Tag Archives: CDW Dubia

2023-03-24 · 7:15 am

Synodality Express: Inviting Cardinal Arthur Roche to debate his own resolution – “Changing Church theology requires TLM restriction”

Have some game, your Eminence! Be not afraid! Let’s do up the debate in front of La disputa del Sacramento (The Disputation of the Sacrament) by Raphael. That would be most appropriate as the Stanze di Raffaello in the Apostolic Palace are entirely secure, and, back in the day, this Stanza della Segnatura was where the Supreme Papal Tribunal met.

Let’s do it in English since English speakers seem to be among the most rebellious of those who love the Traditional Latin Mass.

Let’s have two time-keepers, one from either side. You might want someone loud and forceful such as Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin for your timekeeper, but I think I’ll ask another untitled parish priest in another very small parish who has already been checked out by Vatican security. All good.

We should have two moderators asking the questions, again, one from either side. You might like a smooth-talker like Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, or perhaps someone a bit more brash like Cardinal Robert W. McElroy. For myself, I know a layman with no name recognition who happens to be the best in the world at hunting (within the confines of the law) human and sex-traffickers, and who has, I’m sure, already been vetted by the Holy See’s Intel for all the great work he does. All good.

It’s not like you don’t have a good chance of winning. You have power and prestige and know how to put on a tone to say things are really very serious, though it strikes me that you may not have much looked into the eyes of Mary to ask her just how serious things are with the Sacrifice of the Mass, with her dear Son:

As for me, well, you know me already. You’ve written to me personally investigating my relationship with the TLM. I’m in the smallest, most remote parish perhaps in the world as an otherwise untitled parish priest, truly on the far side of the peripheries. I do have some degrees (SSL, STD), but, alas, nothing from San Anselmo. I was in talks to do my doctorate there with the head of that institute as moderator, but at the last minute I decided that the PIB would be better for my purposes. The point is that right now I’m just another run-of-the-mill priest, but that’s what makes this interesting. It’s the little guy you’re personally hurting. That would be me and those like me. We are interested in the most insignificant people, are we not?

Sure, we could get the great liturgists on the Traditionalist side, those who have read everything and written really so very much indeed. But such debates have already taken place ad nauseam at the old Ecclesia Dei at the one-time CDF, right? A flood of factual information useful in any other era in the history of the Church isn’t quite so useful at this moment. After all, this isn’t about Liturgy, but about your ideology over against the faith of Jesus’ Little Flock. To win, I simply have to show how everything you say mocks Jesus and His Sacrifice, and that God will not be mocked. I’m not saying you do that in your own soul, just that that’s what you objectively present.

I’m sure you also don’t need any experts to use as proxies, since you’re already at the top of the heap liturgically, and this, again, is not about the liturgy, but rather about your ideological insistence that, specifically, the Church’s theology (read: doctrine) is a load of crap, and that everything that holds up that theology like the Traditional Latin Mass is a load of crap. Your words, your Eminence.

Let’s see, how is it that the Church’s theology (read: doctrine) has changed. Is it that for the New Order of Mass:

  • Jesus is not divine.
  • Jesus is not the Messiah.
  • Jesus is not the Suffering Servant.
  • There is no such thing as sin.
  • There is no such thing as forgiveness of sin.
  • Jesus was a fool to stand in our place, Innocent for the guilty so as to have the right in His own justice to have mercy on us.
  • The Eucharist is just a piece of bread and the chalice merely contains wine after the consecrations.
  • Jesus is merely a symbol.
  • And so on and so forth…

I will win for those who believe in Jesus. You will win for those who are, perhaps to no fault of their own, self-absorbed narcissists. Hey! It’s a win-win! Everyone will know where everyone stands. And that’s always good in these times of ambiguity and bullying and bullying with ambiguity. So, nothing to lose for anyone. Let’s do it!

Format? To start, it would surely be good to have fifteen minutes each to present an overview of one’s point of attack. Graphics allowed. You always start, since you’re not the underdog, to say the least.

