Francis' forma mentis – make no mistake: an heretical one – on the basis of his exploits with “Civilta' Cattolica” and “Repubblica”.

Once again, we see the steamroller of sound Catholic thinking rolling over Francis' marshmallow-tasting, popularity-seeking emotionalism, and flattening it altogether. Francis, a man of embarrassing ignorance and even more embarrassing arrogance, will not understand the objection; but rationally thinking Catholics with a grounded knowledge of Truth will immediately grasp that the problem with Francis is not in, say, the way he expresses himself but, far more gravely, in the way he thinks.

The simile with the blind man and the forest is delicious, and will remain with you for a long time.

Enjoy this example of Catholic sanity, and please remember to say one or three Hail Marys for Francis, who is so much in need of our prayers.

Mundabor

 

The Good Gardener And The Modernist Weed

Knew how to deal with weed: Pope Pius XII.

I have read around – I suspect, from the usual V II crowd – that repression of heresy doesn’t really work, as soon after the death of the last “repressive” Pope they were everywhere in just a few years. I found the reasoning so wrong I need to write a post of explanation, in case the argument should emerge in your own discussions with friends, on the Internet, etc.

in my eyes, that repression of Modernism works fine is abundantly proven by the fact that for more than 50 years Modernists were absolutely nowhere as far as mainstream Catholicism is concerned. Their work was limited to some isolated theologians, who were promptly censored or condemned, and – presumably- to a subterranean current of followers which, being underground and therefore silent, could not be easily spotted, much less attacked.

Still, the work of the good Popes of the past was so good, that even in such a situation they did not hesitate in keeping a very strict control over what was happening. It is said Pope Pius XII had put his own “plants” in the major Catholic universities and seminaries, exactly in order to flush out, as much as he could, even the heretics working in the shade. Seriously, how anyone could do better than this is beyond me; and whether it worked, of course it worked!

Still, heresy in the Church is like the weed in a huge field. You can do as much as you want to eradicate the weed, but it will pop up again and again, and it will never be possible to eradicate it completely. Even constant attention will not lead to the problem’s extinction; but neglect will soon cause the problem to explode.

This is exactly what happened when John XXIII was elected. Suddenly, there was no real interest in the extirpation on of weed anymore. As a result, the weed started to grow at a prodigious rate, and in just a few years took over the field. To say the policy of the former Popes didn’t work merely because the following Popes refused to care for the extirpation of the weed is to put things completely upside down.

Repression of heresy works. It works, in fact, beautifully. If after Pope Pius XII we had had Popes who care for the extirpation of weed, the field would be exactly in the same beautiful shape now as it was in the Fifties. Of course, we would still have heretics working in the dark. But this has always been the case.

Those who say the Popes of the first half of the XX Century were not effective against heresy are like those who blame the good gardener who left the garden spotless for the mess caused by his successors, and for the weed now growing everywhere, undisturbed.

Don’t blame the good gardener. Blame the bad ones.

Mundabor

“Thus I Promise, This I Swear, So Help Me God”.

Extremely narrow-minded and obsessed with orthodoxy: Pope St. Pius X

The Oath Against Modernism.

St. Pius X, pray for us!

——

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .

His Holiness St. Pius X, 1 September 1910.

Just Sayin’…

There are to be found today, and in no small numbers, men, of whom the Apostle says that: 'having itching ears, they will not endure sound doctrine: but according to their own desires they will heap up to themselves teachers, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables' (II Tim. iv. 34). Infatuated and carried away by a lofty idea of the human intellect, by which God's good gift has certainly made incredible progress in the study of nature, confident in their own judgment, and contemptuous of the authority of the Church, they have reached such a degree of rashness as not to hesitate to measure by the standard of their own mind even the hidden things of God and all that God has revealed to men. Hence arose the monstrous errors of 'Modernism,' which Our Predecessor rightly declared to be 'the synthesis of all heresies,' and solemnly condemned. We hereby renew that condemnation in all its fulness, Venerable Brethren, and as the plague is not yet entirely stamped out, but lurks here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully on their guard against any contagion of the evil, to which we may apply the words Job used in other circumstances: 'It is a fire that devoureth even to destruction, and rooteth up all things that spring' (Job xxxi. 12). Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: 'Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down.' In matters of faith that must be inviolably adhered to as the law; it may however also serve as a guide even in matters subject to change, but even in such cases the rule would hold: 'Old things, but in a new way.'”

