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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Another very confused blog post from a rather confused blogger priest, who will not profit financially – as he normally does – from a link here.
The priest in question feels his duty to criticise those Catholics who point out to a very simple truth: Protestants cannot receive a Catholic funeral in any way, shape or form. This is not me, or my cat, or Mrs Johnson down the road. This is Canon Law and, even before that, it is common sense.
Canon Law – and Catholicism, comes to that – is not about emoting; it is about thinking. A Protestant cannot have a Catholic funeral because, with his dying a Protestant, he has visibly put himself for all the world to see outside of that (only) Church outside of which there is no salvation.
Now, it can happen – I do not know how rarely; but I do know that it would be senseless temerity and self-righteous arrogance for anyone to presume he does not need to convert – that the dude or dudette in question does die within the Church, because that very Christ to Whom the final decision is given admits him to be part of the only Church in the last moment of his or her life, and the dude or dudette therefore dies a Catholic and avoids hell. But the fact remains that for the world he has died a Proddie, and therefore he will still – whether he has saved his backside from eternal barbecuing, or not – not be entitled to a Catholic funeral, lest scandal be given.
Is this so difficult to grasp? No. It makes perfect sense. Until one stops thinking and starts emoting.
Then, this person will reflect that the deceased Proddie might have been – as human standards go – a better man, a more faithful husband, a more thoroughly recycling and better driving citizen than the Catholic small crook who died on the same day after a life of expedients, but in the fear of the Lord and at peace with Him. Which, the reasoning goes, would not justify the double standard and make it unjust, or unreasonable, or too “pre-age of Mercy”.
But this is not an argument. There is a double standard for those “in” or “out” of the Church because there is only one Church; and this Church makes – she must make, if she is to be the Church – a very clear distinction between in and out, and must attach to it a concrete risk of horrible, eternal consequences for those who choose to die… out.
In this respect – that is: considering whether one died in or out – how “good” one was is neither here nor there. He wasn't good enough to be entitled to a Catholic funeral, for sure, and he should be happy enough if he has saved his ass; which, seeing his death as a Protestant, is ipso facto uncertain.
This mentality that “goodness”, not right thinking and right choices, entitles one to something – a Catholic funeral but, by extension, salvation; which is the big underlying issue, and the one that gives rise to the prohibition – is a very emotional, very irrational, and very effeminate one. It is the thinking of the emoting wussie, who does not get that adults make choices and pay the consequences.
The atheist “missionary” who spends his life fighting Ebola and dies in his atheism will still go to hell, because the offence to God of dying in one's atheism is infinitely – as in: infinitely – graver than any brownie point his humanitarian activity might earn him in one million lives. It is humanitarian effort without God, and therefore without any charity, and therefore voiding – as far as the issue of salvation is concerned – any contrary argument.
Is this difficult to understand? No. Is it rational? Quite. Is it uncomfortable to hear? You bet.
But this is what Catholicism is: as hard and as beautiful as a diamond. He is wise who understands that the diamond will not become soft for the sake of the Protestant glass. He is a fool who thinks that he is quality glass, and the diamond will have to yield to him.
Those who understand Truth know what the Church is: a barque helping us, wretched sinner as we all are, to cross the perilous sea of our sinful lives and safely reach the opposite shore. What profits the Proddie that he is a better swimmer than most Catholics on the barque if he is still out there, in the cold, swimming? Many a swimmer dies, who thought he had no need for the barque. Many a horrible swimmer lives, who with the grace of God understood where he had to be in order not to perish in the cold water of sin. The Protestant “virtuous” man may fancy himself better able to face the cold water; he can, in fact, be undoubtedly the better swimmer. I do not doubt many of them are. But in the end, he is still there, swimming alone in the cold, whilst the awful swimmer was smart enough to stay or get on the boat. Many a virtuous swimmer will, therefore, perish; and many an awful one safely reach the other shore one day.
Ultimately, then, who is the more virtuous? Since when has it become virtuous to be a heretic? Invincible ignorance certainly excuses; but if we look around us we will see very little of it, and an awful lot of presumption and arrogance or, if you prefer, a lot of idiots who want to swim alone because they think they are too good for the Barque, which is so full of hideous sinners, or uncomfortable rules, or both.
