Tag Archives: Archbishop Arthur Roche

Consistory 27 August 2022: [Card.] Roach of Divine Worship (anti-TLM); [Card.] McElroy of San Diego (pro-abortion)

The message is that the Traditional Latin Mass is evil, that Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is evil, and that abortion is the sacred sacrament of the pro-aborts that must be reverenced.

  • +Archbishop Arthur Roach (b. 1950) is the guy who presented the Responsa ad dubia, saying that Jesus, in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the TLM, has nothing to do with the life of the parish. Nothing. So don’t take note of any of that in parish bulletins, he said. He’s Pope Francis’ hatchet man to wipe the TLM off the face of the earth.
  • +Bishop Robert Walter McElroy (b. 1954) has a long history of being militantly pro-abortion. Read through the short article on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._McElroy. Obviously, he was chosen as a public smack-down of Archbishop Cordileone, who recently forbade Nancy Pelosi to receive Holy Communion because of equally strident pro-abortion machinations.

BTW, that picture up top was taken by yours truly. I did the logistics for soon to be Cardinal Burke for that pilgrimage Mass, with myself being the TLM chaplain at Lourdes at the time. I was able to bring back the TLM just about single-handedly to the Sanctuaries after Summorum Pontificum even before it officially came into effect. And I’m pro-life. I guess I’m bad and evil as well. No red hat for me! :-)

7 Comments

Filed under Liturgy, Pope Francis, Pro-Life

Using Francis against himself for the TLM. Sardonic humor, incisive truth. Yikes!

Thanks go to the many who collaborated to bring this extremely helpful if utterly sardonic extended bit of humor to light. Even the length is cynically sarcastic, mimicking the useless verbosity of the Bergoglio-esque modus operandi. One is overwhelmed, suffocated, convinced by the massive weight of the horror, the truth, setting one free, ever so humorous, but ever so sad. But I love it. Totally.

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/12/important-studyfrom-traditionis.html

Ultimately, is this useful? Should this actually be used against the insistence of some (arch)episcopal sycophant of Francis? I mean, it would be difficult for, say, a Cardinal Cupich to deny the truths of this humor. But do we set up a precedent? Are we to be “disobedient” with sarcasm?

I mean, I don’t know, let’s figure this out. What is the law when the mens legislatoris (the mind, the intention, of the legislator) is so extremely, excruciatingly clear regardless of what some “It’s-only-the-text-of-the-actual-precept-canon-lawyer” has to say?

I would challenge any (arch)bishop and/or Canon lawyer to read that piece linked above. It’s humorous, but there is a deadly, deadly, deadly serious side to it. The accuracy and completeness and nuance of the citations are stunning, overwhelming. This is academia at it’s best, interpretation of the law at its best. This goes right to the heart of the Church, the Sacred Heart of the Church. This is about the salvation of souls. Sometimes humor speaks more loudly than direct commentary. But this is all direct commentary simultaneously. Yikes! Congratulations to this author, to the translator, to the publisher. Awesome. Great work.

The author, by the way, has been out in the peripheries more than Bergoglio could ever dream of being out in any peripheries. This guy absolutely cares for the sheep and lambs of the Lord’s Little Flock in every way. He gets it. The “authenticity” of this guy makes him someone to be reckoned with. He’s a giant of a Catholic among Catholics. And he has all the degrees in the world. All the street-cred of a true believer.

And after wading though this, I’m quite convinced that this sarcasm is also intended by Francis and +Roche. In other words, for Francis and +Roche, this is what is actually happening:

  • “If you conservative idiots are so stupid as to take Traditionis custodes and the Responses to the Dubia by the CDW seriously, then you’re not even worth taking seriously. Go ahead and hyper-obey, all angry and cynical, which is where we want you to be. But if all y’all are smart enough to catch on to our “no-law-is-a-good-law” way of going about things, then, by all means, we got you where we want you. Go ahead and do whatever you want with the TLM. Celebrate it all the time. We don’t care. That’s not the point. What we want is for you to ignore all law, to ignore the Church, to get into the habit of ignoring any Pope who comes along in the future. We are baiting you, and you have taken the bait. Hahahahaha!”