  • You can emphasize “Changing Church theology requires TLM restriction” with “changing” referring to active Hegelian manipulation or diversely to a de facto description of acquiescence to sinful behavior and heretical thought that cannot tolerate Jesus’ Sacrifice, or both, or whatever you think. There are endless anecdotes for either and both together or anything else.
  • Meanwhile, I will demonstrate from Traditionis custodes, the responses to dubia, etc., an objective rejection of Jesus and His Sacrifice on the one hand and how the Traditional Latin Mass provides an occasion for reverent thanksgiving to Jesus by the Lord’s Little Flock on the other hand.

After that, the moderators can alternate in providing not speeches, but questions timed to thirty seconds, always going to you first for a five minute response, followed by myself for a five minute response to the question and to you. This can go for as long as you like. Should you interrupt, the time-keepers will bring order back to the debate and provide time for me to respond to your interruption. The fresco of the disputa will remind us both, however, that the outcome is already assured. All good.

Let’s be joyful, your Eminence. Let’s have a debate.

I should warn you, though, your Eminence, any insult you make to Jesus and His Sacrifice is taken as a direct and very personal insult by Immaculate Mary, Jesus’ Virgin Mother. Jesus doesn’t take kindly to His dear Mother getting insulted.

3 Comments

Filed under Liturgy, Pope Francis

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

2022-09-11 · 5:35 am

Saint Francis vs Pope Francis – TLM vs nothing

  • Saint Francis of Assisi in times of TLM (Traditional Latin Mass): “Man should tremble, the world should vibrate, all heaven should be deeply moved when the Son of God appears on the altar in the hands of the priest.”
  • Saint Pio of Pietrelcina, follower of Francis in times of TLM: “It would be easier for the world to survive without the sun than to do without the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.”

Contrast this with Pope Francis in Traditionis custodes, with his inescapable “logic” that the TLM is both illicit and invalid:

  • Pope Francis in times of rebellion: Pope Francis says in Traditionis custodes, his “document” smashing down the TLM, that the Novus Ordo (the New Order of Mass) is “the only expression of the lex orandi [Law of Prayer] of the Roman Rite.” That lex orandi is defined in the accompanying letter with the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Last Supper united with Calvary, with what specifically happens with the two Consecrations. There is no expression of that Sacrifice to be found in the TLM, says Pope Francis. In other words, the Sacrifice of Jesus in the TLM is both illicit and invalid because the only expression of the lex orandi, the Sacrifice of Jesus, is to be found with the Novus Ordo. But if one says that the Consecrations in the TLM are invalid, one is also saying that the Consecrations in any rite of Holy Mass are invalid. People have the pretense to say that they are “stunned” when I say that Traditionis custodes is an evil document. I have not changed my mind on that. If one denies Jesus, it is Jesus who will deny him before our Heavenly Father.
  • Cardinal Arthur Roche, follower of Pope Francis in times of rebellion: Roche published his Responsa ad dubia, (responses to [contrived] doubts), execrating this: “The exclusion of the parish church [as a venue for the TLM] is intended to affirm that the celebration of the Eucharist according to the previous rite, being a concession limited to these groups, is not part of the ordinary life of the parish community.” Jesus offered to our Heavenly Father in the territory of a parish has nothing to do with the life of the parish? Nothing? But if you say that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is irrelevant in one rite, you say that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is irrelevant in every rite, including the Novus Ordo. I am stunned that anyone would support the assertion under any given circumstances that the Sacrifice of Jesus is NOTHING.

The real reason for all of this attack on Jesus and His Sacrifice?

