Blog Archives

Fake Blogs

 

 

As the Blogosphere is still infested by (increasingly irrelevant) fake Catholic blogs, I thought it wise to enrich my readers with a little guide to spotting the “c” site. Here it goes:

1. The “little things” blog. The publication in question is all smell of lavender and freshly-cleaned-laundry pretend-spirituality. The fresh air in the morning is the angels talking to you; the act of throwing out the garbage is a spiritual experience. Everything is good. There is no crisis in the Church. Just enjoy the sight of the sparrows.

2. The “Holy Spirit” blog. The writer eats a huge bowl of penne because the Holy Spirit has “guided” her to another mountain of carbs; therefore, it must be good and he who says otherwise is blasphemous, judgmental and pastaphobic. Whatever they do, it must be the Holy Spirit guiding them. There is no crisis in the Church. Actually, it will be “exciting” to see where the “Spirit” will lead Her.

3. The “everything is Catholic” blog. This type of blog is aimed at the promotion of everything that is wrong, under the pretence of something Catholic being found in it. From obscene TV series to pop singers, and from tattooes to drug use, everyone and everything teaches something valuable to someone. There's something deeply Catholic in Lou Reed, you know… Obviously there is no crisis in the Church, merely untapped possibilities.

4. The “middle of the way” blog. This is the “moderate” catholic blog managing to do everything wrong under the pretence of meaning well. Premarital sex is not a mortal sin, but an “immature choice” one should “openly discuss” with his children, and being “gay” is something that “invites” us to be “more welcoming” as we “reflect” on the Catholic “plan” for that person. It is as if the blogger drew a line in the sand and then positioned himself half a micron on the right side, lest people think they are rigid.

5. The “fake conservative blog”. This blog is written by someone who does not claim that there is no “issue” with the modern church, but wants you to know that the Traditionalist reaction is “bigoted” and “backwards”. We need to “engage”, and positions of “closure” do not lead anywhere. This blogger type will also throw around accusations of intolerance like they are confetti, normally not understanding the irony and implied contradiction.

If you think of your favourite bad “c”atholic blog you will find, methinks, one of more of these types reflected.

Then there are the good blogs. Which ones are they?

The intolerant, “homophobic” (read: Catholic) and “bigoted” ones. The ones of those who write that there is a crisis in the Church, that V II is at the root of it, and that everyone who tells you otherwise is gravely deluded, outright dumb, a covert enemy of the Church, a public sinner or a not-so-covert pervert.

There.

The Catholic blogosphere explained in one blog post. A not one shade of inclusiveness.

M

 

Advertisements

Five Years Later: The Tragic Figure Of Benedict XVI

Today is the fifth anniversary of that fateful day, in which Pope Benedict XVI announced his intention to abdicate at the end of the month and make way for a more vigorous Pope.

Benedict's Pontificate had been, Summa Summarum, more Catholic than JP II's, particularly because of the historic Summorum Pontificum. Therefore, I then believed in the honest, straight narrative of a Pope who feels that his strength is leaving him and, remembering the last sad tears of JP's Pontificate, decided to make way for a more energetic man, confident that the Conclave he was about to leave would lead to the election of a man continuing on his path, a Benedict XVII so to speak.

This reading still makes, if you ask me, the most sense. However, the past five years have not helped the man to rise in my, or many others', estimation. Actually, if I were the man I would now be rather scared for my salvation.

Benedict The Emeritus has disappointed in many ways. One can mention here:

1. The at least two interviews – two were really brutal and I have written about them; there were other minor occasions – in which Benedict approved of Francis' work and expressed himself in glowing terms concerning his Pontificate.

2. The failure to do what he said he would do: retire to a life of prayer and contemplation. It seems nowadays not even nonagenarian Popes can resist the temptation of frequent interviews and photo-ops, with or without Bierkrug.

3. The failure to condemn Pope Francis when it became clear that the pontificate was steering towards aggressive heresy. In particular, his silence concerning Amoris Laetitia and the many heresies and blasphemies therein contained – something a theologian like him must see with extreme clarity – is most shocking from one who claims to still keep the title of former Pope, and therefore maintains that he is still way more than just another bishop.

4. The strange neo-Catholic thinking and reference to his, apparently, imminent salvation (about which doubts are more than justified). That a Pope who decided to abdicate does not approach his impending death, at least publicly, with fear and trembling tells you all you need to know about V II and the massacre of sound Catholic thinking.

I certainly forget a lot.

In general, the man gives the impression of being not a leader, but a follower. In true German fashion, he has marched to the drum of V II without much regard for the ruins he saw around him. When it became clear to him that Francis' course was a much more brutal incarnation of V II that he could ever imagine, he decided to toe the party line and promote this new, inspired version of V II, instead of using his unique position to try to give witness for proper Catholicism.