Benedict XV

 

“One Hundred Years Of Modernism”

The Angelus Press is, as you can imagine, a very good source of sound instruction, unadulterated by the errors of our times. They also have good resources available for Kindle, which – much as I hate the faggots at Amazon – is very useful if you read whilst traveling. 

Some months ago I read the “Catechism of the Crisis In The Church”, by Fr Matthias Gaudron; a well-explained, ruthless description of the devastation brought by the Council, divided in topics helping the reader to focus on particular issues (say: religious liberty, or ecumenism). I recommend this very useful book to all those desirous to learn more about the issues afflicting the Church today in a way that is still accessible in terms of time investment and accessibility of the text.    

Some weeks ago I decided to follow-up with the book in the title. The latter is, so to speak, an expansion of the former, and starting from the philosophical foundations of Catholicism explains the way modernism (first the original Protestant strain; then the “Catholic” one; then the Neo-Modernism) corrupted the Catholic message and paved its way up to the very heart of the Church.

This second book will be of very easy digestion for those of you who already have studied philosophy at school or university, but it will still be accessible – albeit probably with a bit more effort – for those who don’t. This book, by Father Dominic Bourmaud, makes the philosophical premises of Modernism accessible to the “lay” reader, helping him to understand not only the genesis of this disgraceful “mother of all heresies”, but its siege and conquest of the Vatican starting from the accession of John XXIII.

You will find this book very useful both in the reading and as a consultation work, because it is laid out in a way that makes it easy to “refresh” the knowledge of the one or other major heretic, each one of whom has a chapter devoted to him.

The book, originally published in 2003, is anterior to Pope Benedict’s papacy, though it tears both his and (particularly) JP II’s theology to very minute shreds. It also sheds a very interesting light on the modernist tendencies of Pope John XXIII, and gives interesting details about the growing mistrust of Pope Pius XII for his once trusted collaborator Montini, promoted to Milan in the end but without a red hat, and never again received by the Pope after having been sent away. It is clear, though, Montini well dissimulated the extent (not the existence) of his modernist tendencies, or he would never have been made the Archbishop of Milan. Pope Montini is also depicted as a less irresolute man than he is generally considered, already fully devoted to the “cause” at the time of the council’s start and consciously initiating a coherent and aggressive work of modernist “aggiornamento” before fully grasping – at the latest with the controversy about Humanae Vitae – the extent of the problems he had created or allowed to consolidate.

Among the Neo-Modernists, Teilhard de Chardin, de Lubac and Rahner are examined in detail, whilst in the interest of the usability of the book less decisive actors – like von Balthasar, Kueng and Schillebeeckx – are given less attention. Be warned, though, that the extent of heretical influences in the thinking of the future Pope John Paul II might well sound shocking to your ears if you had no previous knowledge of the vagaries (to put it gently) of the former Popes’ thinking.

If you are interested in a digestible but accurate presentation of the plague of Modernism, you can do worse than reading this useful book.

Mundabor     

Our Lady Of Quito – Our Lady Of Good Success

A double image of Our Lady Of Quito/ Our Lady Of Good Success.

This is not a scam in Medjugorje style, or a pious fantasy of old maids with an excitable fantasy.

This apparition took place at the beginning of the XVII century, and was approved by the local bishop a short time later. It was accompanied by further miraculous events at the beginning of the XX century, when the events described by the Blessed Virgin were approaching.

This apparition is very remarkable for the insistent and very precise predictions of the Blessed Virgin concerning facts that would only happen several centuries later. In this case, the predictions are – at least as far as we are concerned – so shockingly precise, that one cannot – if he has some fear of God left in him – but stop and reflect on every word the Blessed Virgin was saying several centuries ago.

In this case, the Blessed Virgin predicted a tragic, extremely upsetting (to make it clear: not a continuity, but a disruption) and long-lasting event within the Church, starting around after the half of the XX century. Look, the “advent of the Holy Spirit”, the phenomenon with “theological implications” was, in fact, accurately predicted three and a half centuries before it happened, with uncanny accuracy, by the Blessed Virgin herself, in an apparition officially approved! Ah, if only Pope Benedict and Archbishop Mueller had been around some four centuries ago, to deny the allegations!