But what Francis and +Roche don’t understand is that true believers have the wisdom to see through the demonic cynicism. We will remain believers. We will continue to follow all just laws, all just precepts. We will continue to follow Jesus. We won’t be doing any demon idol worship. And Jesus has the last laugh as we use Francis and +Roche against themselves and still remain with Jesus. :-)

So, just to be clear: There is no TLM or any Sacrament or Sacramental of the Ancient Rite which is either invalid or illicit. We know the mens legislatoris, diabolically cynical as it might be. It’s all gaslighting. To them, it’s humorous. But I’ll remain deadly serious about the salvation of souls with Jesus, who was absolutely deadly serious.

Can you imagine saying Holy Mass on the front lines for the guys and putting the demon-idol Pachamama in front of them? I can’t. I won’t. The demonic hierarchy can go to their own place. I will not follow. I will remain with Jesus, by His grace, in His joy.

4 Comments

Filed under Liturgy, Pope Francis

Disobedience to Traditionis custodes and Dubia: interdicts and other penalties

  • Canon 1373 – A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.

Some notes on terminology:

  • “animosities” – This generally refers to riling people’s emotions to such a point that their emotions rule their reasoning capacities. We would normally call this inciting prejudice. However, this wouldn’t be an evil if it were to be directed at someone who, until he absolutely repented, couldn’t be trusted for anything whatsoever, such as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao. So, the question is as to whether there is that which, in the law itself, helps us to distinguish what kind of animosity it is with which we’re dealing.
  • “hatred” – “In the words of the Scriptures, “I loved Jacob, but I rejected Esau” (Romans 9:13). God hates the sin and the sinner in such manner that He provides all that is needed for the sinner to repent and stop the sin, stop being a sinner, now being loved. Hatred can be a tool of love. So, the question is as to whether there is that which, in the law itself, helps us to distinguish what kind of hatred it is with which we’re dealing.

Distinguishing factors in the law:

Whenever we find a subordinating conjunction, we must needs pay attention, as it promises to make the necessary distinction for us. We find the legally significant word – “because” – in this law. Thus: “BECAUSE of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them.”

The punishment to be imposed irregardless of the simple fact of inciting animosities or hatred or to also to provoke disobedience in those who are subject to such acts of power or ecclesiastical ministry is, however, subject to the veracity of “some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry” actually being legitimate, that is, lawful, and does not issue from someone acting ultra vires, that is, beyond their powers, beyond their lawful capacities. Did Pope or Prefect or some subsequent bishop anywhere in the world act ultra vires, beyond their powers?

Penalties imposed:

Once it is decided by an ecclesiastical court that no one was acting ultra vires and that the alleged perpetrator is actually guilty of a crime before God and man, then “an interdict or other just penalties” are to be imposed.

As even Wikipedia points out, “an interdict today has the effect of forbidding the person concerned to celebrate or receive any of the sacraments, including the Eucharist, or to celebrate the sacramentals.” That can be tantamount to condemning someone to hell. And I have always said that a “just penalty” would include whatever comes to the imagination of the powers that be, including burning at the stake.

Mind you, for many decades untold numbers of priests have NOT been put under interdict – as that might involve discovery on both sides as appeals are made – but rather priests have simply been marginalized with no due process and with no court at all. And anyway, how do you make an appeal when everyone on up the ladder have already been acting ultra vires on the very point under contention?

So, priests simply trying to do the right thing have been taken out of assignments, their living quarters taken away, having their pay cut, then their insurance cut, and then a request for the priest’s dismissal from the clerical state is made to the Holy See because the cleric is a “liability.” That’s granted, though usually with a fake ultimatum: Either you will spend the rest of your life in a “treatment center” for nothing that needs treatment (fidelity to Christ and the legitimate authority of the Church) or you will be dismissed from the clerical state. Just like that.