Granted: countless bishops and Cardinals have done the same. But much fewer have given glowing interviews about Francis, and no one of them has insisted on being called Pontiff Emeritus.

Benedict is, I think, about to get into history as a tragic, pathetic figure. Too weak to be an effective Pope, too naive to see Francis coming as a result of his many disgraceful episcopal and cardinalatian appointments, too cowardly and gregarious to denounce the disaster unfolding under his eyes, and even praising Nero whilst Rome burns.

Now, in his last legs, the recent, disquieting public announcement of his own impending salvation; which is what V II does to you if you allow it to work on you for 60 years.

M

 

 

Benedict Is No Friend Of Ours

Drunk on V II: Pope Emeritus

Pope Emeritus, who for one who wanted to be forgotten by the world talks an awful lot, is on record for saying that The Lord wins in the end.

No shit, Sherlock!

It surprises me that some have taken this fairly obvious point as a critic to the new Cardinals Francis has appointed.

Benedict was receiving those very Cardinals, something which he was under no obligation to do. He entertained himself with them in a very cordial manner. There is nothing in the linked article that shows he is in any way dissatisfied with them.

We should stop seeing in Benedict a sort of princess held in the tower by an evil wizard, or a man suffering in silence the papacy of Francis. The man is not silent at all, and when he speaks of Francis he invariably supports him, as the two interviews released in the last months, and about which I have reported, abundantly show.

The man is a total and complete disappointment. He is through and through a Vatican II man with merely a thin varnish of I do not say “conservatism” (I do not think he even deserves the adjective after supporting Francis), but merely prudence or timidity. His first and last allegiance go to V II: he promoted a vaguely more conservative version of it, but it is clear to him V II is the priority and Benedict and Francis only two slightly different flavours of it.

Forget Benedict as our ally.

Think of him as the well-spoken, multi-lingual useful idiot of the heretics and perverts in the Vatican.

M

 

 

Limitless Resources And Selective Starvation: A Small Guide To Dealing With Church Contributions.

Holy Trinity Catholic Church, Vienna

Clearly made to keep the faithful out: Holy Trinity catholic Church, Vienna

 

The funny blog post published on Father Z’s site   prompts me to some not so obvious, not so politically correct, and not so kind considerations. Read the post first if you want to avoid the spoiler below.  

—-

The particular building mentioned in Father’s post was built after a public appeal. The money collected was such that there was a lot to spare, which led to the extensive alabaster decoration inside. Put it simply, the Archbishop only had to ask, and it was given to him much more than he had asked. Even, I add, for the godless monster he then built to show the world how godless he was (and is, because the man still lives). You will also remember Cardinal Dolan mobilising around $140 millions in no time to restore the roof of St Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan.  

Moral of the stories: the Church has limitless resources. It’s not about how much money is in the bank account. It is about how much money can be received just for the asking. 

What does this tell us? That you don’t need to be afraid that good priests will ever starve, or there will be no money for the restoration of Catholic patrimony. However, this does not mean that you should finance a monster like the Los Angeles Cathedral, or atheists like Cardinal Mahony. 

My suggestion is this: starve the bad parishes and give your money to the good causes. The good causes may well be distant, the bad parish may well be near. It doesn’t matter. You help what is right, not what is near. 

The way a Catholic should react to the current confusion is to cause the closure of bad parishes and the thriving of good ones. Yes, up to a point wealthy donors will keep bad parishes alive; but only up to a point, as we keep seeing that whilst it is very easy to mobilise big money for big or prestigious projects, parishes out in the “peripheries” keep being closed.

There is, obviously, no guarantee this will end well. A bad bishop might be so stupid that he closes the thriving parish to keep the bad one open; but I bet most of them aren’t as dumb as that, because they understand the risks this involves. They know that in the modern world a Catholic will not hesitate to send his money to worthy Catholic causes in other nations, even on the other end of the earth, but punish him for closing down the good parishes. Not will he be able to mobilise his rich donors in every circumstance. For the Cathedral, easy. For the ugly Sixties church with no bell tower, not so much. 

The faithful do that (and you should do that) because the traditional idea that your parish should be helped first cannot stand in an age when your parish sabotages, rather than helping, Catholicism. Do they starve you of sensible, sane Catholicism? Starve them of their means of survival. Again: Cathedrals always find rich donors. Ugly parishes in the suburbs, not so much. 

Let your money talk. Do not be afraid that the Church might ever remain without money for the roof of the cathedrals, or for the restoration of old, beautiful churches. There will always be money for the indispensable, the very beautiful and the very visible. Give your money ad hoc  as much as you can to minimise the risk of misdirection (e.g. money for single, nominated projects: the new traditional vestments for the priests; for sanctuary renovations bringing them back to the old glory; for the new monstrance or tabernacle, etc.). 