Now, apparitions of the Blessed Virgin are private revelations and no one is bound to them. Still, those who have ears to hear and a healthy fear of the Lord will find the accusations extremely familiar, the time astonishingly precise, and the described events very well exposed. All in all, the general effect of Satan’s attack is painted in extremely vivid colours and with great richness of detail, three and a half centuries before the fact. Not bad for an apparition, and rather worrying for an approved one.

Let us see some of the highlights, and again note the uncanny precision of the prophecy, which rather resembles a chronicle:

Our Lady said that the enemies of the Church would “focus particularly on the children in order to achieve this general corruption. Woe to the children of these times!”

Many of us have children in our circle of acquaintances, or among our relatives, who are either unbaptised or utterly unaware of the very rudiments of Christianity. The sins of the parents visit the children, and how hardly they visit them in these disgraceful times! The first generation after V II was indifferent; the second is unbaptised. V II is the gift that keeps on giving. 

It goes on:

Our Lady warned that the Sacrament of Marriage would come under special attack as would modesty in women.

When sluttish behaviour becomes norm and even socially encouraged (“open mentality” or “free spirit”  I think it’s called nowadays) it is no surprise marriage comes under pressure. Of course, sluts have always been there; but their behaviour was stigmatised; nowadays, it is taken as a matter of no consequence, or even “modern”. As to marriage, when the sense of its sacredness – once felt even by protestants – is no longer respected, it comes only natural that people should demand to “marry” one or more persons of the same sex, or animals, or whatever they like. To them is not a sacrament, you see; not even a sacred bond; to them it’s merely an occasion to  party.

During one apparition which took place in the Convent chapel, the sanctuary lamp went out leaving the chapel in darkness. Our Lady explained that this signified the “great spiritual catastrophe which would engulf the Church” .

Note the words: a) spiritual catastrophe, which b) will engulf the Church. Strong tobacco, for sure, but so true.

But when would this catastrophe happen? Perhaps it is meant by that the conservative pontificate of Pius XII, or the aggressive oppression of free spirits of a St. Pius X? No, the prophecy is about

the world-wide crisis in the Church in the late 19th Century culminating in a disaster for the Church, described by Our Lady, with great accuracy, as occurring “shortly after the middle of the 20th Century.” 

We have it all here: a crisis beginning at the end of the XIX Century (obviously: Modernism), eventually exploding (obviously, as Neo-modernism) “shortly after the middle of the XX century with, of course, Vatican II. This is so precise it’s chilling, and the prophecy happened at the beginning of the XVII century!

It gets even better (or worse):

“In this supreme moment of need for the Church, those who should speak out will fall silent.”

This is, in fact, the impression I have whenever I read of the latest speech of the Holy Father about some utterly peripheral and uncontroversial theme (go on CNA and you’ll find several at any given time; you will have noticed by now I do not waste your time with platitudes and easy sound bites, so I tend to avoid them) whilst the building burns from all sides and heresy spreads all over Central Europe: silence.

Is, then, all so bad as it seems? Well yes, it is, but do not despair; then (emphasis mine)

Our Lady promised Mother Mariana that, just when everything seems lost, her hour would come when she would rescue the Church.

 Things might well become even worse than they are now (and they are bad enough, I’d say); the recent appointment of a disconcerting man in more than odour of heresy as the Church’s main protector against… heresy tells us all the extent of the trouble. Can it get worse? Well, who knows what the next Pope might bring us: if the Cardinals allow the Devil to persuade them they must follow their German and Austrian colleagues on their way to either open heresy or thinly veiled Neo-modernist accommodation, I think Assisi and Mueller and not the worst we have seen, or not all we have seen of them.  

Still, the Blessed Virgin will watch from heaven, and will intervene at the hardest time, “when everything seems lost”.

We should remember this chilling, but still beautiful apparition. We should remember it to draw strenght in times of crisis, and to remind ourselves that in the end it is called Our Lady of Good Success because this is what will come out of this mess in the end.

Which, in these troubled times, is no small reassurance.

Mundabor

 

The Oath Against Modernism

Not the Assisi-Type: Pope St. Pius X

I have read this on Father Ray Blake’s Blog, and gladly respond to the invitation of putting it up in our own blogs.

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.
Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God.