At the end of the day Heretic is who heretic does, and heresy can never be good, or pleasing to God, or in any way desirable. It is not cruel or unreasonable that the Church refuses a Catholic funeral to those who die in their heresy. It would be cruel and unreasonable if she did otherwise, because in this case the Church Herself would set up to massively confuse the faithful about what is right and what is wrong.
What some priest – many, in fact – must understand is that Catholicism is neither easy nor comfortable. On the contrary, by its very nature it will cause the harsher conflicts where the commingling of Catholicism and Protestantism, or of Catholicism and Atheism, is more pronounced. I grew up in an environment deprived of even one single Protestant, and Catholic Truth about heresy never divided my family. But if in the middle of a family Catholicism and Protestantism mingle, then the Catholic Truth will perforce cut through it like a knife, or if you prefer like the above mentioned diamond cuts the lies of Protestant glass. Any attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable will, then, only water down the Truth, damaging – to little or great extent – the very Catholic members of that family; which, let it say it, is another reason why it is desirable that there be no Protestants among that family in the first place.
All very simple, very logical and very Catholic. But not if you depart from the straight and narrow, and start to reason about how oh pious the Protestants are, and how oh inflexible – generally one adds here “judgmental”, “self righteous” or another of the adjectives loved by those who have no argument – the orthodox Catholics.
To die a Protestant is a serious threat to one's eternal salvation. It is a threat that does not have to end in tragedy, but leaves one exposed to this risk. It is, besides, a scandal that encourages other to believe that it be allowed, even normal to die in one's heresy. And therefore, rightly and wisely the Church forbids that such people may have the Protestant cake and eat the Catholic funeral.
That V II priests seem unable to see such self-evident truths tells you a lot about your V II priests.
We are informed that 33% of “Catholics” are “very satisfied” with the LCWR, and only 4% “very dissatisfied”.
One truly wonders firstly if such surveys are worth one tenth of the money they cost, and secondly what it means if they are accurate.
“Catholic” is a very broad word in a world where even Nancy Pelosi says that she is a Catholic. In times of non-instruction like these ones, Gandhi would have a sky-high approval rate among Catholics. Yes, he denied Christ's Divinity to the end, but who are we to judge? One can, therefore, draw some conclusion about the 33% of allegedly so satisfied Catholics.
But then there is the other question: whether the people who have been surveyed knew what they were talking about, what the LCWR really is, the ideas the hags who compose it really promote.
Methinks, it is far more probable that the people interviewed still link the nun with her traditional image, activity and mindset. I cannot imagine many have any idea of who these people are in the first place. They approve of them because they approve of nuns, period. If only they knew!
But then again let us play this game and imagine that the people surveyed really knew. Does this prove that the hags are right? No. It merely proves that they are popular among people as bad as them. Not much of a discovery, methinks.
In the meantime, we are informed the Catholic world who allegedly likes the viragos so much does not want to be like them. Actually, it is condemning them to extinction. I do not think the figures (from 180,000 in 1965 to less than 50,000 today) give the real proportion of the hags's catastrophe as does the old age of those who are still alive and kicking, or rather screaming, and the conservative attitude of many young sisters. These women truly are bitching Dinosaurs.
Again: the world out there might like them – because it rejects Catholicism – but it still does not want to be like them!
Not even young angry lesbians want to become nuns of the LCWR type anymore. This truly says it all.
The Pope goes around saying things that, had they been said by Popes of a Christian past, would have probably caused him to die at the stake, and deservedly so. Bishops and Cardinals everywhere undermine Catholic teaching at every possible and impossible occasion. Many a Mass raises valid questions whether a valid consecration has taken place. Catholicism among the masses has degenerated to a very short list of the most trite banalities; banalities in which nowadays open denial of God’s rules is automatically contained; like the “inclusiveness” that ends up accepting adultery and sexual perversion, and the “social justice” that forgets that justice is not of this world.
Has God, then, forgotten us? Has he left us alone in the midst of wolves who attack us day in and day out, and demand that we “include” them, embrace their ideology, and accept it as True Faith?
It is, at times, seriously sickening to always have to write about the latest Papal scandal; or the latest bishop or cardinal desirous to earn brownie points by him; or the latest priest thinking that Castro has been sent by God like a new prophet.
It is sickening. But it is our lot. Could be worse, frankly.