But starve the horrible parish with the horrible liturgy. Make the bad priests unemployed (yes, a priest can be unemployed). Vote against V II with your wallet. Make the parish go down in flames. In time, the unavoidable shrinking of the Church will see more sane parishes surviving and a more than proportional extinction of the bad ones.   

Your cathedrals will not crumble. But you will contribute to the regeneration of the Church by voting with your wallet. 

Do not be impressed by the whining of your V II priests that the parish is dying. He had it coming, and so did the army of lecturer, assistants of the assistants, busybodies of all sorts, and their applauding (in church) smug audience.

Let them go the way of the Dodo. Make them see that their own stupidity has ended in self-extinction.

Church of Stupid must die. It is better to have less parishes, but with a greater content of Catholicism, than help V II to survive;

and your local dumbo priest be damned.

M  

 

   

 

 

 

[REBLOG] SSPX: Reconciliation Is Nothing Without Control.

The news that a Personal Prelature in Opus Dei style would have been offered, and the Vatican’s demand that the V II documents be considered intrinsically “dogmatic”, or in any way binding, to all Catholics in all their aspects now set aside, clearly show that the controversy – at least the official one – is not about doctrine anymore.

Here is a big Vatican spider, inviting the fly to take place in the inclusive, very merciful net prepared for it, and perhaps expecting the fly to make itself at home in the net in the name of, I don’t know, “unity” or “reconciliation”, or however you want to call the fly’s assured destruction.

Not going to happen, says the SSPX. We are going to talk to the spider, and all; we are going to even hover near the spider if the spider has this desire. But we are not going to fly in any net, thank you very much.

This is, put in rather blunt terms, the reason why the SSPX is now apparently working on the “clarification” of some points. Points which – you can bet your last shirt on it – pivot around who controls the order and its assets, and in which way.

As they (almost) say, reconciliation is nothing without control. No amount of pretended “autonomy” is worth anything, if this autonomy can be taken away at a moment’s notice. No “guarantees” are worth anything, if the Pope retains the factual ability to renege on them. No terms of reconciliation can be accepted, which leave the SSPX in any way, shape or form unable to protect itself from, well, the spider.

The SSPX must keep control of its own hierarchy and of its own assets. It must keep self-regulation independently from a Pope’s ukase. Most importantly, it must keep control of its assets in a way unassailable by the Vatican hierarchy.

If these conditions are met, of course the SSPX will obey the Pope. They already do, actually. They are already subject to the Pope in everything that does not undermine Catholicism or their own proper function. Therefore, if the SSPX would become “institutionally” subject to the Pope without losing control of their assets and chain of command, it would be impossible for Francis or any of his successors to subvert the organisation by, say, deposing their leaders, changing their statutes, and taking control of their assets.

Most people forget that the SSPX was, in fact, recognised and in perfect standing for several years, and became “rebellious” only when they were ordered to close their (at that time, only) seminary and – having control of their assets – plainly refused. This episode is far more enlightening than the more famous episode of “disobedience” with the appointment of the bishops, because it shows that if you have control over your chain of command and assets you have nothing to fear from the spider: you can walk away, intact, anytime.

This has happened once, and can happen again. Let the SSPX be formally subject to the Pope, and let them have the factual and legal ability to disobey if the Pope gives wrong orders; for example rescinding their organisational autonomy, ordering them to hand assets to the Vatican, deposing their leaders and so on.

Vatican saves face. SSPX saves autonomy and safety from the spider’s net. Everyone is happy.

Or at least, they should be.

M

 

The Breaking Of The Dams. Part II: The Education Revolution And The Religion Of Youth

1968

 

I have already explained in Part I what I think was the main factor in the rapid advancement of the “Spirit of V II” within a Church so strong and self-assured only a few years before. I would now like to spend two words about what was, if you ask me, the second most important factor: the rapid changes in education and the connected giovanilismo, the exaltation of everything “young” typical of those years.

The unprecedented economic progress since the end of WWII had brought another huge social upheaval: the education revolution. In less than twenty years, the entire West had undergone a massive change: the son of the peasant was on its way to become an accountant, and the son of the accountant was listening to new (and often crappy) ideas at University. Never had such a transformation occurred so rapidly. Never had so many young people been so obviously better educated than their parents and grandparents.

This caused a rapid deterioration of a traditional hinge of the social fabric: the respect for the elder.