Heresy from the Window: Neo-Modernism and NuChurch

Brilliant blog post on “Ite Ad Thomam” about Modernism vs. Neo-Modernism. The blog post (the blog is run by strictly orthodox Thomist theologians) is particularly notable because its rigorous exam of the evil of Neo-Modernism doesn’t stop at the extremists, put points the finger to the widespread corruption of traditional Catholic thinking still present today in the very heart of the Church.

The summa divisio is between Modernism and Neo-Modernism.

The first is defined as follows:

Modernism is the idea that there are no eternal truths, that truth is the correspondence of the mind with one’s lifestyle (adaequatio intellectus et vitae), and that, therefore, old dogmas must be abandoned and new beliefs must arise that meet ‘the needs of modern man’. This is a radical denial of the traditional and common sense notion of truth: the correspondence of the mind with reality (adaequatio intellectus et rei), which is the basis of the immutability of Catholic dogma.

Modernism is, in its essence, the attempt to protestantise Catholicism, adopting the motto of most of their communities: we’ll make out our theology as we go along, and according to the need of the moment.

Neo-modernism is defined thus:

It is the idea that old dogmas or beliefs must be retained, yet not the traditional ‘formulas’: dogmas must be expressed and interpreted in a new way in every age so as to meet the ‘needs of modern man’. This is still a denial of the traditional and common sense notion of truth as adaequatio intellectus et rei (insofar as it is still an attempt to make the terminology that expresses the faith correspond with our modern lifestyle) and consequently of the immutability of Catholic dogma, yet it is not as radical as modernism. It is more subtle and much more deceptive than modernism because it claims that the faith must be retained; it is only the ‘formulas’ of faith that must be abandoned–they use the term ‘formula’ to distinguish the supposedly mutable words of our creeds, dogmas, etc. from their admittedly immutable meanings.

One can immediately see that this kind of thinking is infinitely more dangerous than the previous one. Modernism is an open attempt to tear down the walls of Catholicism and, as such, is bound to encounter fierce resistence; but neo-modernism is an attempt to infiltrate the city without tearing down the walls and is a less spectacular, but more insidious threat.

“Ah”, you will say,”but this is simply the Church’ reaction to the new times”. Exactly this is the problem. The idea that there be “a new man” in the presence of which capital punishment is not justified anymore is, in nuce, Modernist thinking; the idea that there be a new man who, in the new phase of evolution which he has now entered, isn’t authorised to wage war is the fruit of exactly the same error; and the idea that one can be saved by praying for peace or “having his heart in the right place” comes from…. well, no one really knows whence, but it sounds so good that it has become the unspoken mantra of countless Catholic parishes here in the UK.

The blog post distinguishes three degrees of neo-Modernism: the “vanguard” a’ la von Balthasar theorising formally not heretical, but absurd nuCatholic novelties like the one that Hell might be void – the author of this one, mind, was made Cardinal by the late Pope, though unless I am mistaken he went to his “reward” before the official ceremony -; the more moderate but still at times strange sounding theologians a’ la Ratzinger himself – and here a rather adventurous “evolutionistic re-interpretation of Resurrection” is mentioned, details if you follow the link – and in the end the mainstream, “nuChurch”, “home made popular theology” of the present times that I have mentioned above.

I liked this article because I often reflect that if a properly educated Catholic of, say, 200 years ago would be absurdly allowed to come back to earth and assist to a Novus Ordo Mass without telling him anything, he would probably not recognise it as Catholic and if asked would, methink, say that what he has assisted to was a Protestant celebration, of a very bad sort. As to the homily, he would probably not be able to recognise anything familiar at all and would say that the priest was clearly confused, and clearly unaware of the basics of Christianity as a religion. A lot of other things – from the half-naked people in shorts and flip-flops, to the people standing when receiving communion, to them receiving in the hand – would leave him simply horrified at the point of believing that he might have assisted to a cruel parody of the Holy Mass instead of the real thing.

Think of it, one wouldn’t need to go as far back in time. Any of our relatives who died during the Fifties would probably think pretty much the same.

The dismantling of the liturgy brought with it the dismantling of sound Catholic thinking. It is no coincidence that our ancestors wouldn’t be able to recognise either.

Mundabor

Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange On Practical Naturalism

Brilliant as always: Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange.