Had God forsaken humanity when the Arian heresy had swept away almost all of Christianity? What must the faithful have thought during the many decades of its seemingly irresistible ascendancy? When even the Pope was at the very least their unwilling accomplice, and at the worst their willing one?
Had God forsaken humanity when the Plague swept Europe in 1348; ravaging a Continent with a violence never seen before, carrying to an early grave countless people, and destroying entire families?
Had God forsaken Europe when the Thirty Years’ War left almost all of Europe savagely ravaged, and Germany almost destroyed, with only the introduction of the potato saving them from countless further deaths of starvation?
Shall I remind you of the First World War, which was in these days, one hundred years ago, about to engulf Europe in a conflict the like of which humanity had never seen? Followed, just as the war had ended, by a short but terrible wave of disease which made, in a matter of weeks, even more victims again?
Last but not least: has God forsaken the countless Christians all over the East and the Middle East, and whose tragedy is now under our eyes – the eyes of those who want to see, that is – as it unfolds week after horrible week?
God never forsakes us, and His promise to be with us to the end of times will obviously stay. But we have to face our lot bravely; strong in this promise, as so many generations have done before us; living and dying in faith amidst the apparence of a crumbling world; and thinking, as we do so, of all those whose suffering has in these disgraceful times a much more concrete dimension than our rather comfortable complaint about probably the worst Pope in history, bar none.
Past generations had to deal with the Arians and the plague; with war, famine and disease. Eastern Christians have to deal with ruthless Muslim persecution, most evidently in Syria and Iraq but also elsewhere, and with discrimination as daily normality in many other Countries.
We have to deal with an old deluded atheist – and if you ask me, an old filthy man, for whom to live under an homosexual’s roof and to openly protect and promote him is being just hip and progressive – as Pope, spreading heresies from the very top as he undermines Catholic teaching every day; and with his minions, rivalling each other in their eagerness to establish who is the one who toadies to him the most.
God has not forsaken us, or the persecuted Christians in Mosul and elsewhere, just as he never forsook all the Christians who had to endure terrible suffering in the past.
We must soldier on in His name whatever He allows that it should happen to us, and draw from it the energy to live a live stronger in faith and, therefore, better able to endure the trials, and better suited to stay, one day, in front of our judge.
I never can hold a smile whenever I read statements along the lines of “the madness of V II is certainly going to end soon”. The thinking seems to be that a shameless tool like the Unholy Father must surely be the last station, where this mad train finally ends.
I would love to share the optimism, but I must say I cannot bring myself to do it.
In my eyes, God is punishing us with an overdosis of the same drug we have been demanding for now 50 years. If this is so, it is in my opinion very reasonable to assume that the aim of this overdosis is to lead the faithful to see the error of their ways, and to come to the – if not unanimous, at least very widely held – view that this mess is the direct result of V II, and we must ditch the latter if we want to put an end to the former.
It seems, to me, very optimistic to think that God would allow 90% or 95% of the Catholics to escape their richly deserved punishment for the sake of the few who continue to believe what their forefathers believed, and will not subscribe to any modernist rubbish wherever it may come from (which, nowadays, is generally from the very top).
It is, I think, reasonable to believe that mass rebellion will be met with mass punishment: an utterly corrupt clergy, fitting the utter rebellion of the sheep, and leading countless to the reward both the corrupt clergy and wayward sheep have so loudly asked for.
If this is so – and again, it seems to me only reasonable to think that this is so – we must ask ourselves whether the great majority of Catholics have seen the light. The answer to this is, in this August 2014, obvious: not only they haven't, but a large part of them actually want more of the rubbish. This is nothing more than the continuation of a process that has now going on for decades. Francis has not come out of nothing. He has come out of V II.
Every stupid act of divestment of Papal authority leads to the next stupid act of weakening of Church teaching. One Pope gives away his tiara, another renounces to use it to be enthroned, a third one is perceived to apologise for the crusades and prays together with infidels, another one beatifies him, still another one refuses to wear the mozzetta and spits all sorts of heresy. The slippery slope of V II is following its course without any sign of nausea from the faithful.
Is, then, an even worse Pope than Francis thinkable? Of course he is! If the masses applaud this cretin, what prevents the Cardinals from electing an even worse cretin, if – as we are assuming – God is allowing the punishment to continue?