Once seen as the depositaries of wisdom, old people were suddenly seen as uneducated, ignorant, prejudiced, superstitious obstacles to progress. In parallel, the young men and women (better educated, optimistic, full of reformist zeal, and often able to speak without accent or dialect) were seen as the new frontier, and the pathfinders to the discovery of a new and better world. A new world which saw all the prejudices and limits of the old one (and they were there; they were clearly there) and thought that the old system of religious rules, piety, and rigid propriety was pretty much on the same level with the countless superstitions they saw in their old people. The young people might have loved, but they did not esteem their parents, and they did not think their parent had much to teach to them. They were grateful to the peasants who had, with their sacrifices, allowed them to become accountants or teachers or lawyers or civil servants. But they saw in their parents just that: peasants.

For their teaching and guidance in life, they started to look elsewhere. In all the wrong places.  

It is apparent to me – and I have seen it very often in real life – that the old generation had, very often, an instinctive sense of what was right, and that they were right; but they were unable to defend themselves, to appropriately articulate their belief against the tide of opposition of their own children and grandchildren; children who spoke so well, better than they ever could, and were filling their parents and grandparents with pride and joy even as the latter were worried at what their children and nephews were actually saying.

These were the children for which the old generation had made so many sacrifices. Look at them now, speaking like lawyers and pharmacists! The son of the small tenant, or of the daily labourer; the daughter of the milliner, or of the domestic servant! They know so much more than their parents and grandparents!  Yes, they are wrong. But how to explain it to them? They speak so well…

And the entire world, the entire planet told the older people that the future belonged to the young, who would make a better planet for everyone. Largo ai giovani, “make place for the young” –  possibly the stupidest slogan of all times after “Liberte’, Egalite’, Fraternite’ ” –  was not much questioned in those times. The “Springtime of the Church” is just the same madness in a different way. Guitars in the church are just another byproduct of the same stupidity that gave us the May 1968 in France.   

And so, my dear readers, we have it, the explosive cocktail that gave us first Paul VI, then Assisi, then the rock mass concerts and mass media popes, then eventually the Evil Clown himself in all his wheelchair-embracing, Castro-cuddling, planet-“saving”, heresy-promoting, perversion-protecting, sacraments-desecrating debauchery. It was an explosive cocktail of growing welfare and growing, but secular, education; sadly not contrasted by a clergy too often tired of being party poopers when the party, which had been going on for a while, seemed to want to go on forever.

Too many were weak. Countless others were simply ill-equipped. 

Satan was, as always, looking for those whom he may devour. 

M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Breaking Of The Dams. Part I: “Il Papa Stupido”

gordondam

I read around the (right) consideration that not all must have been good in pre-V II times; otherwise it would not be explained how V II could do so much damage in just a few years. 

I will, therefore, try to make some considerations about this myself. 

We tend to see a strong Church as a wonderful apparatus, eliminating sin from around it like a hoover gets rid of the dust. I am afraid it might not work that way.

Fallen nature being what it is, even a strong church can only be something similar to a strong dam, opposing a strong wall of faith to the immense quantity of sin pushing against it. You can stand at the bottom of the huge wall and observe its majesty, and you will certainly think the dam beautifully strong; but what you won’t see is the huge amount of water ceaselessly applying its pressure on the wall, and which would flood to the vale below if allowed.

Such was, in my opinion, the Church of that Great Pope, the Pastor Angelicus. An extremely strong dam, for sure; cared for by many trusted guardians; but still, with the huge mass of world sinfulness exerting a huge pressure against it. This pressure was growing and growing as the Western world left behind it the years of great deprivations (and, as always, strong faith) of the war and marched resolutely towards unprecedented prosperity and optimism; and, to an extent, unprecedented belief Religion is now not the basis for life, but an optional not really useful in times of advanced medicine and ever-growing individual security.

Strong as the dam is, the water behind it will always be immense, and will always be ready to flood everything if a leaked, no matter how small, is found.

The leak has a name: il papa buono; or, as I think it far more appropriate, il papa stupido. Pope John XXIII was really so dumb, that he thought a little leak would do no great harm, and the bit of water coming the other way would be a welcome refreshment and cleansing force for the dry, dusty, at times crusty walls of the old, majestic, very hard dam. 

Fool.

The rest all followed from the initial madness: as it is in the nature of things, once the water found a small aperture it did not take long before the huge pressure, which had always been exerted (but was kept in check by the Pastor Angelicus and his very smart Church) caused a big leak, then a break, and a huge quantity of water naturally rushed the other side in a roaring waterfall. When Roncalli died too many were already those now tasting of the water, and desiring to shower in its roaring freshness. 

Pope Roncalli had contracted two typical diseases of the age: the first was niceness, and the second a boundless, rather stupid optimism about the future. These diseases belied the traditional, realistic and dryly somber evaluation of the human shortcomings prevalent up to then. John XXIII was probably so dumb that he really believed in a new era of sort; as if humanity could transition to a new phase just as easily as the Soviet Union could transition from Stalin to Khrushchev or the US from Eisenhower to Kennedy.