From the brilliant blog Ite ad Thomam, a predictably brilliant piece of the great theologian Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange about Practical Naturalism, manifested as both Americanism/Modernism and as Quietism. I have already written about this great man when presenting his view on deathbed conversion.

It is difficult to try to summarise or “explain” Garrigou-Lagrange’s points, as he writes in such a pithy but always very understandable manner that there is, in fact, no need whatsoever to do so.

What can be more interesting is to point out that “developments” that one would otherwise tend to consider new ones are, in fact, not new at all. In their struggle to take faith – and the inconvenient consequences of it; for example, awareness of and fight against sin, and necessity of penance – out of everyday life, modern thinkers are neither more original, nor more successful than their ancestor were. In the end, they end up taking Christ away from Christianity, and the search for a more convenient, less burdensome way of life necessarily leads them into a dark tunnel of absurdities chasing each other.

Enjoy this brilliant piece of Catholic thinking.

Mundabor

The “Much Needed Discussion About Vatican II”

Source: http://www.toonslinger.com/CatholicCartoons.html

From the Blog Hospitaller, excerpts from a very interesting book.

I will first report some quotations from the book, which I suggest you read very carefully.

“The purpose of Vatican II, in fact, sets it apart from any other Council, especially Trent and Vatican I. Its scope was not to give definitions, nor was it dogmatic or linked to dogma; it was pastoral. Thus based on its specific nature it was a pastoral Council.”

“In all truth Modernism hid itself under the cloak of Vatican II’s hermeneutic…

.The new rite of Holy Mass practically silenced the nature of sacrifice making of it an occasion for gathering together the people of God…the eucharistic gathering was given the mere sense of sharing a meal together..

if someone were to ask me if, in the final analysis, the modernist corruption had hidden itself within the Council documents themselves, and if the Fathers themselves were more or less infected, I would have to respond both yes and no…But yes as well, because not a few pages of the conciliar documents reek of the writings and ideas of Modernism–this can be seen above all in GS.”

“Anyone who, in quoting it [VII], puts it on a par with Trent or Vatican I, and accredits to it a normative and binding force which it does not possess in itself, commits a crime and, in the final analysis, does not respect the Council itself.”

“Let me say immediately that not even a single dogmatic definition included in the intentions of LG or the other Vatican II documents. The Council–we do well not to forget this–could not have even proposed one since it had refused to follow along the lines traced out by other Councils…This means that none of its doctrines, unless ascribable to previous conciliar definitions, are infallible or unchangeable, nor are they even binding: he who denies them cannot, for this reason, be called a formal heretic.”

“[A] missionary conception of the Church now freed from any form of or temptation to proselytism…this type of ecumenism, unfortunately, found a license to legitimacy from the spirit of assisi, thanks to the ‘multi-religious’ meeting celebrated there…”

“How many times the very men, into whose hands Jesus had entrusted the sacred deposit of the Faith, solemnly and pompously said ‘no’ to this or that doctrine, like the Marian Coredemption, because otherwise it will prejudice ecumenical dialogue. It was as if to say, ‘There is no other truth or value besides ecumenical dialogue.’…”

“And if someone passed through that door to introduce into the Church a Liturgy subversive to the very nature and primary end of the Sacred Liturgy…the responsibility for this, in the final analysis, is none other than the conciliar text itself.”

[T]he Liturgy which systematically boycotted the versus Domino orientation, the sacredness of the rite, the sense of latria, the irreplaceable beauty of Gregorian chant, the solemnity of gestures and vestments, and kneeling…[was committed in a] boundless cult of man…”

———————-

“Vow! – I hear you say – Strong stuff! This must be a really angry SSPX bishop, or some sedevacantist nutcase”.

Wrong. All quotations are from Monsignor Brunero Gherardini’s “The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: A Much Needed Discussion”, translated by the Franciscans of the Immaculate from the Italian edition of March 25, 2009 and available from the “Academy of the Immaculate,” 124 North Forke, Advance, NC 27006. Ph. 1-888-906-2742.

In case you should ask, the blog informs us that Monsignor Gherardini is a Canon of St. Peter’s Basilica, a secretary for the Pontifical Academy of Theology, a professor emeritus at the Pontifical Lateran University, and the editor of Divinitas, a leading Roman theological journal. This is a man of the Vatican apparatus through and through.

I should comment now but no, I think Monsignor Gherardini said everything already.

Mundabor