Oh, and that picture at the top? That’s the chopping block and axe used for the decapitation of Saint Thomas More in the most civilized of societies, of course. “Most civilized” always refers to the most blood-thirsty.

Anyway, back to any priest thinking about disobedience to Traditionis custodes and to the “legislation” of the answers to the CDW Dubia. I always go back to Aquinas on the law: If a law is unjust, is evil, it is therefore not a law, and is not to be obeyed or disobeyed, but ignored, for it is nothing. Of course, no sycophantic powers that be are going to listen to Aquinas, or Natural Law, or Divine Law, or Canon Law. No, they’re just going to make you feel their power, like Judas demonstrated his “power” over Jesus.

We can pray that bishops invoke Canon 87 in favor of the salvation of souls. One would think that this is what it’s all about, right?

Do I think that Pope Francis and the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship (CDW) are acting ultra vires with Traditionis custodes and the Dubia responses? Yes. I’ve written on this quite extensively. I think these documents of Traditionis custodes and the Dubia reponses are an insult to Christ Jesus and His Sacrifice of the Mass and that, in this case, the underlying evil is such that it colors any obedience to the unjust law, such that one is complicit in the underlying evil.

By the by, there are other things

  • I’m not going to give absolution to someone who has no repentance, having them receive Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin. That’s called sollicitation to sin, an automatic excommunication for a priest hearing confessions. I’m not going to do it. Any demand that I do such a horrible thing is illegitimate, acting ultra vires. I’m just going to ignore that.
  • I’m not going to participate in the Synod on Synodality. I’ll have nothing to do with New Ways Ministries other than to tell them that they must repent. That’s it. They know the doctrine and morality of the Church. They know the Sacred Scriptures. The Holy See gives them a stage to promote their horror. To demand that I participate in this is acting ultra vires. I’m just going to ignore that. — et cetera, almost ad infinitum

As Thomas More said at the end of the trial by which he was unjustly condemned, it wasn’t because of his not taking any oath that he condemned, but rather, and simply, it was because of the marriage. And in this case, with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we are dealing with the marriage of Christ and His Immaculate Bride, the Church, with the consecrations being His wedding vows. But the response I’ve heard right through the decades is that we are NOT to use our reason and our faith, but we are instead to have Jesus’ Truth filtered for us by brave theologians. Pfft.

This isn’t rocket science. Insulting Jesus is bad and evil and I’m not going there. No discussion.

What I have done here is to invoke the legitimacy of Galatians 2:11:

  • “When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.”

Invoking Galatians 2:11 is a supreme act of charity and justice and mercy. Am I to be condemned for that? Jesus will also have something to say about any powers that be acting ultra vires.

I don’t care about unjust penalties in this life, whatever the cost. I want to go to heaven.

3 Comments

Filed under Liturgy, Pope Francis

CDW +Arthur Roche: Stop licking fake wounds! [Bonus: Jesus in the rains of Birmingham]

Traditiones custodes has it that if the Ancient Rite of the Sacrifice of the Mass is to take place, it cannot happen on an altar in a parish church, insisting that Jesus is to be thrown out bodily, literally. Then, in the recent answer to the first “Dubia” about this hatred of Jesus, there is an insistence not only on throwing Jesus out of His own church, but that there can be no mention even in a parish bulletin that the Ancient Rite, the Last Supper united with Calvary, is taking place somewhere in the parish territory. There is a reason given: because Jesus in His Holy Sacrifice has nothing to do with the life of the parish. That’s, like, demonic, blasphemous, is it not?

Archbishop Arthur Roche the other day commented on those Dubia comments to the National Catholic Register, saying that “the challenge is to get on with it without licking one’s wounds when no one has been injured.”