Pope Roncalli is, therefore, the main – if unwitting – agent of the flood. But not he alone, of course. The flood came because of the original sin-laden water that had never ceased to apply its huge pressure on the Church, and which only the strong dam of a very fortunate series of excellent Popes (five of the last six rather stellar by any Church History standard) had kept in check for so long, and with such success. But human sinfulness is a huge weight to keep in check. The desire to “make peace with the world” is an extremely heavy temptation. The water will still be there pushing, pushing all the time…

Here ends Part I. 

Part II will deal with what is, in my eyes, the second most important factor in the unfolding of the first, brutal stage of what was to become, as we can now safely say, an apocalyptic tragedy.

 

 

 

 

SSPX: Reconciliation Is Nothing Without Control.

The news that a Personal Prelature in Opus Dei style would have been offered, and the Vatican's demand that the V II documents be considered intrinsically “dogmatic”, or in any way binding, to all Catholics in all their aspects now set aside, clearly show that the controversy – at least the official one – is not about doctrine anymore.

Here is a big Vatican spider, inviting the fly to take place in the inclusive, very merciful net prepared for it, and perhaps expecting the fly to make itself at home in the net in the name of, I don't know, “unity” or “reconciliation”, or however you want to call the fly's assured destruction.

Not going to happen, says the SSPX. We are going to talk to the spider, and all; we are going to even hover near the spider if the spider has this desire. But we are not going to fly in any net, thank you very much.

This is, put in rather blunt terms, the reason why the SSPX is now apparently working on the “clarification” of some points. Points which – you can bet your last shirt on it – pivot around who controls the order and its assets, and in which way.

As they (almost) say, reconciliation is nothing without control. No amount of pretended “autonomy” is worth anything, if this autonomy can be taken away at a moment's notice. No “guarantees” are worth anything, if the Pope retains the factual ability to renege on them. No terms of reconciliation can be accepted, which leave the SSPX in any way, shape or form unable to protect itself from, well, the spider.

The SSPX must keep control of its own hierarchy and of its own assets. It must keep self-regulation independently from a Pope's ukase. Most importantly, it must keep control of its assets in a way unassailable by the Vatican hierarchy.

If these conditions are met, of course the SSPX will obey the Pope. They already do, actually. They are already subject to the Pope in everything that does not undermine Catholicism or their own proper function. Therefore, if the SSPX would become “institutionally” subject to the Pope without losing control of their assets and chain of command, it would be impossible for Francis or any of his successors to subvert the organisation by, say, deposing their leaders, changing their statutes, and taking control of their assets.

Most people forget that the SSPX was, in fact, recognised and in perfect standing for several years, and became “rebellious” only when they were ordered to close their (at that time, only) seminary and – having control of their assets – plainly refused. This episode is far more enlightening than the more famous episode of “disobedience” with the appointment of the bishops, because it shows that if you have control over your chain of command and assets you have nothing to fear from the spider: you can walk away, intact, anytime.

This has happened once, and can happen again. Let the SSPX be formally subject to the Pope, and let them have the factual and legal ability to disobey if the Pope gives wrong orders; for example rescinding their organisational autonomy, ordering them to hand assets to the Vatican, deposing their leaders and so on.

Vatican saves face. SSPX saves autonomy and safety from the spider's net. Everyone is happy.

Or at least, they should be.

M

 

Shrinkage

And it came to pass that Yours Truly was at Mass in a far away parish, in a well-known touristic region of what used to be called the Dowry of Mary.

The stoup for the Holy Water bas, basically, a miniature. The altar was far smaller than the niche on the wall which, clearly, had hosted the ad orientem one before the Age of Madness. The candles on the altar were “Made in Lilliput”. The Stations were the smallest I have ever seen in a church. A true picture of Shrinking Catholicism, thought Your Truly.

The homily came, and a pretty good homily it was. The priest was clearly of the grumpy – in a good way – sort, lamenting the “Neo-Paganism” of modern England, but stopping short of mentioning the probable final destination of all those Neo-Pagans out there, fornicating and cohabiting. Still, there was a lot of veiled messages, carefully crafted – I thought – so that they don't put him in trouble with his bishop.

I couldn't avoid wondering if the Lilliput quality of his church was wanted from him, or rather inherited from some Jesuit or other fag who had been there before him.

Because surely, I reflected, the man must notice that the shrinkage of Christian thinking in the former Dowry of Mary is reflected very accurately in the shrinkage of Catholic symbolism in his very church, and what has happened inside the walls of the church mirrors exactly what has happened outside of them.

