Trinity Sunday And Francis’ Strange Religion

Today is Trinity Sunday.

At the cost of stating the obvious, I will point out that feasts like this one (or like Corpus Domini, or the feast of Christ the King) are there to put certain fundamental aspects of Christianity and Catholicism very forcibly in front of the faithful. The Holy Trinity is, clearly, indispensable component of every Christian thinking.

Still, one wonders how the message can get through, be interiorised and really made their own by the faithful, if the same Trinity is downplayed by the same Not-very-holy Father.

To say that Mohammedans believe in the same God as Christians is to deny the Trinity. To think that Jews do not need to believe in it to be saved is to deny it in a more subtle way.

Francis clearly baptises in the name of the Priest, the Imam and the Rabbi. To him, it's all pretty much the same, and the Trinity is rather an afterthought, something Catholics happen to believe, but which should not be seen as an indispensable component to try to understand God.

The relentless effort to make Christianity acceptable to non-Christians unavoidably creates a mish-mash of blasphemies, errors and utter stupidity that must be unacceptable to Christ, if Christ's words have to have a meaning and a purpose.

The result of this madness is a “one-world” religion… without the Trinity. But hey, we don't want such small details to get in the way of the understanding among the peoples, or the understanding between the Pope and his best buddy.

Soon the time will come when the Trinity, the Transubstation, and all other Christian or Catholic specific traits will be utterly ignored, or treated as an innocent quirk of the “One religion”. We are OK, but they are OK too. We have our own way and they have theirs. Proselytism is a solemn nonsense. Convert the other? No, no, no!

Therefore, today we celebrate the feast of the Holy Trinity; which, if what Francis says has some sense, means to him the celebration of an optional belief Catholics seem very attached to, but not an indispensable component of the belief in the One World God.

Mundabor

 

 

Niceness, The New Religion

William Hogarth, "In The Madhouse"

From Father Z’s blog, a barely believable – if we lived in normal times – story about a canadian Catholic school. In said Catholic school the idea of having a crucifix in every classroom was in the past considered – for reasons I do not even want to think about – not really necessary. I know, I know…..

This year, this state of things changed and every classroom was equipped with his crucifix.

Thinking that this would make some explanation necessary (a crucifix: what will then that be, one wonders….), a teacher (and principal of the school) decided to give some “explanations” to every class in the school.

The explanation centered about Jesus not having physically risen from the dead. Not only Easter, but the entire concept of divinity of Christ, and with that of Trinity, goes herewith out of the window as I can’t understand why God would decide that he can resurrect, but prefers not to and tells us a lie about it instead, clearly allowing this lie to be believed for some 20 centuries before a Canadian minus habens comes along.

Because this is, according to one brave girl who immediately challenged him, what is all about: Jesus “never resurrected”, the whole thing is “like a metaphor that you follow” and, you know, “people have taken the Bible too literally”.

In the view of this “enlightened” teacher in a Catholic school, the “moral” that Jesus died is right but hey, “the story is wrong”. The man is, at this point, launched toward the creation of a completely new religion and dutifully delivers: “Because He died in our honour we should be nice to each other,” or if you prefer to put it another way “the crucifix represents helping others” and when the students look at it “that’s all it’s supposed to mean”.

And there, a new religion is born. This new religion, “BeNiceAnity”, has a vague flavour of Christianity and actually can even tolerate a Crucifix, but not without an explanation that says: “hey, don’t take it all too literally with this Christ: the chap is still six feet under (at which Mundabor would have asked: “where’s the body? Who has stolen it? Who has lied about it? Why?”) and you must just relax, be nice to each other and try to be helpful” (and, no doubt, inclusive).

I don’t want to think what private issues a man can have to want to blasphemously offend Christ in this way, in his role as teacher, in a Catholic school, but one doesn’t have to be a genius to see that they must be huge.

One would wish the chap all the best in his chosen new professional path. Whatever that is, I’m sure he’ll be better at that than he was at teaching.

Mundabor