  • Both Pope Francis and his protégé, Cardinal Arthur Roche, are claiming that they can mess around with the lex orandi, the law of prayer, which they themselves define as the Sacrifice of Jesus.
  • Both Pope Francis and his protégé, Cardinal Arthur Roche, are claiming that they can mess around with the lex credendi, the law of believing, for the law of praying is the law of believing. They have it that Sacred Tradition, the law of believing, can be manipulated by the Magisterium of the Church, you know, a power thing, so that any divinely provided living faith coming to the soul from the Holy Ghost with sanctifying grace, with divinely provided charity, with divinely provided hope, is NOTHING. For these two ecclesiastics, times so change entirely that world views, perspectives are also so entirely changed that Sacred Tradition (Traditiones in the Council of Trent’s description) is to be defined as merely whatever they say it happens to be in changing times. They don’t discount any truth in any time, but do assert that what they say to be today’s truth is different, even contradictory to yesterday’s truth, but is nevertheless valid, and, indeed, the only truth that is true today. But that means there is no truth in any time ever. God is eternal truth. God is absolute truth. Trent says that the apostles seem to provide for the continuance of the truth as if by hand – tradere – quasi per manus, but do not of themselves do this, for this work of Sacred Tradition is wrought by the Holy Ghost.
  • The trashing first of the lex orandi, which action itself trashes the lex credendi, sets up a vicious circle, so that now, the Sacred Liturgy is given over to idol worship, providing then for false belief. Witness Pachamama of Francis, Nian of Cupich, Ganesh sycophancy spreading among priests on the Asian Subcontinent, et alii et cetera. Desecration of the Blessed Sacrament being almost ubiquitous.

This is damnable. It’s gotta stop. It’s gotta stop now. But who will say no to Satan and yes to Jesus?

The time is coming, very soon, in the midst of this great apostasy, when those who could simply grant the provisions in Canon 87 to dispense from disciplinary rules odious to the faithful (thus assisting them to get to heaven) will instead choose to do the power thing because, you know… POWER! Of course, they could also simply ignore Traditionis custodes and the Responsa ad dubia as illegitimate assertions of disciplinary actions and let the Lord’s Little Flock get on their way to heaven.

Imagine the punishment for spitting on Jesus and Mary:

6 Comments

Filed under Liturgy, Pope Francis

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

2022-01-08 · 7:53 am

Where did the gold, frankincense and myrrh go? Be joyful, Pope Francis. Be joyful.

For his homily on Epiphany, Pope Francis spewed words of disdain for those who believe and worship as the Church has always believed and worshipped, and reductively characterized the magi as those we should imitate in their vacuous desire (in Francis’ mind) for all that is new New NEW NEW! NEW!!! (here). I was going to fisk that out, but it’s all too depressing.

Instead, I’d like to share with you what happened to me, yesterday, January 7, the day after Epiphany. This event took place as I read the Gospel “toward the North”, as they say. The Mass prayers and readings were those of Epiphany. The Gospel was that of the magi falling down in adoration of the Christ Child, offering their gifts.

Firstly, note that whenever I begin Holy Mass, I don’t know what I’m going to preach about. I like to be available to the Holy Spirit even though Pope Francis declares that this would have to be impossible for me, offering the Ancient Rite as I do. Perhaps my lack of preparation is presumption, laziness, careless neglect, even sinful. Certainly my parishioners tell me frequently enough that I’m never at a loss for words, never an unspoken thought kind of thing. But throughout the day before Mass I am in a state of begging the Holy Spirit to instruct me as I preach. I know that I myself have nothing to say, no matter how much I might prepare. I am nothing. I must, as it were, give the mic to the Holy Spirit. I hope that is not blasphemy. Obviously, I am inept at everything I do. But I hope that sometimes something for some souls will help point them to virtue and truth. So…

Whilst reading the Gospel… it’s like my heart – suddenly, with the words about the magi falling down in adoration – it’s like my heart was actually ripped from my chest and it was everything I could do not to fall to my knees. But then, right then, right there, there was a rubric written out right in the very text of the Gospel that the priest reading the Gospel is to fall to his knees in adoration with the magi!

  • (hic genuflectitur)

I did so, so happy to have some seconds to recover after my heart was ripped out of my chest. Rising again, I didn’t want to make a spectacle of myself. I forced myself to continue reading. My voice faltered. I got choked up, I teared up. I was, despite the words of Pope Francis against priests who offer the Ancient Rite of Holy Mass… I was “surprised by the Holy Spirit.” And now I knew what I was going to preach about, namely, what happened to the gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh brought by the magi.