Symbols counts. Sacramentals are important. Catholic identity must be affirmed, instead of shrinked. When things start to improve inside our churches – not excluding more explicit homilies – they will slowly but surely start to improve outside of them, too.

M

 

The Slippery Slope

Let's improve it!

I do not pray the “new” Rosary (the one, I mean, which JP II of Assisi memory introduced to “improve” on the Blessed Virgin), but I seem to recall that one of the new Mysteries involved Jesus' call to repentance.

JP II simply thought he knew better.

Twenty years or so later, another Pope “improves” pretty much everything. I cannot imagine the man calling to repentance concerning much more than having used the air conditioner; he would, rather, call to dialogue; this dialogue would in no way include a call to conversion, because that would be Proselytism, an attitude Francis insults as he does everything Catholic.

That's another one who thinks he knows better.

So there we are: from the still orthodox – in the content; much less so in the attitude – new set of mysteries, to a new set of unofficial innovations and heresies spread via interview.

This is what happens when you think you can “improve” on the Blessed Virgin.

V II cannot be divided in a good and a bad part.

It is a fifty years long slippery slope.

M

 

The “You Have Been Warned, Ma’am” Reblog

“You Have Been Warned, Ma’am”

By All Means, Attend Mass At An SSPX Chapel!

So, should we attend a SSPX Mass? Most people (even conservative ones) say “no”. Other people say “of course”. I personally say “by all means, but paying attention it does not lead you culpably go down the wrong path”.

The short, but already meaningful history of this little effort shows than not a few are the cases of people who start attending a TLM – which can easily be in a SSPX chapel – and after a while throw away the child with the bath water and become either Sedevacantists or so venomous against the Church that one does not understand what their understanding of Catholicism is.

I cannot – in the same way as Bishop Schneider – detect any area in which the SSPX are not Catholic. It is, therefore, a mystery to me how this previously unknown concept of “imperfect communion” may work. The SSPX are as Catholic as they come, and infinitely more Catholic than the Pope – as every good Catholic is, by the way – and they merely refuse obedience to the pope on matters in which a sound Catholic has always been entitled to refuse obedience. You can’t be half pregnant, and you can’t be in imperfect communion. Most of all, you can’t be something that never existed before, and the fruit of a verbal gymnastics invented after V II to describe someone who does not want to give in to Neo-Modernism (or outright Modernism) when the hierarchy in Rome does just that.

By all means, go to a SSPX mass if you can. Only pay attention, if you want my advice, that this does not create in you a siege mentality, according to which only a little moat separates the SSPX from the Whore of Babylon.

I find it a useful experience to also attend at NO Mass. It teaches me obedience. It tells me that the Church is my mother even when she nourishes me badly, and at times seems to hate me. It helps me to avoid the moat thinking, and the siege obsession. It reminds me that horrible as her state may be, this organisation that celebrates these NO Masses all over the world is, in fact, the Only Church; and I prefer to bring this kind of sacrifice as a penance rather than run the risk of slowly persuading myself I am too good for the Mass the Church gives me.

By all means, attend Mass at an SSPX Chapel. But do not think that there are too churches, of which the Vatican is the wrong one. There is only one Church, and he who does not see that the SSPX is 100% part of it probably cannot be helped anymore.

M

 

Heroin For The Church: Explaining Francis’ Pontificate.

Francis' Pontificate explained.

Francis’ Pontificate explained.

 

Firstly a short premise: I do not approve of Sedevacantism. Sedevacantist comments are not allowed. If I see that your comments aim at pushing – overtly or covertly – a Sedevacantist agenda, you will be banned. Some have already tested me in that and you do not read their comments anymore, so there. In these things, one must be a Fascist. Yours Truly does Fascism well.

Having said that, some Sedes have quality sites, to which I link as little as I can, but at times I think are worth linking to.

One of these is Novus Ordo Watch; who, it must be said, make an admirable work (if from the wrong premise) of collection and exposure of Bergoglio’s madness. I am sure many of their readers are not Sedevacantists, and visit the site because of the quality of the content itself.

This time they have some very interesting content from Alessandro Gnocchi, the writing partner of the late Mario Palmaro. Gnocchi writes a comment in response to a reader, and this comment developed to a kind of article in itself.

Your humble correspondent identifies almost completely in what Gnocchi says, with only two small observations:

1. It can be misleading to say that “we cannot say” whether Bergoglio is Pope or not. Bergoglio is the Pope, period. What I think Gnocchi wanted to say is that we are nobody to start questioning the legitimacy of the one whom the Church considers the Pope.

2. I do know why we are being punished with Bergoglio, and Gnocchi says as much implicitly when he says in Bergoglio the (earthly) Church has the Pope she deserves. We are being punished for our sins of arrogance and rebellion to Truth. As I have already stated, it is as if the Lord would ram down our throat a big quantity of the very excrements we thought would be wholesome in smaller doses. If you liked V II, why, you must love Bergoglio!