Why would the mob, asking for more rubbish, not be humoured by the Cardinals? Why would God, seeing the continuing blindness, allow the faithful to avoid drinking the bitter chalice of their own stupidity to its very end, so that future generations may be warned?
Every madness prepares the way for a bigger madness, to which the (un)faithful have now been “primed”. The ditching of the Mozzetta would have been impossible without the ditching of the tiara, the daily heresies of a Francis unthinkable without the far more occasional, but undoubtedly present heresies of his V II predecessors. You may say that if once, say, fifteen years were necessary for the material of the first “Iota Unum”, the second will take only five years, and the third one. Francis alone would, in his seventeen months of pontificate, make for a heavy tome.
I fear that after Francis, an Über-Francis will follow, unless the scandal becomes widespread enough to stop this cancer from spreading further.
After a Pope Bergoglio, is it so unthinkable that, say, a Pope Maradiaga would stretch the fisted arm in the Communist gesture? What would prevent a Pope Dolan from going to all possible talk shows and make an ever bigger ass of himself than he already is, saying he has “no feeling of judgment” towards public sodomites?
Why would the next Pope not wear jeans? The one after him, Bermudas and flip-flops?
Why would the next Pope not be openly supportive of sodomy? The one after him an old, former sodomite?
Why would the next Pope not apologise for the Syllabus or Errors? The one after him, for Christ's lack of “sensitivity”?
Have we not had Popes kissing Korans, and praying with infidels? Openly protecting public sodomites,and even promoting them? Saying to us that Christ deceived His disciples, and that “perhaps” the Blessed Virgin felt deceived? Factually denying the Only Church, and unofficially preaching some sort of unofficial “One Love” Church Of Everyone In Good Faith? Shall I go on?
Where's the mass outrage? Where's the mass awakening? Where's the mass repentance?
On the contrary: the more modernist shit the rebellious sheep are served, the more shit they want to eat. At least as per today, at the beginning of August 2014; when some theologians and intellectuals are starting to complain very loud and resistance is starting to form, but the vast mass of the Catholic world still swallows Francis' daily dosis of Modernist excrements whole, without complaining, and asking for more.
Do not be so optimistic, say I. Francis might only be the beginning of the last stage of madness, the one of open lunacy. But how long this stage will go on, with how many Popes, and to what extent of turpitude, it is not given to us to know. Particularly so, because the blind mob keeps asking for more.
They will, I am much afraid, get more than they have bargained for, and one day hell will be full of their cries. An atrocious rebellion is being punished in the harshest of ways: a very fitting punishment for people who in their arrogance refuse to believe God may punish anyone, much less them, harshly.
But as long as the sheep keep asking for more modernist shit, I can't see why God would not punish them with another overdosis, and then another, and then another. Until they see the madness of their way, and ask for sound Catholicism again.
Do not lull yourself in the thinking this is certainly the worst. We might have the flip-flops Pope, the X-Factor Pope, or the sodomite Pope before long.
A fitting punishment for people making light of the Pope's dignity and teaching, and of the perversion of homosexuality.
I am informed the way is paved for the beatification of JP I.
I am almost relieved, because I was already worried Francis might, between a tango and a selfie, have forgotten the man.
One is reminded of the Asterix cartoons: “it is 2014 and all VII Popes have been at least beatified…
One wonders what will happen when (wishing Benedict a long life, and assuming he would be considered worthy of the honour) the list of “eligible” popes end. Who will be next? Bugnini perhaps? Tyrrell perhaps? Hey, he did a lot of lío, so Francis should like him much? Von Balthasar? What about Rahner? And if Hans Kueng euthanasises himself fast, could one not think of him? Yes, he wants to commit suicide, but remember: if one has good will and seeks the Lord, who are we to judge?
I am so old that I remember when a beatified Pope was a seldom occurrence indeed. Now, an entire generation of Catholics will grow up believing if you are Pope, of course you are going to be beatified. At least if you have become Pope in the New Springtime, when empty churches and anti-Christian legislation elevate the spirit so much.
I bet my pint on Bugnini.
Küng is still very much alive, and may well bury Francis before he disposes of himself. But Bugnini or Rahner or Tyrrell, they do appear safe bets.