The Archbishop dares to mock God Himself. Not one lamb of Jesus’ Little Flock could possibly care less about being mocked by the Archbishop. What we don’t like is that JESUS HAS BEEN WOUNDED, INJURED. We don’t want Jesus to be mocked and reviled and mistreated. But that Jesus is marginalized, discriminated against, called irrelevant to the life of the parish is what is hotly desired by the Archbishop, who doesn’t, who cannot see Jesus.

G.A. Studdert-Kennedy’s poem of long ago effectively mocks the Archbishop today, with a rejection of that effeminate softness that cannot bear to witness Jesus’ wounds and injuries:

When Jesus Came to Birmingham

When Jesus came to Golgotha, they hanged Him on a tree,
They drove great nails through hands and feet, and made a Calvary;
They crowned Him with a crown of thorns, red were His wounds and deep,
For those were crude and cruel days, and human flesh was cheap.

When Jesus came to Birmingham, they simply passed Him by.
They would not hurt a hair of Him, they only let Him die;
For men had grown more tender, and they would not give Him pain,
They only just passed down the street, and left Him in the rain.

Still Jesus cried, ‘Forgive them, for they know not what they do, ‘
And still it rained the winter rain that drenched Him through and through;
The crowds went home and left the streets without a soul to see,
And Jesus crouched against a wall, and cried for Calvary.

////////////// I stand, we stand in solidarity with Jesus. We’re happy to be crouching against a wall in the winter rains, drenched through and through, all of crying for Calvary, and the Archbishop simply shrieking: Depart you followers of Jesus, the Pachamama and New Ways Ministries liturgies are with me! And we calmly respond: “Cease! The Sacred Heart of Jesus is with me!”

  • “When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.” – Galatians 2:11

I think that citation of Saint Paul is still permitted by divine mandate, whatever the most tender entitled snowflakes otherwise think in the Roman Curia. Get out your bibles and look it up.

But I’m not done with my rant yet. It’s Christmas. And we’re passing Jesus in the manger, and we don’t hear the angels singing, we don’t even notice Him there in the manger, except to say, with some cynicism we hope is not too deeply ingrained: “How cute!” And then we go get “vaccine” jabs that were researched, developed, tested on the image of Jesus in the womb, the least of the brethren. The Pope and his minions, the faithless bishops, the vast majority, almost 100%, praise the abortion-tainted “vaccines”, even require them, even use the jab as a requirement to give or get the Sacraments. “Kill Jesus to get Jesus in the Sacraments.” And when they are done with the babies, they throw their corpses against a wall in the winter rains to be washed into a sewer.

You think this is mean to say this on Christmas morning? No, no. It is what brings us joy, Christmas joy, joy in the Holy Spirit, joy for seeing that God knew what he was getting into upon this earth and was born amongst us anyway, knowing what we would do to Him for having too much goodness, too much kindness, too much truth. Thank you, Jesus, for taking us seriously, deadly seriously. Thank you for being born during the reign of terror of Herod, for going into exile in an enemy country, for then being crucified for us, for not caring about all that violence, but with joy just setting out to get the job done, to “get on with it” (as +Roche said) with enthusiasm, gladly paying the price of our redemption, taking on the suffering we deserve for sin, standing in our place, Innocent for the guilty, having the right in His own justice to have mercy on us. And He does. And He intended this from the first moment of His conception, with joy. He intended this in the manger, with joy. He intended this on the Cross, with joy.

That Jesus would have joy in bringing us to heaven is a great joy. Thank you, Jesus, for being borne amongst us so as to have us be borne into heaven where you desire to give us as a gift to our heavenly Father. Amen.

Oh, and that picture at the top? That’s Herod in his party palace moments before having John the Baptist’s head cut off for John’s having witnessed to Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. There’s an analogy in there somewhere methinks.

6 Comments

Filed under Jesus, Liturgy, Pope Francis