Please click the site, enjoy the article, and do not be influenced by the Sedevacantist argument.

—-

V II stated, in a way, the principle that Catholic drugs are fine, thinking that this would be limited to the marijuana as everything else was unthinkable. Then a Pope comes who has lived his entire life in this marijuana-filled atmosphere and reasons that hey, we must take this seriously here: if drugs are fine, then… drugs are fine. What follows is injections of heroin like it’s Catholic Junkie Day.

Bergoglio is recognisable as a Catholic only when he reads statements written by Catholics. He himself is as much Catholic as my cat. Can a Pope be as bad as that? Of course he can! Many have certainly become Pope who were atheists in every cell. The Holy Ghost does not assure that the Pope will have fear of the Lord, or believe in Him.

Gnocchi is also right in the disastrous Ratzinger attitude, and in saying that another Ratzinger would, at this point, not stop the decline and decomposition at all.

The day Benedict dies, I do not think he will have to fear for having resigned. But he must live with the fear of being punished for the way he has wasted eight years of Pontificate thinking that a varnish of orthodoxy and Summorum Pontificum would be enough, whilst he proceeded to the most atrocious appointments to please the Modernist crowd around him.

M

 

 

 

 

The Hermeneutic Of Catholicism.

Fine Italian chocolate since 1826.

Fine Italian chocolate since 1826.

 

I fear that the ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ has become the preferred tool of well-meaning eggheads and not so well-meaning heretics, while the rest of us puzzle over what the Church truly teaches these days.

What we need today is clear and unambiguous teaching at all levels of the hierarchy that does not rely on hermeneutics, but rather relies on clarity, and shuns ambiguity. We need clarity with clearly demonstrated continuity in all communications.

Thus Pat Archbold in one of his very good reflections, in which he complains that good, solid, Catholic texts – like all the encyclicals before the dratted Council – do not need any “hermeneutic”, whilst the “hermeneutic” has now in some quarters become an excuse to deny the reality of texts that have little of Catholic in them. I fully agree, though perhaps I use the word in a different context. 

I have always been a supporter of the hermeneutic of continuity, in the sense that I consider that every official text of the Church must be taken – whenever possible; Francis is a completely new ballgame – in a sense that is in harmony with what the Church believes.

So, the encyclicals of the darn V II can, largely, be read in an orthodox way; and in what they say that is in line with what has been previously taught, they are certainly fine. If Luther says “two and two is four” this is not less fine because Luther said it. Here, Luther has been truthful. No, really. 

This is, I think, the reason why not even the SSPX rejects the VII documents in toto, and why the Great Man himself signed – to my knowledge – all of them, which – to my knowledge – other refused to do. A bad document explaining the Truth in a bad way is still valid in the truth it teaches, because those truths cannot be invalidated just because wrapped in a mediocre or misleading document. Similarly, if a papal encyclical has some good things mixed with stupid or ambiguous or vaguely heretical or openly wrong statements, we might have to ask for the re-writing of the encyclical, but we will have to recognise the truth contained in its truthful parts in the meantime. We as Catholics cannot but read in a Catholic way, provided there is something Catholic to be read. 

If Francis were to write an encyclical in which the Trinity is correctly explained, and Muslims are said to believe in the same God as Christians, the second statement should be rejected as heretical, and the part concerning the Trinity should be accepted as truthful. To do anything else means to make truth dependent on who writes about it. 

oh, well...

oh, well…

 I have proposed some time ago a “hermeneutic of embarrassment”, consisting in taking everything that is valid in the V II encyclicals whilst acknowledging the crap job made by the Council Fathers in mixing the good with the stupid, the comfortable, the bad and the plain evil. I have also proposed, concerning the mentality of V II, a hermeneutic of extermination,  which I think is what the times are demanding from us. But in all this, I see no necessity to interpret the V II texts we have in any other way than reading them in a Catholic way, accepting whatever Catholicism they have in them and rejecting whatever is, in the actual words or in their erroneous hermeneutic, heterodox. 

Still, I think Mr Archbold makes a very valid point: the “hermeneutic of orthodoxy” has now gone so far that even openly heretical statements are twisted in the most astonishing way to try to give them an orthodox meaning. But you see, this is not an exercise in hermeneutic anymore, but in blindness and Pollyann-ism. 