I wasn’t there with the magi. I don’t know what happened to their gifts. I’m just telling you my ♬ experience ♬ my feelings ♬

When I say that it was like my heart was ripped out of me, what I’m trying to say is that my veiled eyes were less veiled, my heart was made less dull. I was convicted, as it’s said, by the Holy Spirit. I knew myself to be so unworthy to be in the presence of these great men and the total solidarity they had with the Holy Family. But I wasn’t concentrating on myself. It was all about their urgency to adore the Christ Child and then the dire straits they were in to provide those gifts to be used for the members of the Body of Christ, the boys who would be slaughtered in place of Jesus.

Here’s the deal. I think these wise men were Jews descended from Jews who stayed behind in Babylon after the Cyrus sent the Jews back to Jerusalem. I think these wise men knew all the prophesies about the Messiah, the Suffering Servant, the Lamb of God who will save His people and the whole world from sin, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Son of God.

Their gifts mirrored everything in the Jewish Scriptures, that the Divine Christ was to be Priest, Prophet and King. You can categorize all the Scriptures into those three categories. Gold is for the only King who would always be eager to provide for His subjects, Frankincense is for the Priest who would Himself be the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, myrrh is for a Prophet who would be killed for speaking Truth and should therefore have his body packed with myrrh for burial. But wait. No. He might die, but He was to rise from the dead. So… wait… what?

They already knew the Child King was to be born in Bethlehem, but purposely went out of their way to shake up filthy, wretched, demonic, murderous King Herod, and all the rest of Jerusalem with him. These wise men already knew that they themselves should be killed by Herod for speaking of this new King. They already knew that Herod would want to kill the Child King, a rival King incomparably greater than him. But they knew Herod could never do such a thing. They fully believed it would have to be the babe Himself who would later lay down His life for His people, for the whole world. They were just provoking Herod and all the people on purpose, so that the event wouldn’t go by unnoticed even from the beginning. I love that.

And the gifts? They brought them knowing what would have to happen regardless of whether they provoked Herod and all Jerusalem with him. No matter what, it would soon be known that the Messiah was now born as the one and only King of the Jews. Herod would still try to kill Jesus, the Savior. Herod would still try to kill all the infant boys two years old or under. They knew that before they even started their journey.

Their gifts were brought, it seems to me, for the Holy Family to give to the families of those whose boys would die for Jesus. Those boys wouldn’t grow up to provide for their families, for their then elderly parents, but those families would now have gold to provide for themselves as they became older. The families of the boys being slaughtered by Herod would, unlike Jesus in future times, need the myrrh for packing around the corpses of those infant boys for their burial. The families of the boys, shaken by these events, would offer that frankincense in honor of Jesus who had been among them, in honor of the prayers of the lives of the infants slaughtered for Jesus. Joseph received a dream from an angel about the impending slaughter: “Take the child and His mother and flee to Egypt! Do it! Do it now!” What are they going to do with gold too heavy, frankincense too abundant, myrrh for a day so long in the future when it would not be used by Mary anyway (for she knew her Son would rise from the dead and she would not be at the tomb with Mary of Magdala early Sunday morning). The Holy Family didn’t have caravans of camels, but only a donkey for Mary and her newborn.

But Francis decries such an experience as impossible to the priest who offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of Jesus, in the Ancient Rite. We priests must be rejecting the surprises of the Holy Spirit. We cannot be convicted by the Holy Spirit.

Pope Francis, you are wrong. Why limit the Holy Spirit? Be surprised that the Holy Spirit can also enliven the heart and soul of a wretch like me even whilst offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Ancient Rite. I am a sinner, a terrible sinner. But the Holy Spirit is more powerful than I am. I hope, Pope Francis, that you do not doubt that the Holy Spirit can work even with me, wretch that I am.

Be joyful, Pope Francis.

Be joyful.

I can’t help myself. It’s just my ♬ feelings ♬ again. But this comes to mind about the rhetoric of Francis when he prejudicially lumps together all those who offer and assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Ancient Rite:

  • Miss McCarthy replied that Lillian Hellman was “a bad writer, overrated, a dishonest writer.” When Mr. Cavett asked what was “dishonest” about Miss Hellman, Miss McCarthy answered, “Everything.” Miss McCarthy continued, “I once said in an interview that every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.'”

Does that sound like I’m criticizing Pope Francis? Yes, I suppose it does. Does he deserve it for the good of his own soul? Yes, I suppose he does. You know, Galatians 2:11 and all that. Be of good heart.

8 Comments

Filed under Christmas, Liturgy, Pope Francis

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

2021-12-31 · 7:15 am

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

Tagged as , , , , , ,

2021-12-31 · 6:15 am

“They have the churches but we have the faith” (St Athanasius) [No TLM, vax-mandate…]

Letter of St. Athanasius to his flock:

“May God console you! …What saddens you …is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle-the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?

“True, the premises are good when the apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way …You are the ones who are happy: you who remain within the church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.

“No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

“Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.

“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”

Comment of the SSPX:

  • “St. Athanasius lived in the 4th century and was the bishop of Alexandria in Egypt for 46 years. Banned from his diocese at least five times, he spent a total of 17 years in exile. The famous convert to the Church, Cardinal John Henry Newman, described him as a “principal instrument after the Apostles by which the sacred truths of Christianity have been conveyed and secured to the world.” Often referred to as the Champion of Orthodoxy, St. Athanasius was undoubtedly one of the most courageous defenders of the Faith in the entire history of the Church. If anyone can be singled out as a saint for our times, surely it is St. Athanasius. The [above] letter of his could, almost word for word, have been written yesterday. [Even today.]

Comment of Arise!:

In the day of Saint Athanasius, the vast majority of bishops, so wimpy, didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ Jesus. And they wanted to kill Athanasius, chasing him into the desert on multiple occasions. If Christ is divine, then they have to keep the commandments. They didn’t want that.

I ask how it could possibly be that the bishops of today believe in the divinity of Jesus, for they, almost to a man, deny the least of the brethren, that what we do or don’t do to the least of the brethren we do or don’t do to Christ Jesus Himself. Abortion is great as long as we get “vaccines” for our selfish selves!

  • “Throw Jesus off His Altar, our of His Church. Install the demon-idol Pachamama, Abomination of Desolation, to whom to the least of the brethren are sacrificed! Don’t respect Jesus in the Sacrifice of the Mass that has been offered since the time of the Apostles! Do get the abortion-tainted “vaccine”!

3 Comments

Filed under Coronavirus, Saints

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

2021-12-26 · 5:24 am

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

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

2021-12-25 · 11:00 am

Disobeying Traditionis custodes and Dubia legislation because theology is wrong?

You have heard that it was said that one cannot at all disobey a precept in it’s praxis if what is to be done is at least amoral, not relevant to morality, even though the mere reasons given for that precept by the legislator are in and of themselves heretical, blasphemous, demonic even.

Let’s take an example, the demand of offering the Ancient Rite of the Holy Mass in some sewer because the precept has it that the Ancient Rite of Holy Mass has NOTHING to do with the life of the parish and therefore it can not be offered in any parish church. Offering the Holy Mass correctly and with reverence, albeit in a weird place, like the bunk of a barracks in Auschwitz, is certainly at least amoral, though in the circumstances I would say it is most laudable, heroic. But not to offer the best to our Lord on His Altar in His Church when you otherwise could is a grave sin of omission of reverence due to our Lord and to His Holy Sacrifice.

And I cannot be silent about the statement publicized throughout the world that the Holy Sacrifice has NOTHING to do with the life of the parish, and that’s why it’s thrown out, why Jesus is thrown out. That statement, that heresy, that blasphemy, that diabolical interference, is evil, and is part and parcel with the pragmatic aspect of the precept. The two are intertwined. One cannot follow the precept and not fall into heresy, blasphemy and diabolical horror.

  • Non serviam. Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir.

I know, I know. I’m being ironic, sarcastic. But it’s well deserved. It falls on them.

Leave a comment

Filed under Liturgy, Pope Francis

Tagged as , , , , ,

2021-12-25 · 9:00 am

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

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

2021-12-23 · 5:30 am

I’m soooo afraid of the dubious Dubia! Not. Breaking the “It’s not up-to-date” clock.

You have heard that it was said that a “Freudian slip” appears in the closing sentence of the recent incredibly cruel and petty truly hateful dubious Dubia published the other day. However, that would be out of character for such profoundly cultured giants in the history of entitled will-to-power. I think this is simply more mocking of Christ’s Little Flock:

  • “From the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 4 December 2021, on the 58th anniversary of the promulgation of the Constitution on the Scared Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium. — ✠ Arthur Roche – Prefect

Bunch of self-absorbed Promethean Pelagian trolls, are they not? The thing is, the CDW otherwise consistently insists on mocking that Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council, shrieking that any citation of it (retain Latin, retain chant, retain ad orientem…) is anachronistic, invalid, as it is only the weirdnesses subsequent to the Council until today (Clowns, Pachamama usurpation of Jesus’ Altar, no blessings in the Book of Blessings, etc.) that can legitimately be desired by the faithful. Yes, little Arthur says: “The very Liturgy is scared of us! We’re in power! Feel our power!”

Meanwhile, the Lex orandi, the Law of Prayer, which is precisely the very Sacrifice of Jesus at the Last Supper united with Calvary – My Body betrayed for you in Sacrifice, my Blood poured out for you in Sacrifice – is defined in that manner, note well, by the accompanying letter to Traditionis custodes, with its citation of Pope Benedict to that effect. That Lex orandi is rejected for the Ancient Rite, and therefore for all rites, including the Novus Ordo. That the Ancient Rite is not any kind of expression at all of the Latin Rite is as much to say that the Ancient Rite is not at all any kind of expression of the Sacrifice of Jesus at the Last Supper united with Calvary. That’s rank heresy, blasphemy.

+Roche is saying that it is Jesus Himself who should be scared, since it is God Himself, the Word Incarnate, laying down His life for us, the Innocent for the guilty, who is being rejected, forbidden, marginalized beyond any peripheries, all by way of the power of +Roach and Pope Francis. Well, Jesus is not scared. He stays on the Cross:

I’ll tell you who should be scared. It should be +Roche and Pope Francis who should be scared to go before the judgment and meet up with the Immaculate Conception holding Jesus. This will be the judgment, will it not? Looking into her eyes?

Meanwhile, Jesus and His Sacrifice are never not-up-to-date, never out-of-date, are never needing to get-with-the-times. Jesus said that when He is lifted up on the Cross, He will draw all to Himself of all times and places, men of every nation, tribe, people, race, language, whatever. Jesus melts the clocks. He draws all into that one hour of our redemption, please God also of our salvation. With Jesus, ever Ancient, ever New, we are always up-to-date, in the time and place where Divine Providence has placed us, that is, always next to dearest Immaculate Mary always next to Jesus under the Cross.

To sum up: In the same way that that Jesus’ Sacrifice, which happened so long ago, is dismissed as irrelevant to the life of the parish, as they say, this is the same way that original sin is dismissed as having any relevance to us today, and is the same way that the importance of the purposed murder of babies ripped from the womb to get their living organs for research, development and testing of “vaccines” for the bottom line of Big Pharma is irrelevant to any moral decision making. Making original sin and redemption and any sin irrelevant because time has gone by is demonic.

Dearest Jesus, thank you for making time as your creation which you hold in your hands. Thank you for bringing us together across time. Thank you for drawing us to yourself, melting those clocks. Thank you for making the likes of +Roche and Pope Francis scared of you, so that they might have the opportunity to be converted to you by your grace. Let them put their fingers into the nail-prints, let them put their hands into your side, your Heart. Let them discover that you are not irrelevant in your Sacrifice, dear Jesus. Let them say, “My Lord and my God,” and believe it by way of your timeless grace. And thank you, Jesus, for making us fearless, you who have insisted so many times: “Do not fear!” “Be not afraid!” And I’m not afraid, we’re not afraid, dear Jesus, thanks to you. Your Little Flock takes consolation that you will come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire. Amen.

4 Comments

Filed under Humor, Liturgy, Pope Francis

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

2021-12-23 · 5:20 am

“I know nothing of Canon Law.” “You’re lying, because you’re right about the Dubia.” And he was vindicated.

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/12/important-article-legal-considerations.html?m=1

Leave a comment

Filed under Liturgy, Pope Francis

Tagged as , , , , , , ,