There is no way “who am I to judge” can be interpreted as being anything else than secular crap. There is no way “there is no God!” can be interpreted anything else than a blasphemy. There is no way stating that the Blessed Virgin could have said “Lies!” at the foot of the Cross does not show that the one who makes such a statement does not understands jack of Catholicism, much less has any true devotion for the Blessed Virgin. There is no way stating that Christ misled the apostles can be interpreted in any other way than an offence to Christ. There is no way committing a grave liturgical abuse can be explained away as being anything else than a liturgical abuse. There is no way calling a proddie “brother bishop” can be understood in any way other than nonsense born of drunkenness, sheer stupidity or blank denial of Catholicism. Everyone of you has, I am sure, other examples.

In all these cases, there is simply no object for any hermeneutic. Words have meaning. Un-Catholic or anti-Catholic words just have a meaning deprived of, or contrary to, Catholicism.  You just can’t interpret shit into chocolate. 

The hermeneutic of embarrassment concerning the documents of V II, and the hermeneutic of extermination concerning the entire “ideology” of V II, must not lead us to close our eyes in front of the fact that heresy is heresy, nonsense is nonsense, and Francis is the enemy number one of Catholicism. These are facts that go beyond any effort of twisting the meaning of what is said. Meaning which, in the case of Francis, is perfectly clear before one begins the twisting. 

But by all means: in all we can, let us continue to extract whatever is good from Vatican documents, lest a narrative should emerge according to which what was good before is not good anymore now. So if anyone were to ask me “do you accept or reject the V II documents?” I would answer that I accept everything that must be accepted, and reject everything that must be rejected. How do I know which is which? By comparing with what has been stated in the past. It truly isn’t difficult. Truth has a way of letting alarm bells go off when someone is departing from it. In the case of Francis, the noise is deafening every time he opens that stupid, lewd old mouth of his. 

The Modernist mixes truth and error, and I will not reject the truth because it is mixed with error. But I certainly have the right – and, I think, the duty – to ask that those documents which either mix truth with error, or truth with ambiguity, be replaced by documents reflecting truth without ambiguity.

Not going to happen during this papacy, of course. The “hermeneutic of populism and socialism” is Francis’ preferred way of interpretation of pretty much everything. 

 

Mundabor 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Identity Without Christianity

The Pope stated the obvious objection to his own view that one must not proselytize but rather dialogue and “walk with” people: “But, brother Pope, this is what we are doing, but perhaps we are converting no one or very few people….” Indeed! And the Pope’s answer: “But you are doing it anyway: with your identity, you are hearing the other.”

The idea that one can convert others merely by displaying one’s “identity” and “hearing the other” would have sounded like utter nonsense to the martyrs of Korea, who were put to death for preaching the Gospel in order to convert and save souls in keeping with the divine commission. And those same martyrs would probably have not believed it if they were told that one day a Pope would say this to the bishops of Asia: “And the Lord will grant his grace: sometimes he will move hearts and someone will ask for baptism, sometimes not. But always let us walk together. This is the heart of dialogue.” In other words, perhaps you will make converts while dialoguing, perhaps not. But don’t worry: dialogue is the thing! Evangelization has lost all meaning in Bergoglian theology, which is essentially the post-Vatican II Jesuit liberalism of the 1970s.

This is Chris Ferrara’s probably most pregnant statement in an excellent article dealing, once again, with the way the Bishop of Rome refuses to do his job as bishop, let alone bishop of Rome.

It is clear by now the strategy that this man is pursuing: to be what non-Catholics, lapsed Catholics and Anti-Catholics want him to be, but delivering some timid statement every now and then so that the Pollyannas may continue to believe he is an orthodox Pope; in the same way as the Waffen SS believed in Nazi victory in February 1945.

Pope Francis is trying to achieve the demolition of Catholicism as we know it, and its substitution for a vaguely new-age religion of “hearing one another” whose stupidity is only surpassed by the arrogance of the man so humbly proposing himself as Best Pope Since Peter.

I do not know what name one could give to such a mentality, but “Catholic” is certainly not one that jumps to mind. It’s the kind of waffle you could hear from a confused liberal elementary school teacher; not from a priest, much less a Cardinal, much less a Pope.

Francis goes around saying that Catholicism is an option; but he does not seem averse to the audience and popularity coming to him from his having the job that, of all jobs in the world, does not speak of options. It is as if the headmaster would spend his day saying to the pupils that school isn’t important after all, what counts is that they are nice friends people would want to be around.

Shall I, then, blame this obvious old atheist called Francis for the excrement he deposits at our door at least three times a week? Or shall I, rather, blame the brainless masses who continue to feel like they were “his friend” everytime the old nutcase is afraid of being Catholic, or feels the need to say something completely absurd in exchange for 3 days of media excitement?

Dio vede e provvede, says the wise Italian. God sees and provides. In this case, I can only draw some comfort from the fact that God is already providing for a better time… sometimes after Francis’ departure, or resignation.

But how long our punishment will be, and how massive the rape of Catholicism, I can only fear.

Mundabor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: